The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the orderly functioning of social and political institutions, creating uncertainty and challenging established power arrangements. Governments relied heavily on science advice to inform their responses, with advice coming from various sources, including government bureaucracies, academic institutions, and independent organizations. This paper focuses on the Philippines, where the independent think tank OCTA Research emerged as a leading provider of science advice. The authors examine the role of science advice in the political context of the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on OCTA's independent role and the factors that contributed to its success. Traditional models of science advice, which often involve formal structures and clear separation of knowledge generation and use, may not be effective in all contexts. In countries with small science communities, like the Philippines, independent actors may play a more critical role. The paper explores the challenges of role conflation – where scientists act as both knowledge producers and users – and the political dynamics that shape science advice in such environments.

Existing literature reveals a dichotomy in how governments use science advice during crises. Knowledge producers (e.g., academic scientists) often perceive high uncertainty and may be cautious in their advice, whereas knowledge users (e.g., politicians) perceive less uncertainty and demand assurances of positive outcomes. This conflation of roles presents challenges for science advice practitioners. To address this, models like the one promoted by INGSA emphasize independent knowledge brokerage, where scientists provide options to policymakers without being involved in knowledge generation. However, this model can be difficult to implement in countries with small science communities due to a lack of experts and a broader range of scientific expertise.

The paper uses a qualitative approach, analyzing the role of OCTA Research in providing COVID-19 science advice to the Philippine government from April to December 2020. It examines OCTA's methodology for epidemiological forecasting, including data sources (primarily the Philippine Department of Health's Data Drop), modeling techniques, and communication strategies. The paper draws upon publicly available documents, such as OCTA's reports, media coverage, government statements, and policy documents. It also analyzes the interactions between OCTA, the government (specifically the IATF-EID), and other science advisory actors, considering the political context and the challenges of role conflation. The analysis explores the perceptions of uncertainty among knowledge producers and users, and how these perceptions influenced policy decisions.

OCTA Research, despite being an independent entity and not formally part of the Philippine government's science advisory structure, became the leading source of science advice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several factors contributed to OCTA's success: * **Transparency and Public Communication:** OCTA proactively disseminated its epidemiological forecasts through academic websites, mainstream media, and social media, allowing for public scrutiny and extended peer review. This transparency fostered public trust and enhanced the credibility of its findings. * **Data-Driven Approach:** OCTA based its analyses on the Department of Health's Data Drop, providing robust estimates of key epidemiological parameters (R0, positivity rates, hospital capacity). While acknowledging data quality issues, OCTA used multiple scenario models to mitigate uncertainties. * **Multidisciplinary Expertise:** OCTA's team consisted of experts from various disciplines, including medicine, social sciences, economics, and mathematics, allowing for a holistic approach to forecasting and policy recommendations. * **Addressing Uncertainty:** OCTA's forecasts included multiple scenarios to convey the uncertainties inherent in epidemiological modeling. They addressed these uncertainties, often highlighting gaps in data quality which influenced policy debates. * **Navigating Political Dynamics:** OCTA faced political criticisms and accusations of being 'alarmist,' but successfully defended its methodology and recommendations. Its ability to navigate this complex political landscape and build alliances, such as its partnership with Go Negosyo, contributed to its influence. The paper contrasts OCTA's experience with the situation in the UK, illustrating that formal science advisory bodies (like SAGE) can face similar challenges regarding public scrutiny, uncertainties, and political pressure. The analysis highlights how a conflation of roles (knowledge producer and knowledge user) often leads to 'dampening of uncertainties' for political reasons.

The findings highlight the important role of independent science advice, particularly in contexts with limited formal structures and a small science community. OCTA's success suggests that transparency, robust methodology, and effective communication are crucial for building public trust and influencing policy decisions. The challenges of role conflation and political pressure faced by OCTA underscore the need for mechanisms to support independent science advisors and ensure the integrity of their advice. The study emphasizes that effective science advice involves navigating complex political dynamics and balancing competing priorities.

OCTA Research demonstrated that independent science advice can play a crucial role in informing pandemic policy, even in contexts where formal advisory structures are weak. Its success highlights the importance of transparency, rigorous methodology, and effective communication. The case of OCTA offers valuable lessons for strengthening science advice systems globally, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Future research could explore the long-term impact of OCTA's advice on Philippine COVID-19 policies and examine best practices for fostering independent science advice providers in other countries facing similar challenges.

The study focuses primarily on OCTA Research's role and does not provide a comprehensive analysis of all science advice provided to the Philippine government during the pandemic. The analysis relies on publicly available data and may not capture all aspects of the complex interactions between OCTA, the government, and other stakeholders. Future research could expand the scope to include a broader range of science advice providers and utilize additional data sources, such as interviews with key actors.