Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re: Through a quantitative study design, could this lead to more answers from scientists?
    • Levent Öztürk, Student Master Program in Global Health and Development, Department of Public Health, Taipei Medical University (Taipei City, Taiwan)

    A very informative and well-round study that gives a somewhat comprehensive explantation (as a pioneer study) on how scientists from different fields interact with policymakers during the COVID19-pandemic. It gives a good explanation of how difficult the “sandwich position” seems to be when you have to work in a field requiring interdisciplinary competencies.
    Some critique points might include the fact that one of the interviewed scientists mentioned, that wearing a mask was not effective (P4, the Netherlands on page 5). Given the view from a very European perspective, a view over to the Asian neighbours would have or could have clarified this point. (1)
    The European point is another thing that needs to be taken into consideration. Although the authors mentioned that the result might not apply to other parts of the world, it is crucial to mention that this issue needs to be addressed if we talk about a better interdisciplinary workforce globally during a pandemic.
    Moreover, could a quantitative approach would have led to different results? Maybe the purview or range among scientists would have been more applicable with a fitting survey so that more scientists in related fields and positions could have been reached.
    Fears and reservations about anonymity could be eradicated by this study design over a potentially large(r) study population.
    However, I would like to thank you for this paper and hope that broader research on the field could bring...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.