Will the resignation of Jeremy Farrar mark an end to the uneasy alliance between science and politics?

In other circumstances, the departure of Sir Jeremy Farrar from the government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) would have made a lot more waves. But there are probably two reasons why his exit this week was so low-key.

One was that it coincided with the congregation of world leaders for the climate summit in Glasgow, that crowded almost everything else out of the news. The other was that this is how he wanted it; quietly confident in his views, Sir Jeremy can make waves if he wants to.

In the event, he did not make a big deal of his decision. Nor did he flag it in advance. He simply issued a statement, saying that he had left at the end of October and would now focus on his post as director of the charitable Wellcome Trust. It is a decision you can hardly fault, given that this is a big job and one that, by all accounts, he does well.

That said, however, Sir Jeremy’s resignation from the group that played such a determining role as the Covid-19 pandemic ravaged the UK sends a number of signals, and they were not signals he took any trouble to deflect. His statement might have been worded so as to avoid rocking any boats, but it still indicated a degree of dissent from the current stance of the government, and was widely read as a warning of what might be to come.

"The Covid-19 crisis,” he said, “is a long way from over, with the global situation deeply troubling ... The high levels of transmission seen in the UK remain concerning, but I stepped down as a participant of Sage knowing ministers had been provided with most of the key science advice needed over the winter months.” Well....

From a scientist whose careful interventions made him the Sage member perhaps most trusted by Britain’s worried middle classes, what he said hardly exuded confidence that all will be well: high levels of transmission that remained “concerning”; an assurance that ministers had “most" of the key science advice they would need over the winter. It was almost as though he was saying, we’ve done our best, prime minister, but now you’re on your own.

Then, for good measure, in weighed Professor Jonathan Van Tam – the prof with the popular touch from those early press briefings – who told the BBC, rather more directly, that in his view “there are some hard months to come ... and it’s not over.” Covid was now “starting to penetrate into older age groups” and, he suggested, people needed to be more careful. “I think a whole range of behaviours, including the use of face coverings, but generally the caution that people take or don’t take in terms of interacting with each other – that is going to be a big determinant in what happens...”.

At which point it might be tempting to see a reprise here of what happened last autumn, when Boris Johnson’s government came under pressure from many quarters to lock down much earlier than it did. But it seems to me there is a crucial difference, summed up in the fact that last year – according to his recent book – Sir Jeremy considered, but decided against, resigning, whereas this year he did.

And two factors may well have contributed to that difference: vaccinations; and the new health secretary, Sajid Javid. Together, they have tipped the balance: ministers are no longer “following the science” to the letter (the Sage suggestions, that is). Government and scientists are back on (somewhat) separate tracks.

There could be a third factor, too, to be found in last month’s MPs’ report: Coronavirus: Lessons Learned to Date. One of their central criticisms was the extent to which the government had failed to challenge advice given by the scientists, chief among them those sitting on Sage. The report suggested that there were times when ministers could and should have challenged the scientists – because governments had a duty to take a wider view in their decision-making, including social, economic and other considerations.

Now I have a great deal of sympathy with this – not least because I argued at the time that, in retrospect, one of the verdicts might be that ministers had trusted science too much, rather than too little. But I also feel that MPs may have neglected some of the context. What were ministers supposed to do? This was a government that had a reputation, thanks largely to Michael Gove, for spurning “experts”, and I well remember the relief felt by the public at large, when Johnson appeared at his first daily coronavirus briefings flanked by Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Chris Whitty, the government’s chief scientific adviser and chief medical officer respectively. The prevailing sentiment was that the experts were back, and a very good thing too.

And just imagine the opposite. Imagine if, during those early weeks, the prime minister and the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, had stood at their Downing Street lecterns and said, well, the scientists at Sage (or whatever other expert group) recommended “x”, but actually, we think they’re wrong; we think “y” (on the basis of, say, the self-appointed “independent Sage”). Or, well, our scientists have said this, but we prefer to take a punt on the Swedish model (of no shutdowns), or even that we judge that Sage is too timid and we’re going to impose a full-scale lockdown.

As things stood at the time, as with hindsight, any of these options, might have had some justification. But think of the media outcry, the likely public distrust – not to mention the inevitable leaks from Sage – if their judgements had been rejected. Not even Boris Johnson would have got away with such apparent contempt in a health crisis that so cried out for experts.

But that was then, and this is now. And vaccinations have had a major impact upon serious illness, hospitalisations and deaths. Yes, the incidence of infection remains relatively high in the UK, for which there may be particular reasons – more testing than in many other countries, the start of the school and university years, earlier lifting of statutory restrictions, such as distancing and mask-wearing. But the presentation of the figures in news reports often leaves much to be desired: today’s infections, hospitalisations, etc, mean nothing unless they are set beside those of yesterday, last week and last month. We need the good news as well as the bad.

By all means, let’s hear from Sir Jeremy and Prof Van Tam; let them make their case to the public from their expert perspective. And let Sage continue to advise, as was always its intended function. But leave it to the government to decide – after ministers have solicited a wide range of advice, and not just from scientists, from home and abroad.

The pandemic may not yet be quite on its last legs, but it is a positive development that UK ministers and scientists are returning to their separate tracks.