Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A vision for actionable science in a pandemic

    Cornelia Betsch (a psychologist, University of Erfurt), Vittoria Colizza (a computational epidemiologist, INSERM), Sara del Valle (a computational epidemiologist, Los Alamos National Laboratory), Chikwe Ihekweazu (a public health epidemiologist, Nigeria Centre for Disease Control) and Carmela Troncoso (a data security specialist, EPFL) talked to Nature Communications about their experience with COVID-19 response and their vision on a new system for disease surveillance and control, providing a view on how this should interact with policy making.

    Credit: (clockwise from upper left): Carmela Troncoso, Sara del Valle, Cornelia Betsch, Chikwe Ihekweazu, Vittoria Colizza

    The interview was done by Nature Communications editors Lorenzo Righetto, Brittany Cardwell, Catherine Smith, Sonja Schmid and Iryna Omelchenko.


    1. 1.

      Betsch, C. et al. Germany COVID-19 Snapshot MOnitoring (COSMO Germany): monitoring knowledge, risk perceptions, preventive behaviours, and public trust in the current coronavirus outbreak in Germany. (2020).

    2. 2.

      Betsch, C. How behavioural science data helps mitigate the COVID-19 crisis. Nat. Human Behav. (2020).

    3. 3.

      COSMO group. Corona-Monitor. (2020)

    4. 4.

      WHO Regional Office For Europe. COVID-19 Snapshot MOnitoring (COSMO Standard): monitoring knowledge, risk perceptions, preventive behaviours, and public trust in the current coronavirus outbreak—WHO standard protocol. (2020).

    5. 5.

      Tran, B. X. et al. Studies of novel coronavirus disease 19 (Covid-19) pandemic: a global analysis of literature. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17, 1–20 (2020).

      Google Scholar 

    6. 6.

      Simis, M. J., Madden, H., Cacciatore, M. A. & Yeo, S. K. The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst. Sci. 25, 400–414 (2016).

      Article  Google Scholar 

    7. 7.

      Maier, B. F. & Brockmann, D. Effective containment explains subexponential growth in recent confirmed COVID-19 cases in China. Science 368, 742–746 (2020).

      ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    8. 8.

      Habersaat, K. B. et al. Ten considerations for effectively managing the COVID-19 transition. Nat. Human Behav. (2020)

    9. 9.

      Arita, I., Wickett, J. & Fenner, F. Impact of population density on immunization programmes. J. Hyg. 96, 459–466 (1986).

      CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    10. 10.

      Morgan, M. G. Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 7176–7184 (2014).

      ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

    11. 11.

      Collins, H. & Evans, R. Why Democracies Need Science. (John Wiley & Sons, 2017).

    12. 12.

      Zhang, L., Li, H. & Chen, K. Effective risk communication for public health emergency: reflection on the COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) outbreak in Wuhan, China. Healthcare 8, 64 (2020).

      Article  Google Scholar 

    13. 13.

      Christensen, T. & Lægreid, P. Balancing governance capacity and legitimacy: how the Norwegian government handled the COVID‐19 crisis as a high performer. Public Adm. Rev. (2020).

    14. 14.

      van der Bles, A. M. et al. Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science. R. Soc. Open Sci. 6, 181870 (2019).

      ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

    15. 15.

      Pfattheicher, S., Nockur, L., Böhm, R., Sassenrath, C. & Petersen, M. B. The emotional path to action: empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2020).

    16. 16.

      Bavel, J. J. V. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Human Behav. (2020).

    17. 17.

      Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124 (2005).

      Article  Google Scholar 

    Download references

    Rights and permissions

    Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit

    Reprints and Permissions

    About this article

    Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    A vision for actionable science in a pandemic. Nat Commun 11, 4960 (2020).

    Download citation


    By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


    Quick links

    Nature Briefing

    Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

    Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing