Policymakers need to rely on scientific knowledge to formulate effective policies, and the policy advisory systems (PAS) of most countries include scientific advisors. However, the legitimacy of scientific advice is frequently being challenged, in particular during crises. This article examines what aspects of scientific advice are being contested and what factors lead to the loss of the legitimacy of scientific policy advice during crises. Empirically, the article draws on a qualitative comparative study of scientific policy advice in Switzerland during three crises—the COVID‐19 pandemic, the global financial crisis, and the Fukushima nuclear accident. Results show that the legitimacy of scientific advice is rather challenged at the institutional than at the epistemic or individual levels. The analysis highlights three interdependent factors that explain the contestation of scientific advice and experts: the lack of institutionalization of policy advisory processes, the intrusiveness and scope of policy measures, and political actors who use attacks on science when opposing policy decisions. The article argues that well‐designed advisory processes and institutions can mitigate legitimacy issues, although populist attacks against scientific advice remain a more structural phenomenon that cannot be solved through policy advisory systems alone.
Schlaufer et al. (Wed,) studied this question.