Study finds blocking or hiding facial movement can affect sharing of emotions and social interaction

Hiding the bottom half of the face with a mask could have a detrimental effect on our ability to socially interact and share other people’s emotions, new research suggests.

A study, which was led by Cardiff University and involved researchers from Queen’s University Belfast, found that people with facial paralysis, people seeing others who wear face masks, or even children sucking on dummies, could struggle to show empathy or detect positive social cues.

The research is published in the journal Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience.

Lead author Dr Ross Vanderwert, from Cardiff University’s School of Psychology, says: “People tend to automatically imitate others’ facial expressions of emotion when looking at them, whether that be a smile, a frown, or a smirk. 

This facial mimicry – where the brain recreates and mirrors the emotional experience of the other person – affects how we empathise with others and interact socially.

“Our study suggests that when the movements of the lower part of the face are disrupted or hidden, this can be problematic, particularly for positive social interactions and the ability to share emotions.

“Wearing a face mask continues to be vital to protect ourselves and others during the COVID-19 pandemic – but our research suggests this may have important implications for the way we communicate and interact.”

Dr Magdalena Rychlowska, from Queen’s University Belfast’s School of Psychology, was second author on the paper. She comments: “Our findings suggest that processing faces is a very challenging task and that the brain may need more support from, and rely more heavily on, our own faces to support the visual system for understanding others' emotions.

“This mirroring or simulation of another person’s emotions may enable empathy; however, up until now the neural mechanisms that underline this kind of emotion communication have been unclear.”

The scientists recorded the brain activity of 38 individuals via an electroencephalogram whilst they watched videos of fearful, happy, and angry expressions, as well as a collection of inanimate everyday objects, as a control.

Study participants were asked to watch the videos whilst holding a pen between their teeth for half the videos and without the pen for the remaining videos.

The researchers were investigating, for the first time, the effect this had on a process known as neural mirroring – activity in the motor system for our own actions that is also active observing other’s actions. Neural mirroring facilitates simple tasks such as hand-eye coordination and more complex tasks like understanding the emotions of others.

The results revealed that participants who could freely move their face showed significant neural mirroring when observing the emotional expressions, but not the everyday objects.

While the pen was held in their teeth, no neural mirroring was observed when looking at the happy and angry expressions – but it did show neural mirroring when looking at fearful expressions.

Dr Rychlowska adds: “For emotions that are more heavily expressed by the eyes, for example fear, blocking the information provided by the mouth doesn’t seem to affect our brain’s response to those emotions. But for expressions that depend on the mouth, like a friendly smile, the blocking had more of an effect.”

Cervical cancer rates reduced by 87% in women vaccinated against HPV, English study confirms

Cervical cancer rates are 87% lower in women who were offered vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) when they were between the ages of 12-13 than in previous generations confirms a new study published in The Lancet. 

The researchers also found reductions in cervical cancer rates of 62% in women offered vaccination between the ages of 14-16, and 34% in women aged of 16-18 when vaccination was introduced. This is the first direct evidence of prevention of cervical cancer using the bivalent vaccine, Cervarix.

HPV vaccination has been introduced in 100 countries as part of efforts by the World Health Organization (WHO) to eliminate cervical cancer. England initially used a bivalent vaccine which protects against the two most common types of HPV, responsible for approximately 70-80% of all cervical cancers. 

The English HPV vaccination programme was introduced in 2008, with vaccines given to women between 12-13 years old and “catch-up” vaccinations offered to older age groups up to the age of 18.

“Although previous studies have shown the usefulness of HPV vaccination in preventing HPV infection in England, direct evidence on cervical cancer prevention was limited,” says Professor Peter Sasieni, King’s College London, one of the authors of the paper “Early modelling studies suggested that the impact of the vaccination programme on cervical cancer rates would be substantial in women aged 20-29 by the end of 2019. Our new study aims to quantify this early impact. The observed impact is even greater than the models predicted.”

The study looked at population-based cancer registry data between January 2006 and June 2019 for seven cohorts of women who were between the ages of 20-64 at the end of 2019. Three of these cohorts formed the vaccinated population, where women were vaccinated with Cervarix between the ages of 12-13, 14-16 and 16-18 respectively. Incidences of cervical cancer and non-invasive cervical carcinoma (CIN3) in the seven populations were recorded separately.

During the study period, 28,000 diagnoses of cervical cancer and 300,000 diagnoses of CIN3 were recorded in England. In the three vaccinated cohorts there were around 450 fewer cases of cervical cancers and 17,200 fewer cases of CIN3 than expected in a non-vaccinated population. 

The research found reductions in cervical cancer rates of 87% (with a confidence interval of 72-94%) in women targeted between the ages of 12-13 (89% of whom received at least one dose of the HPV vaccine and 85% of whom had received three jabs and were fully vaccinated), 62% (CI: 52-71%) in women potentially vaccinated between the ages of 14-16, and 34% (CI: 25-41%) in those eligible for vaccination between the ages of 16-18 (60% of whom received at least one dose and 45% of whom were fully vaccinated). 

The corresponding reductions in CIN3 rates were 97% in women vaccinated between the ages of 12-13, 75% in women vaccinated between the ages of 14-16 and 39% in women vaccinated between the ages of 16-18.

“This study provides the first direct evidence of the impact of the UK HPV vaccination campaign on cervical cancer incidence, showing a large reduction in cervical cancer rates in vaccinated cohorts. As expected, vaccination against HPV was most effective in the cohorts vaccinated at ages 12-13 amongst whom the uptake was greatest and prior infection least likely,” says Dr Kate Soldan from the UK Health Security Agency and co-author. 

“This represents an important step forwards in cervical cancer prevention. We hope that these new results encourage uptake as the success of the vaccination programme relies not only on the efficacy of the vaccine but also the proportion of the population vaccinated.”

Lucy Elliss-Brookes, Associate Director for Data Curation at NHS Digital and one of the authors of the paper said: “The findings of this study are hugely important in encouraging those eligible to take up the vaccine, but also in demonstrating the power of data [2] in helping medical researchers and the NHS to understand what causes cancer and how best to diagnose, prevent and treat it.”

The authors acknowledge some limitations with the study, principally that cervical cancer diagnosis is rare in young women. In addition, the number of registered cases of cervical cancer is impacted by the age at which women are screened; most of the follow-up for women in vaccinated cohorts occurred under the age of 25 and small differences in the age of first screening can have a large impact on registered cervical cancer cases in women below this age. 

Because the vaccinated populations are still young, the authors stress that this means that it is still too early to assess the full impact of HPV immunisation on cervical cancer rates. However, it is important to note that the two most common HPV infections which the bivalent vaccine protects against are present in as many as 92% of women diagnosed with cervical cancer before the age of 30.

It should also be noted that the bivalent vaccine Cervarix used in the UK from 2008-2012. Since September 2012, the quadrivalent vaccine Gardasil has been used instead.

Writing in a linked comment, Professor Maggie Cruickshank from the University of Aberdeen (UK), who was not involved in the study, says: “The scale of HPV vaccination effect reported by this study should stimulate vaccination programmes in low and middle-income countries where the problem of cervical cancer is a far greater public health issue than those with well-established systems of vaccination and screening."

"The most important issue, besides the availability of the vaccine (related to the decision-makers in the health policy), is the education of the population to accept the vaccination, as an increase in the rate of immunization is a key element of success.”

Infertility Treatments Raise No Insurmountable Theological or Legal Problems for Muslim Scholars, says WISH 2020 Report

By Esther Nakkazi

Women and men who are infertile and fail to have children face discrimination, stigma, and ostracism in many cultures worldwide and Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ARTs), more commonly known as fertility treatments are often morally questioned. 

In the Islamic world moral tradition is characterized by diversity of opinions on many of the questions raised by ARTs. 

This gives healthcare professionals, their patients, and policymakers greater freedom in formulating governing policies, regulations, and in drafting laws says a report released during the 2020 World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) is collaborating with the Research Center for Islamic Legislation & Ethics (CILE) at the College of Islamic Studies, Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU).

Infertility affects around 10-15% of couples globally. ARTs have provided solutions that have benefited many couples and while the biomedical scientists have been working to improve the safety and efficacy of these new technologies, ethicists and religious experts have simultaneously been studying the related moral issues. 

This is so couples that undergo treatment do not compromise their moral or religious values and principles. The observation is pertinent for Qatar and other Muslim-majority countries, where a legal vacuum in this field persists.

The research report Islamic Ethics and Infertility Treatment presented at the WISH 2020 biennial conference provided healthcare professionals and policymakers, with informative and practical guide to better understanding how ARTs intersect with the moral world in the Islamic tradition.

Maha El Akoum, Head of Content at WISH and a contributor to the report, said a meeting of religious and biomedical scholars on this subject is crucial, and this seminal report is an extension of WISH’s long-term interest in examining the interplay between biomedical sciences and Islamic ethics.

"It is an honor to be drawing on the widely-respected scholarship of CIS’ research center at HBKU, to provide informed and evidence-based policy recommendations from the perspective of Islamic ethics.”

But miscarriage prevention remains a low public health priority in many low- and middle-income countries, where there are many competing health care priorities and services for women can be especially limited.

There needs to be a minimum service available globally for women with recurrent miscarriage, and in low- and middle-income countries this service should include tests to check for diabetes, anaemia, thyroid abnormalities, and antiphospholipid syndrome when indicated, with appropriate treatment based on the results. 

There also needs to be a focus on providing pre-pregnancy counselling and psychological support to women with repeated miscarriages. This will require investment in early pregnancy care in low- and middle-income countries, and we recommend increasing provision of medication and equipment, training in scanning and surgical procedures, and creating dedicated early pregnancy units to ensure high-quality care. Awareness-raising programmes to encourage women to seek care is also needed.” [1]

QF’s global health initiative collaborates with HBKU’s College of Islamic Studies ahead of 2020 health summit this November.

Qatar launched its first IVF center in April 1993, and the Assisted Reproductive Center (ARC) established at HMC, the country’s largest governmental healthcare provider, currently performs over 1,500 cycles a year for female and male infertility, with a success rate comparable to that of international centers.

Maha El Akoum, Head of Content at WISH and a contributor to the report, said: “Infertility affects around 10-15% of couples globally. ARTs have provided solutions that have benefited many couples and while the biomedical scientists have been working to improve the safety and efficacy of these new technologies, ethicists and religious experts have simultaneously been studying the related moral issues. This is so couples that undergo treatment do not compromise their moral or religious values and principles.

Some of those issues revolve around the risks of such therapies, while others focus on the definitions of what constitutes a marriage or family. The financial aspect is another cause of ethical concern, particularly around the inequitable access to care, given the high-cost of these therapies. Government-aided funding for ART varies widely among different countries.

In responding to the complex and multidimensional questions arising from the use of ARTs, Muslim religious scholars have sometimes formally collaborated with biomedical scientists to understand some of the scientific and biomedical aspects of ARTs. 

As explained in previous studies published by WISH, the collaboration between religious scholars and biomedical scientists was facilitated through the mechanism of collective religio-moral reasoning.

The World Innovation Summit for Health (WISH) is a global healthcare community dedicated to capturing and disseminating the best evidence-based ideas and practices. WISH is an initiative of Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development (QF) and is under the patronage of Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, its Chairperson.

The inaugural WISH Summit took place in Doha in 2013 and convened more than 1,000 global healthcare leaders. Through international summits and a range of ongoing initiatives, WISH is creating a global community of leading innovators in healthcare policy, research, and industry.

Together, they are harnessing the power of innovation to overcome the world’s most urgent healthcare challenges and inspire other stakeholders to action.

Qatar Foundation for Education, Science and Community Development (QF) is a non-profit organization that supports Qatar on its journey to becoming a diversified and sustainable economy. QF strives to serve the people of Qatar and beyond by providing specialized programs across its innovation-focused ecosystem of education, science and research, and community development.

QF was founded in 1995 by His Highness Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the Father Emir, and Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, who shared the vision to provide Qatar with quality education. Today, QF’s world-class education system offers lifelong learning opportunities to community members as young as six months through to doctoral level, enabling graduates to thrive in a global environment and contribute to the nation’s development.

QF is also creating a multidisciplinary innovation hub in Qatar, where homegrown researchers are working to address local and global challenges. By promoting a culture of lifelong learning and fostering social engagement through programs that embody Qatari culture, QF is committed to empowering the local community and contributing to a better world for all.

New study: How UNESCO's World Heritage forests play a vital role in mitigating climate change

Paris, 28 October – The first ever scientific assessment of the amounts of greenhouse gases emitted from and absorbed by forests in UNESCO World Heritage sites has found that forests in World Heritage sites play a vital role in mitigating climate change by absorbing 190 million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year. However, ten forestsreleased more carbon than they sequestered due to pressure from human activity and climate change, which is alarming.

World Heritage forests absorb 190m tons of CO2 each year

By combining satellite-derived data with monitoring information at the site level, researchers at UNESCO, World Resources Institute (WRI) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) were able to estimate the gross and net carbon absorbed and emitted by UNESCO World Heritage forests between 2001 and 2020 and determine the causes of some emissions.

The research found that, as a whole, UNESCO World Heritage forests in 257 separate sites, absorbed the equivalent of approximately 190 million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, comparable to roughly half the United Kingdom’s annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. “We now have the most detailed picture to date of the vital role that forests in World Heritage sites play in mitigating climate change,” said Tales Carvalho Resende, from UNESCO who co-authored the report.

World Heritage forests, whose combined area of 69 million hectares is roughly twice the size of Germany, are biodiversity-rich ecosystems. In addition to absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere they also store substantial amounts of carbon. Carbon sequestration by these forests over long periods has led to total carbon storage of approximately 13 billion tons of carbon, which is more than the carbon in Kuwait’s proven oil reserves. If all this stored carbon were to be released into the atmosphere as CO2, it would be akin to emitting 1.3 times the world’s total annual CO2 emissions from fossil fuels.

Findings from 10 World Heritage forests are cause for concern

However, given that World Heritage sites are highly prized and protected, the fact that 10 of 257 forests emitted more carbon than they captured between 2001 and 2020 due to different anthropogenic disturbances and pressures is alarming.

At some sites the clearance of land for agriculture caused emissions to be greater than sequestration. The increasing scale and severity of wildfires, often linked to severe periods of drought, is also a predominant factor in several cases. Other extreme weather phenomena, such as hurricanes, contributed at certain sites.

“All forests should be assets in the fight against climate change. Our report’s finding that even some of the most iconic and best protected forests such as those found in World Heritage sites can actually contribute to climate change is alarming and brings to light evidence of the severity of this climate emergency”, said Tales Carvalho Resende.

In the coming years, ongoing sequestration and carbon sinks are likely to be affected at a growing number of sites worldwide as a result of increasingly fragmented and degraded landscapes, and more frequent and intense climate-related events.

Better management of sites can yield results

The report urges strong and sustained protection of UNESCO World Heritage sites and their surrounding landscapes to ensure their forests can continue to act as strong carbon sinks and stores for future generations. To achieve this, the report recommends rapidly responding to climate-related events, as well as maintaining and strengthening ecological connectivity through improved landscape management.

For example, in Indonesia, government agencies have been using near real-time fire alert systems to significantly reduce their average fire response time. Rapid response is integral to preventing fires from developing into destructive conflagrations that produce extensive CO2 emissions.

At the Sangha Trinational World Heritage site, located within Cameroon, the Central African Republic and the Republic of Congo, the creation of a buffer zone around the site has kept some human activity farther from this important carbon sink.

The report also recommends integrating the continued protection of UNESCO World Heritage sites into international, national and local climate, biodiversity and sustainable development strategies in line with the Paris climate agreement, the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and the Sustainable Development Goals.

“This analysis of iconic World Heritage sites shows that combining satellite data with on-the-ground information can improve local decision-making and strengthen accountability, thereby helping forests, climate, and people,” said David Gibbs, WRI Research Associate and co-author of the report.

“Protecting World Heritage sites from increasing fragmentation and escalating threats will be central to our collective ability to address climate change and biodiversity loss,” added Tim Badman, Director of IUCN’s World Heritage Programme.

New biotech firm launched to develop ‘revolutionary’ treatment for one of world’s rarest neurodegenerative diseases

A new biotech business SynaptixBio has been launched to tackle one of the world’s rarest neurodegenerative diseases.

SynaptixBio is working to develop the world’s first disease-modifying treatment for TUBB4a leukodystrophy, including H-ABC - a debilitating and potentially life-limiting condition.

Founded by a worldwide team of leading medical and pharmaceutical experts, the Oxford-based research company has entered into a sponsored research agreement with Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) in the US related to a new method for treating TUBB4a leukodystrophy.

SynaptixBio also has an option to exclusively license CHOP research related to this project. Antisense Oligonucleotides (ASOs) therapy, which has previously been used to treat conditions such as Duchenne muscular dystrophy and spinal muscular atrophy, is also hoped to dramatically improve the quality of - and extend – the lives of leukodystrophy patients.

Dr Dan Willams, CEO and co-founder of SynaptixBio, said the treatment had the potential to “modify the disease, increase survival and significantly improve motor skills development.

“The new approach provides the potential to stabilise, improve quality of life and extend life expectancy in children suffering from the condition.“Successful prevention of leukodystrophy progression would be a revolutionary life-saving and life-enriching treatment.”

TUBB4a leukodystrophy causes hypomyelination in the brain, which can lead to developmental delays in motor skills such as walking, sitting, speaking and swallowing; learning difficulties, seizures, paralysis and an early death.

Research has already begun, with the firm aiming to launch clinical trials in 2024.“This project will change people’s lives,” Williams said. “The research and development of a clinically-proven treatment for TUBB4a would be a real game-changer for patients and their families.

“There is a real chance to improve the lives of leukodystrophy sufferers. We want to ensure that dream becomes a reality.”

COVID-19 and Children

By Dr. Sabrina Kitaka 

I have had the opportunity to interact with hundreds of parents throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. One of their most common questions has been, “Doctor, do you think my baby could have COVID-19?”

During the most recent wave, children are affected by COVID-19 in roughly equal numbers as adults. However, infected children typically don’t become as sick as adults, and some do not show any symptoms at all.

While children are less likely to become seriously ill, there are risks that we should all be aware of and some steps you can take to keep you and your family safe.

Which children are most at risk from COVID-19?

The children most at risk from COVID-19 have pre-existing comorbidities like cancer, congenital heart disease, sickle cell disease, and chronic renal failure. Children with underlying conditions like obesity, diabetes, and asthma are also at higher risk of serious illness from COVID-19.

Children with any of these conditions need to be protected from exposure to COVID-19 as much as possible. If your child does not have any of these conditions, their risk of serious illness is relatively low.

However, children can be a potential driver of infection rates because they are more likely to have mild symptoms and be asymptomatic virus carriers. The possibility of children spreading the virus is the primary justification for keeping them away from crowded places like schools to slow the infection rate (flattening the curve).

During lockdowns and school closures, it is vital that we all, as parents, care for our children’s physical, mental, and emotional health. We can do this by encouraging them to continue school activities, engage in physical exercise, and practice maximum levels of hygiene like handwashing.

Why do children react differently to COVID-19?

The answer is not yet clear. Some experts think that children might not be as severely affected by COVID-19 because they often get common colds caused by other coronaviruses. Their immune systems might therefore be primed to fight off COVID-19 infection. It is also possible that children’s immune systems interact differently with the virus than adult immune systems, but research on this question is still ongoing.

In Africa, our children are more regularly exposed to various microbiomes. Presumably, they have an expanded load of gut microbiota as a result. African children may thus have an even more robust immune system to combat COVID-19 infection. However, research on this topic is still limited.

What can I do to protect myself and my children from COVID-19?

The Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine is available and approved for children aged 12 and older. Several other companies have started enrolling children as young as 12 in vaccine clinical trials. Studies with even younger children will also begin soon. The list of vaccines approved for children will likely grow in the months ahead.

Besides vaccination, the best thing you can do to protect your children is to follow existing public health guidelines. These guidelines include washing your hands often, practicing social distancing, cleaning and disinfecting your home, and wearing a cloth face mask in public.

It’s also essential to stay on top of your child’s immunization schedule. Don’t allow fear of the virus to prevent your child from getting their vaccines to prevent other serious illnesses, which in turn would increase their risk from COVID-19.

By Sabrina Bakeera-Kitaka

Department of Paediatrics, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Fellow of the Uganda National Academy of Sciences (UNAS).

sabrinakitaka@gmail.com

COVID-19 has given African scientists a new momentum for sharing science advice with governments

By Esther Nakkazi 

For the last 18 months of COVID-19, governments have made science the centre of decision making and science advice and policy recommendations by scientists have presented an opportunity to deal with the pandemic. 

Delegates attending the virtual International Conference on Science Advice to Governments  in Montreal, Canada, from August 30 to September 2, heard that as policymaking will likely change, as governments learn new lessons from the pandemic in terms of science advice and science diplomacy. 

The conference was seeking to come up with some kind of blueprint for science advice at a global level because science is at the center of advising government and governments.

Salim Abdool Karim, the Director of the Center for the AIDS program of research in South Africa said he and other scientists have been quite struck at the profile of science during this pandemic. 

“I've been involved in giving scientific advice over many years, and I'm used to it being a backroom activity with those receiving it taking off what they wish. During COVID, science advice became very much front and center, because people were being directly affected and in the midst of so much uncertainty, they would much rather that the scientists were providing the guidance rather than ideology or different vested interests,” said Karim.

“The pandemic has given us the possibility to have a new momentum for science advice and to build bridges between science advices and there's an opportunity for us to position the work of science and in support to policy. So there is an opportunity for approaches, and bringing together different branches of science in support to the policy response to the pandemic,” said Stephen Quest, the Director General of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). 

In South Africa, as in many other countries, very early in the pandemic, governments decided to create committees of scientists to give them advice. 

“Part of our responsibility was to take the evidence that was available, little as it was and to give advice,” said Karim who was part of the 21 member scientific advisory committee. “So we saw that and a whole different way of doing things, not usually done in our governments and in that way I think that's that was impressive.”

But without the luxury of time and clear evidence, science advice for governments on the actions to be taken to control the pandemic did not go through the normal consensus and sometimes was difficult.    

“I remember the day we were trying to decide whether to institute lockdowns. When I got asked this question, I went and did a search. I went through Google looking for what is known about lockdowns, as a public health measure,” said Karim. 

He found only three documents on Google, - one was the Chinese handbook on behavior lockdown for COVID, the other in Mexico for swine flu, and a city was locked down in Sierra Leone for Ebola, that was it. “That's the sum total on evidence about lockdowns, it doesn't even feature in the two most important textbooks on public health,” he said.

With limited data to back up the advice it became apparent that countries had to collect routine information or data as part of surveillance against the pressure of time to inform the science advice and policy for their governments. 

Projects and universities have put up global panel datasets to track government policy responses to COVID-19 in almost all countries, built vaccine indicators to enable health researchers and policymakers to understand why and what is happening on the ground. 

Some researchers even had to work with mobile phone companies to track mobility patterns of citizens and map that against providing some quite useful insights in terms of the way the viruses is spreading. 

“It's all under pressure and the scientific community to find this balance between speed and quality of science. The challenge of finding comparable data remains high on the list and ensuring coordination and connection between different systems,” said Yuxi Zhang, a research fellow at the University of Oxford. 

But just as the issue of data collection is important, data protection and privacy is very important too. The pandemic has enabled collection of a lot of data for scientific work but largely this also requires a need to respect the right to privacy and to protect people's data.

In some places like within the European Union framework where strict data protection, regulatory framework is by law, the compliance is high but in other areas it is a different story.

“So for us, within the European Space it's an absolute, we have to comply with those requirements and we have to ensure that our data collection or data use or data reuse are compatible with the regulations which at times makes life complicated for the scientists, but it's a tradeoff that I think is necessary if we're going to have the trust of citizens,” said Quest.

Will science advice change after the COVID-19 pandemic: 

Scientists are optimistic that they can maintain this momentum and take some of the lessons learned but it will take resolute action on the part of the scientific community and the policy community to lock in and anchor these benefits going forward. 

“It's hard to imagine that it's going to go back to how it used to be because I think the public is very used to this idea now of scientists always talking to them, sharing science with transparency,” said Karim.

There is also a potential downside risk which is that although science is in the spotlight and people increasingly want science to give instant answers, and there's a real tradeoff between speed and quality, which requires maintaining the integrity of science, scientific excellence and being responsible. 

“I think as we have grown with this epidemic now in science advice. We've learned the art of conveying information, with its uncertainty, but in a confident way that the public can take away a clear message that doesn't leave them wondering what what's going on but they have some idea, and I think that that's, that's been happening and I've been seeing how government advisors across the world are conveying information in such a clear way now,” said Karim.

“So it is our task to combine different science based advice, and, and this one could say, balance also the different interests that are at stake. In the beginning it was purely a health related issue, but it evolved to become much broader and what we do see is that it is really difficult to have the government use science based advice on in other domains,” said Corien Prins, the Chair of the Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy (WRR). 

“We need to do is leverage what we've learned through the pandemic, to be better prepared for the future to have more anticipated culture. To ensure this connectivity between science and policy to ensure that we have these multi-disciplinary approaches that we really root this in to our way of doing policy in the future,” said Karim.

Ends.