Written Evidence Submitted by the Institute of Development Studies (IDS)

(C190089)

About the Institute of Development Studies:

The Institute of Development Studies (IDS) is a global research and learning organisation for equitable and sustainable change. IDS is ranked best international development policy think tank (2019 Global Go To Think Tank Index) and first in the world for development studies by the QS University Rankings, with the University of Sussex.

This submission draws on evidence from:

Melissa Leach, Director, Institute of Development Studies and independent member of the Strategic Coherence of ODA-funded Research (SCOR) Board

Peter Taylor, Director of Research, Institute of Development Studies

1.The contribution of research and development in understanding, modelling and predicting the nature and spread of the virus

1.1 Pandemics are a social phenomenon. They are shaped by the contexts in which they arise and unfold, not just the disease itself. Social relations and behaviour change are critical to patterns of disease spread and control. The success of Covid-19 ‘lockdowns’, physical distancing and test and trace programmes depends on how well they are attuned to their social contexts and how individual people and their communities react to them. Therefore, it is critical that the UK’s responses to global disease outbreaks are informed by social science and that social science is valued as equally as medical and mathematical sciences.

1.2 Scientific collaboration - international and cross-discipline - including social science, medical science, private and public sector is crucial. Social science in modelling is essential to help test the assumptions and nuance models when tackling disease outbreaks and pandemics. 

1.3 We learnt during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa in 2014 that modelling assumptions without social science input proved to be inaccurate. One model predicted up to 1.4 million cases, which thankfully did not occur, in part because the model had not factored in people’s social responses and the large-scale behaviour change and community-driven actions which emerged.

1.4 Alongside mathematical modelling, social science can nuance the models, and improve their parameters, as well as providing evidence of the gaps between the assumptions and the social realities on the ground. It can explain why things might not pan out as expected and uncover unintended consequences of interventions. For instance, early UK responses to Covid-19 assumed that publics would not tolerate a long period of lockdown. Public reactions confounded these presumptions, revealing high safety-consciousness and willingness to comply with regulations once the reasons were understood. Social science perspectives on publics, risk and science could have helped predict this. Social sciences are also critical to unpack and understand the social differences and inequalities – by ethnicity, class, residence, occupation, cultural orientations – that shape vulnerability to disease and ability to comply with control measures, as has proved so significant in Covid-19. Disaggregated social and economic statistics are therefore needed along with epidemiology. Importantly, qualitative social data and analysis, drawing on interview, group discussion and participatory methods, are required to interpret statistics and provide explanations that can guide policy.

1.5 Communities must be put at the heart of understanding – ‘knowing the community’ is crucial and communities themselves are best-placed to do so. Communities must also be put at the heart of pandemic response measures – this was the main lesson from Ebola that must not be forgotten. The extent and feasibility of this will vary depending on each individual context but a ‘top-down’ approach alone will not work, particularly where there is any lack of trust in government or local authority officials.  We have seen during Covid-19 in the UK how local community groups have mobilised on Facebook for example, to respond to local needs, such as organising food deliveries or signposting where supplies could be ordered from.

2. The capacity and capability of the UK research base in providing a response to the outbreak, in terms of:

• advice to government, public bodies and others on managing the outbreak;
• the development of testing, diagnostic methods and technologies;

2.1 Utilising the UK’s development research capacity and expertise

2.1.1 A vital, and globally unique, area of UK leadership lies in transformative research for development. It is based on the UK’s capacity to bring social science and humanities expertise together with natural and health sciences to address global challenges, such as Covid-19. These strengths in interdisciplinarity and engaged, impact-oriented research have a well-established track record in some key areas. They have been boosted recently by investments such as the Global Challenges Research Fund, which is widely recognised as unique in bringing academics together in a new generation of problem-oriented, transformative science. 

2.1.2 This interdisciplinary research eco-system as applied to international (as well as UK) issues has been nurtured over the years by funders such as the Department for International Development (DFID), UKRI – especially  the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) - and the Wellcome Trust.  UK-based researchers have developed world-leading expertise regarding global pandemics and epidemics, with many working extensively on tackling Ebola in West Africa (2014-15), SARS and Zika and zoonotic diseases. The UK is also working internationally on strengthening global health systems, and social and governance aspects of pandemic preparedness and prevention. Whilst UK capacity in biomedical research and the development of therapies and vaccines is extensive and important, and rightly celebrated and supported, these vital social science and interdisciplinary capacities are arguably even more exceptional as a UK contribution, and deserve greater recognition.

2.1.3 There are many lessons the UK government and public bodies can draw on from initiatives such as the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP), an impact-oriented platform to ensure that social research translates into solutions to real-world problems in real time. It is hosted at IDS with partners Anthrologica and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, with support from DFID and the Wellcome Trust. To date, SSHAP has produced 16 demand-led rapid briefings to bring social dimensions into the Covid-19 response, as well as hosting roundtables and learning sessions for UK and international agencies. 

2.2 Advice to government, public bodies and others on managing the outbreak

2.2.1 The importance of social science research for global pandemics was recognised in the early stages of Covid-19, with Professor Melissa Leach providing evidence to the Science and Technology Committee in a closed session in March and attending a Cabinet Office meeting on Covid-19 scenarios, as well as engagement via the British Academy with the National Statistics Authority, and advice to DFID and FCO.

2.2.2 Professor Leach and Dr. Hayley MacGregor have contributed actively to the World Health Organisation R and D Roadmap Social Science Expert Group. Health researchers from IDS have also participated in the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GLOPID-R), recently participating in a meeting on social science funding and Covid-19.

2.2.3 Whilst there is growing global appreciation of the value of social perspectives in science advice for managing disease outbreaks, in practice, representation of social sciences in government advice bodies is patchy. The UK’s SAGE for Covid-19 for instance has minimal social science representation and is largely confined to narrow behavioural science perspectives. This compares unfavourably with several European countries. Formal UK government advice would be strengthened by drawing more fully on the UK’s substantial, relevant expertise in anthropology, geography, sociology, economics, history and related fields.

2.3 Developing new technologies

2.3.1 During the pandemic there has been much made of the development of tracing apps, including in the UK. Covid-19 tracing apps will mine the largest ever collection of personal and real-time location data. They aim to save lives, but unintended consequences of technology use are shaped by political, economic and social influences beyond the control of creators. When digital technologies are presented as solutions to urgent humanitarian crisis it is critical to assess the interests being served. Evidence from technology use for emergency cash transfer programmes in lower- and middle-income countries, for example, shows they can be introduced without proper mandate and accountability, and can unfairly exclude marginalised groups. Such research should be used to draw lessons by UK government bodies commissioning new technology as part of the Covid-19 response.

2.3.2 In the UK there are concerns about whether a Covid-19 app will be affective when 16 percent of the UK population lack fundamental digital skills such as turning on devices or opening apps. In South Africa, rather than relying on apps, the country has mobilised 28,000 health workers to screen over 7m people for Covid-19 - one in ten of the population – from their experience of tackling TB and HIV.

2.3.3 However, some of the most effective forms of communication and support around Covid-19 are grassroots solutions being generated through digital platforms e.g. local Facebook groups. The sharing of visual representations of data via digital platforms are also helping transcend linguistic barriers, and reduce monopolisation of information flows within dominant languages (e.g. English).

2.4 Development and testing of vaccines

2.4.1 While vaccine development and trials are critical and a key UK research strength, the focus should not solely be on the technical development of a Covid-19 vaccine. It should also be on broad-based vaccination programmes and the health systems that deliver them. A ‘vertical’ focus on Covid-19 vaccination alone is likely to compromise still further the functioning of vital, broad health systems, by siphoning away staff, resources and attention. 

2.4.2 Evidence shows that the secondary health impacts of Covid-19 public health measures are already taking a major toll and increasing deaths in many countries, as clinic attendance for other illnesses, routine treatments (e.g. for HIV) and immunisations (e.g. for measles) are compromised. Alongside research and resources for vaccine development, research and resources for broad-based health systems maintenance, development and accessibility needs to be prioritises. And if and when a vaccine becomes available, delivery should be organised with and through wider health systems, thus strengthening rather than undermining them. The experience and strategies of the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation (GAVI) offers many examples and lessons in this regard.

2.4.3 All countries need to recognise the importance of trust and community engagement in vaccine delivery and the understanding of local contexts needed to support that. Vaccine hesitancy, refusal and ‘anti-vax’ sentiments and campaigns are already looming as potential challenges for widespread uptake of a Covid-19 vaccine, in the UK and elsewhere. Longstanding social science research on previous vaccines shows that rather than exemplifying public ignorance or ill-founded rumour, vaccine anxieties are rooted in socio-cultural experiences and citizen-state relations. Advance attention to these contextual and social issues needs to accompany the technical aspects of vaccine development, in order to inform appropriate delivery and communication strategies. 

3. The flexibility and agility of institutions, Government departments and public bodies, and processes to respond appropriately during the crisis including availability and responsiveness of funding.

3.1 Many government bodies have responded to the Covid-19 crisis through new and re-prioritised research funds. An impressive array of rapid-deployment funding mechanisms has been launched. While this is welcome, and a demonstration of agility in the UK’s research funding ecosystem, there are a number of risks to guard against. One is fragmentation and duplication; here efforts such as the UK Collaborative on development Research (UKCDR) research mapping database (covering both UK and a large range of international research funds) are welcome and need to be supported. Such mapping also provides scope to identify gaps, and key areas that are unsupported.

3.2 A second risk is that technical, health-focused funding such as for therapeutic and vaccine development dominates disproportionately. Here, funding schemes focused on social and economic issues of response, recovery and positive futures, drawing on the whole range of social sciences and humanities, such as those led by the British Academy and figuring as part of UKRI response, are vital. Nevertheless, levels of funding for such schemes are often marginal compared with technical and biomedical science; a balance that warrants attention.

3.3 Third, while short-term, rapid response funds are valuable in pandemic situations, ability to respond appropriately during a crisis also requires investment in longer-term, interdisciplinary, international programmes. It is these – and the capabilities and expertise they support – that provide the basis on which rapid-response projects and platforms such as SSHAP can draw. For example, current large GCRF international hubs – £12-20m investments – such as ARISE, focusing on health in low income settlements – are currently feeding vital insights and expertise into the Covid-19 response. Long-term research programmes supported by DFID, such as the International Centre for Tax and Development and the Coalition for Religious Equality and Development, both hosted at IDS, are acting similarly. The Dynamic Drivers of Disease in Africa Consortium (funded by DFID, Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) and ESRC through the ESPA scheme), brought together 20 partners from the UK with government and African universities, to look at the drivers of zoonotic diseases. It included social science, epidemiology, medicine, veterinary medicine, environmental science to find solutions that enable people to live with animals and ecosystems in healthier and more sustainable ways. This is the kind of cross-disciplinary and collaborative research that is vital for finding solutions to global challenges. Without the investment in such long-term programmes, the UK’s rapid response capacity to address crises would be badly compromised.

3.4 Research to tackle the world’s most pressing global challenges, such as disease, poverty and the impacts of climate change need to be long-term and we would welcome funding models that can sustain long-term projects of up to 10 years.

3.5 It is essential that any new funding arrangement promotes international, equitable and interdisciplinary partnerships. Tackling global challenges demands contextually relevant knowledge generated through collaborations across countries, sectors and disciplines.  International partnerships must involve the people and organisations on the ground in low- and middle-income countries as well as developed countries, and not just as data collectors or receptors, but in conceptualising and designing work. 

3.6 As DFID merges with the FCO and as the UK government reviews spending plans this autumn, retention of a significant research budget – including ODA budget – for long-term, interdisciplinary, international research is vital. Indeed, for cross-government funded research for global disease outbreaks, including preparedness and prevention, there are four key features of international development research which other government departments and bodies funding research could learn from DFID:

3.7 Cross-disciplinary - Transformative research on global challenges can often best be achieved by bringing academic and non-academic (government, business, civil society) actors together in consortia and partnerships to work on key problems. This mode of transdisciplinary, engaged research needs to be recognised and supported through suitable funding routes because the problems the world face are interconnected and difficult and require multiple angles. It requires maintaining a balance between natural science, medicine, environmental science, and social sciences.

3.8 Integrated with policy and practice - not just producing science but feeding it through to policymakers and often co-constructing that research with government agencies and civil society organisations so that the policy implications are integrated and can be used.

3.9 Impact-oriented - invest in research uptake and impact, and in mechanisms to ensure that research translates into solutions to real-world problems. Programmes such as the DFID-ESRC Impact initiative, a partnership between IDS and the University of Cambridge and SSHAP hosted at IDS with support from DFID and the Wellcome Trust, and follow-on funds from many research council programmes offer positive examples of world-leading support to innovation in this area.

3.10 International partnerships - involving the people and organisations on the ground in low- and middle-income countries, not just as data collectors or receptors, but in conceptualising and designing work. DFID has been supporting exactly that kind of work and other government department funds, particularly the GCRF would greatly benefit from DFID’s expertise.

4. Availability and influence of scientific advice in all Government departments and public bodies—including by departmental Chief Scientific Advisers – and the extent to which decisions taken drew on that advice

4.1 The lack of transparency regarding the scientific advice being considered by the UK Government, particularly in the early stages of the pandemic, made it difficult to determine the extent to which social science was included in decision making. It is important for the UK Government to recognise the value of social science in order to provide a holistic response - health, economic and social policies - to the current outbreak and in the preparations for future outbreaks. 

4.2 The Chief Scientific Adviser from DFID is a member of the SPI-B scientific advisory group and that is essential in order for lessons to be shared from the UK’s extensive experience of helping to tackle previous disease outbreaks in lower and middle-income countries. A Chief Scientific Adviser for development is a vital role to retain in the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) in order to make sure that research knowledge is not lost.

5. The mechanisms for communication of scientific evidence internationally, within national governments and with the public: including the handling of conflicting scientific opinions

5.1 IDS researchers Professor Melissa Leach and Dr Hayley MacGregor are members of the WHO social science expert group for Covid-19 which is a group within the WHO Roadmap Research and Development process. They both attended the WHO Roadmap meeting for Covid-19 in Geneva in February and online in early July. Dr MacGregor is part of a sub-group working with WHO staff on WHO guidelines on home care and Covid-19, to reflect different socio-economic and health system realities and that address different contextual situations.

5.2 Through SSHAP, briefings have also been produced that synthesise social science evidence for various operational elements of Covid-19 responses. These briefings have been used by UK and international responders and engaged with by DFID, UNICEF and other UN agencies such as UN Habitat.

5.3 It is clear that important evidence about how to handle disease outbreaks, how to deliver effective public health strategies, and how to minimise and mitigate social and economic impacts is accumulating around the world. There are many opportunities for multi-way learning – by the UK from other countries as well as vice versa, according to their respective experience. For instance, debates about public wearing of masks in the UK could be usefully informed by detailed consideration of experiences in Asian countries, where this became a norm following SARS. The delivery of social protection and cash transfers in humanitarian settings is an important area of experience built up in many African countries, with applicability now to the UK. The current pandemic demands and opens up opportunities for a more humble and open sharing of experiences between countries, challenging established international stereotypes and knowledge hierarchies. At the same time, one size does not fit all, and countries will need to tailor the application of knowledge acquired internationally to their specific contexts. 

6. The UK’s readiness for future outbreaks

6.1 Covid-19 is highlighting existing inequities in broad terms – social and economic inequalities, as well as health - and the poorest and most vulnerable will be hardest hit.  Government responses, including the UK Government’s response in cooperation with multilaterals, such as the UN, the World Bank and the G20, must be carefully designed and address longer-term issues of social protection, loss of livelihoods, housing and education and strengthening health systems. 

6.2 The UK government has a critical role to play both in the immediate term in bringing an end to the outbreak, in the short to medium term in addressing social, economic and political impacts, and longer term in building societies and economies post-outbreak. This will require a cross-government response, informed by research, evidence and policy analysis drawn from collaborations across disciplines, sectors and communities. DFID’s record of development research puts its staff in a good place to lead this response and is a reason why it is so important to retain staff expertise in the FCO/DFID department merger process.

6.3 In the immediate term it is important for the UK to invest in rapid response research to identify immediate and emerging issues and synthesise and share research through a networked approach. Collating and disseminating research in a timely manner that also reaches non-academic audiences, for example to support practitioners and humanitarian responders globally, continues to be important.

6.4 In the short/medium term research is needed that supports recovery, understands and addresses the wider social, economic and political impacts of both the disease and the response. For example, social protection schemes, impacts on tax revenue and collection and loss of livelihoods. There is also much work to do to understand the impact Covid-19 is having on women, placing gender as a central issue, specifically around issues like the care economy, and also to understand and find answers to potential increases in gender-based violence that will be a real challenge in many societies.

6.5 The situation of women and men experiencing intersecting inequalities along the lines of religious affiliation, class and/or gender needs to be taken into account in vulnerability studies undertaken as part of health assessments. Redressing exclusion from access to health care will need to be sensitive not only to the right kind of entry points for outreach but also that efforts are done in a sensitive manner that does not trigger a backlash against religious minorities in vulnerable positions.

6.6 In the longer-term the UK should invest in research with a view to transforming systems for the future; in short to go even beyond “building back better”. This should involve bringing bigger picture learning towards long-term transformations in development more broadly and beyond the current Covid-19 crisis.

6.7 Research to learn from Covid-19 and inform UK responses to future outbreaks must engage with politics and power to understand what drives transformations and understand the implications for research if actual change is to take place. It is also important for future sustainable development for research to identify how Covid-19 has exposed systemic cracks and failures, but also potential solidarities and opportunities for recovery – and in so doing, identify new approaches that can help make the UK a more resilient, equitable and sustainable country in the face of future global challenges and potential crises.

(July 2020)

7