ÎçÒ¹¸£Àû1000¼¯ºÏ

There is a saying in the halls of British political power that scientific advisers should be “on tap, not on top”. This pithy aphorism, often attributed to Winston Churchill, highlights that, in a democracy, science should guide – not dictate – policy-makers’ decisions.

Never was this truer than at the height of the covid-19 pandemic. Despite politicians in the UK claiming to “follow the science”, there were many decisions – from paying people to self-isolate to closing schools – that couldn’t be made on scientific advice alone. What’s more, some questions couldn’t immediately be answered by scientists. Policy-makers were forced to muddle through.

By contrast, the Trump administration is now turning off the scientific taps, as government health bodies overturn long-established guidelines on everything from vaccines to cell phone radiation, all in the name of the “Make America ÎçÒ¹¸£Àû1000¼¯ºÏy Again” movement.

But what about situations where the science is still evolving, and we don’t face a global emergency? The question, then, centres on how long policy-makers should wait for scientific results to become clear.

One of the biggest debates in many countries at the moment is whether to ban under-16s from using social media, as Australia did at the end of last year. Proposed bans are extremely popular with the public, but the best available scientific evidence shows that, on a population level, the impact of social media on teenagers’ mental health is minimal. Should politicians ignore the evidence and go with the majority?

Doing so would be in keeping with Churchill’s maxim. But as we report here, by mid-2027, we should have much stronger evidence on social media harms, both from a randomised trial being conducted in the UK and the natural experiment afforded by the Australian ban. As such, the only sensible course is to wait for scientists to come up with the goods before charging ahead with policy. To coin a new phrase, science should be on tap, not on top – and given time.