How Can Christians Effectively Influence Policy and Politics for Lasting Change?
Summary
Kirsten Horston, a policy expert and advocate, shared valuable insights at our recent conference in London on how individuals can influence policy and politics to create lasting change. She discussed the power of consistency in activism, the importance of building credibility, and how you can effectively enter the world of politics. Her talk emphasised the need for both long-term dedication and a commitment to values that drive impactful change.
Policy Influence
Kirsten begins by emphasising the power of showing up consistently to make a difference in the world of policy. While some may think that one-off efforts can lead to change, she stresses that influence often comes from long-term dedication:
“Policy is a highly leveraged way to influence both your nation and the world. The key is consistency—whether it’s emailing your elected representative, participating in discussions, or staying involved in policy work, being a consistent voice is what truly moves the needle.”
She points out that showing up regularly builds credibility and positions individuals as trusted sources of information. The goal is not to be a one-hit wonder but to become a steady, reliable presence who can offer thoughtful insights and expertise:
“If you show up and consistently offer helpful advice, you’ll earn credibility. Even as a young person or someone just entering the field, you can begin to establish yourself as a person who knows things, who understands people, and who can be trusted with policy matters.”
Building Credibility and Expertise
One of the central themes of Kirsten’s talk is the importance of developing expertise and credibility, even if you’re just starting out. She suggests that individuals should find a niche or area of interest in policy where they can develop expertise and build a reputation over time:
“Start small, build your knowledge, and offer value to those who are already in the field. Whether it's writing a blog, contributing to policy discussions, or simply sharing insights with others, creating a niche for yourself is essential. Over time, this will lead to invitations and opportunities that you might never have imagined.”
For Kirsten, it’s not about seeking fame or recognition. Instead, it’s about being helpful to those already making policy decisions. Whether you’re a junior employee or an established politician, the aim is the same: to be someone who makes a positive contribution to the political process.
Building A Policy Career
Kirsten also shares her perspective on how individuals can navigate the world of government careers, particularly within the UK’s civil service. She advises that spending time in government can be an invaluable training ground for anyone looking to have an impact:
“The civil service offers a unique environment for anyone interested in policy. It teaches you how things work from the inside and gives you the chance to see how decisions are made. Even if you don’t intend to stay long-term, a couple of years in the civil service can provide you with a solid foundation for the rest of your career.”
Kirsten points out that many people make a successful pivot from the civil service to other sectors once they’ve gained sufficient experience. She also emphasizes that, despite the challenges, civil servants who are ambitious can still shape policy decisions and bring innovation to the public sector.
“Once you’re at a senior level in the civil service, you can have a real impact. But you need to be willing to go through the ranks, build experience, and then seek out new opportunities that allow you to innovate and push for change.”
Ethical Challenges in Policy Making
Throughout her talk, Kirsten also addresses the ethical dilemmas that often arise when working in policy and politics. From balancing bureaucracy with the need for action to dealing with the pressures of political office, she emphasises the importance of maintaining integrity:
“Sometimes policy work can be slow and bureaucratic, but it’s worth going through the process to ensure that we’re making the right decisions. It’s about finding the balance between acting quickly and ensuring that the decisions we make are well-informed and ethical.”
Kirsten also highlights the role of think tanks, consultants, and experts in shaping policy decisions, noting that they can play a significant role in providing valuable insights to ministers and civil servants. However, she cautions that it’s essential to stay focused on the broader mission rather than getting sidetracked by personal ambitions or external pressures:
“Policy isn’t about gaining fame or success. It’s about making decisions that will benefit society and having a lasting impact. We can’t let the distractions of politics or popularity cloud our judgment.”
Advice for Aspiring Policy Makers
Kirsten’s advice to those looking to enter politics or the civil service is to focus on personal development, build networks, and find mentors who can guide you through the process:
“Networking is important, but you also need to develop practical skills and knowledge that will help you in the field. Whether it’s understanding policy analysis, improving communication skills, or learning how to navigate government structures, preparing yourself is key.”
She also advises young people not to be discouraged by the challenges that come with politics:
“Politics can be frustrating, but don’t give up. If you want to make a change, you need to stick with it. Keep showing up, keep learning, and keep helping. Even when it seems like you’re not getting anywhere, the work you’re doing will matter in the long run.”
Key Takeaways
Serve with Expertise: Focus on a specific area, build trust, and be a reliable resource for others.
Government Experience Matters: Working in the civil service helps you understand the system and prepares you to influence it for good.
Stand for Integrity: Politics can be messy, but we’re called to do things God’s way, even when it’s tough.
Mentorship and Community: Surround yourself with wise mentors and accountability to stay grounded in your calling.
-
Moderator 00:00:00: Of the development before all of the COVID-19 vaccines, as you pointed out, a lot of groundwork had already taken place, which was essential for everything to happen as quickly as it did. How do you prioritize which research to focus on?
Andrew 00:00:44: In that case, once you’ve got the technology down, you can very rapidly transfer it to lots of different things. So, that starting place—the 20 years of development—was crucial. What was it like during those first years?
Well, I think there are two aspects to consider. First, there’s the vaccine platform itself. Using vectors as the foundation is key, and the technical platform development is really important because, in pandemics, it’s going to be the backbone of whatever we do. The fact that we now have two main technologies that allow for relatively rapid development is a major advantage.
We were discussing this over lunch, and the great strength of RNA technology is its speed. If you know what you're manufacturing, you can produce millions of doses within six weeks. Compare that to viral vectors, which take about three months to reach just thousands of doses and much longer to scale up to millions.
Andrew 00:01:16: So, RNA is just incredible. Most of the other technologies don’t scale up that quickly, which is why platform technologies are so important to continue investing in.
The second issue is the individual microbes—viruses and bacteria. From a scientific perspective, for most of them, we actually already know what needs to be done. For instance, with coronaviruses, if you’ve spent 20 years studying them, you know that one particular protein—in this case, the spike protein on the surface of the virus—is the critical one to target and include in a vaccine.
Andrew 00:01:50: Vaccines work by training the immune system to recognize and fight a virus when it encounters it. For coronaviruses, as with most other threats, we already know what needs to be done. The research is straightforward, so there aren’t any major scientific obstacles for most viruses. What’s really needed is sustained investment to carry out that work.
Take, for instance, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness and Innovation (CEPI). It’s a major funder of pandemic preparedness, but it only focuses on about ten different pathogens. That’s a start, but there’s so much more to do.
Andrew 00:02:20: So, the science is there—we know how to solve these problems. The bottleneck isn’t in the scientific process; it’s in getting the funding and resources in place. The challenges lie in vaccine rollout, expanding access, and addressing economic barriers, like creating incentives to pull investments forward.
Yes, money is the central issue here. It’s about investing in the research upfront to generate the necessary knowledge, and then having governments ready to commit significant funding for development when a pandemic begins.
Andrew 00:02:57: For example, in the U.S., they had systems in place, like Operation Warp Speed, where the government allocated billions of dollars to vaccine developers. But in the UK, there was no such system at the start, and they had to figure it out on the go. This delay highlights the importance of having processes and funding mechanisms ready in advance.
At the end of the day, we need to ask ourselves: Where do we want to go with this? Are we willing to make the necessary investments to ensure we’re prepared for future pandemics?
Andrew 00:03:33: When it comes to pandemic vaccines, you want to rely on big pharmaceutical companies because they know how to produce them at scale. While universities, like Oxford, are great for research and development, large-scale production is where big pharma excels. The challenge is that the pharmaceutical companies that make the vaccines we routinely use for our children and adults are often hesitant to take on pandemic vaccines.
Andrew 00:04:08: The hesitation isn’t due to scientific difficulty—it’s about risk. For big pharma, investing heavily in a pandemic vaccine is risky because while there might be short-term success, the demand can drop off quickly after the pandemic subsides. That financial uncertainty is a big deterrent. The reality is that money remains a central issue across all parts of the vaccine process, from development to rollout. Without proper funding and financial incentives, it's hard to get the key players involved.
Moderator 00:04:44: Beyond pandemic preparedness, you’ve done significant work on vaccines for diseases like pneumonia in children and older adults, which have saved countless lives. Can you share more about that work and how it differs from pandemic vaccine efforts? Also, related to the financial risks you mentioned, there seem to be several infectious diseases for which vaccine technology already exists, but we haven’t rolled them out globally. Is this because the health economics don’t align with broad implementation?
Andrew 00:05:21: Most of my career has been dedicated to developing vaccines for young children, particularly targeting bacterial infections that result in high mortality rates. Pneumonia, for example, has been a major focus for me because it impacts children across the globe, whether they’re in high-income or low-income countries. Fortunately, vaccines for pneumonia have received sufficient funding and support over time.
Andrew 00:05:59: Another area I’ve worked on is typhoid, a bacterial infection caused by drinking contaminated water. Typhoid affects millions of children every year, causing hundreds of thousands of deaths. The vaccine technology for typhoid has existed since the 1980s, but it wasn’t widely developed or rolled out until 2022. The reason? There was no commercial or financial incentive to produce a vaccine for low-income populations.
Andrew 00:06:49: What changed in 2022 was a decade of persistent effort to generate demand for the vaccine. Indian companies, such as the Serum Institute of India, stepped in to produce the vaccine at scale. They realized that even with a small profit margin, the demand made it viable. Unfortunately, the lack of financial incentives has held back many other vaccines. Diseases that occur in specific regions, like certain viral outbreaks in Africa, struggle to attract investment because the market is too small for pharmaceutical companies to profit.
Andrew 00:07:15: This is a significant challenge in vaccine development. We know these vaccines can have a massive impact, but without financial incentives, progress is slow. It takes time, dedicated effort, and often alternative funding models to ensure these life-saving vaccines reach the people who need them most.
Andrew 00:07:31: One critical part of vaccine development is building evidence to show the burden of disease. For example, we conducted a large-scale study in Africa and Asia, involving three countries and 300,000 people, to demonstrate the significant impact of certain diseases. This evidence is crucial because it helps make the case to governments that vaccines should be a priority for the population.
Andrew 00:08:09: A major challenge in low-income countries is the lack of infrastructure to measure the burden of disease effectively. Health ministries often want to introduce vaccines but struggle to convince finance ministries to allocate the necessary funds. What makes the difference is having reliable data to show the true extent of the problem. When we’ve been able to provide this evidence, it has created demand for vaccines and helped governments justify the investment.
Andrew 00:08:52: It's not just about having the technology to solve the problem; it's also about generating the evidence and creating systems that connect public health priorities with financial decision-making. Without this, it’s difficult to move forward, especially in resource-limited settings.
Moderator 00:08:52: Let’s move to audience questions now. We’ve received a lot of them, and I’ll start with the most upvoted. First up: Do you feel more confident after COVID that we’re now better prepared for future pandemics?
Andrew 00:09:32: I think there’s definitely some improvement. Certain parts of the ecosystem needed to respond to pandemics have gained knowledge, which will help in the short term. However, I’m not confident this will be sustained over the long term. Governments, for instance, often lack continuity in their preparedness plans. While there’s more awareness now, I’m concerned about whether it will translate into long-term readiness.
Moderator 00:09:57: A very popular question: Do you know why AstraZeneca decided to make their COVID-19 vaccine not-for-profit?
Andrew 00:10:22: Yes, there are a couple of reasons. One is commercial. AstraZeneca had to reassure their investors about this decision, and there’s a business logic behind it. For big pharmaceutical companies, making a profit during a pandemic isn’t the primary goal—it’s more about stepping in to solve a crisis. By addressing the pandemic, they can resume their usual operations and development afterwards.
It’s also interesting that their involvement with the vaccine coincided with a lot of public goodwill, though whether that’s directly related, I’m not sure.
Andrew 00:10:52: Then there’s a second, more personal reason. Pascal Soriot, AstraZeneca’s CEO, talked about consulting his kids on the decision. Apparently, their perspective influenced him—they encouraged him to go for it. It’s an example of how personal values can play a role in these big decisions.
Moderator 00:11:19: Let me combine two related questions: What if the next pandemic involved a virus that was deliberately manmade? If a malicious actor created a more pathogenic or dangerous strain, how would that impact our ability to respond?
Moderator 00:12:12: A tough question: How would we handle a pandemic if a virus was deliberately manipulated by a malicious actor?
Andrew 00:12:12: That’s a challenging one because the answer depends on how the virus was engineered. Let me frame it differently: nature has already produced viruses we struggle to respond to, like HIV. HIV emerged in the early 1980s, and despite decades of work, we’re still far from a vaccine.
Andrew 00:12:47: The problem with HIV is that it mutates so rapidly. By the time a vaccine is developed, the virus has already changed. It evolves even within a single individual’s infection. So, it’s possible to imagine engineered viruses that are even more mutable or transmissible, which would make them incredibly difficult to counter.
Advances in synthetic biology are a double-edged sword. On one hand, they help us better understand proteins and antigens, which could aid vaccine development. On the other hand, they might provide tools that bad actors could exploit to create something more potent than anything nature could produce.
Andrew 00:13:42: History tells us pandemics are inevitable. Nature isn’t “trying” to cause harm, yet we’ve had six influenza pandemics in the last 150 years, along with the ongoing HIV pandemic and outbreaks of diseases like smallpox and the plague. If malicious actors enter the picture, it’s reasonable to expect them to develop pathogens that could surpass anything we’ve encountered naturally.
Andrew 00:14:19: The best strategy to prepare for such threats is to focus on cross-viral research. For example, with coronaviruses and influenza, we already know the pathways to develop vaccines. The challenge is to continue expanding this knowledge across other viral families to be better prepared for both natural and engineered threats.
Moderator 00:14:50: You’ve highlighted a lot of challenges, but let me ask: if the UK government suddenly decided to allocate £2 billion for pandemic preparedness and made you responsible, how would you use it to maintain vaccine production capabilities and readiness?
Andrew 00:14:50: That’s a great question. First, it’s essential that any manufacturing infrastructure built for pandemics is also used in peacetime. You need facilities producing something useful day-to-day, not sitting idle waiting for the next crisis. If you don’t, when the pandemic hits, no one will know how to operate the technology effectively.
Andrew 00:15:59: Right now, the UK has limited vaccine manufacturing. For example, the only vaccine manufacturing we have onshore is near Liverpool, focused on influenza vaccines for children. Even that process isn’t fully localized—vaccines are manufactured in Liverpool, shipped to the U.S. to be bottled, and then sent back here for use. We lack a complete, self-sufficient ecosystem for vaccine production.
Andrew 00:16:36: Beyond building manufacturing capacity, securing the supply chain is crucial. Producing high-quality vaccines requires specialized components that meet rigorous standards. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the cell-growing bags needed for manufacturing vaccines were in short supply globally. The Trump administration even blocked their export, which created massive bottlenecks.
Andrew 00:17:15: So, if I had £2 billion, I’d focus on three things:
Building a state-of-the-art facility that produces vaccines during peacetime and can rapidly pivot during a pandemic.
Developing a resilient supply chain to ensure uninterrupted access to critical components.
Training and maintaining a skilled workforce that can operate this infrastructure effectively, both in calm times and crises.
Moderator 00:17:46: Those are excellent points. It really underlines how much investment is needed to create a system that’s prepared for the next global health threat.
Andrew 00:20:09: To maintain pandemic vaccine production capabilities, facilities must remain active during peacetime by producing vaccines or other critical products for regular use. This keeps the infrastructure and workforce operational. Additionally, ensuring a resilient supply chain is crucial. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, reliance on specific U.S. suppliers for cell culture bags created vulnerabilities when exports were restricted. An end-to-end supply chain strategy is essential to reduce dependencies and increase preparedness.
Moderator 00:21:02: Over lunch, we discussed the challenges posed by the anti-vaccine movement, which limits vaccine rollout. A question has come in about addressing vaccine hesitancy, particularly among outspoken Christian groups. How should this be approached?
Andrew 00:21:46: The key to addressing vaccine hesitancy lies in providing positive, accessible information and ensuring access to both vaccines and trusted health professionals who can answer questions and reassure individuals. Hesitancy often stems from rational concerns—parents, for instance, want to understand vaccines better before deciding for their children. Many people simply need access to credible advice, which is a logistical issue rather than an ideological one.
The truly anti-vaccine movement is a small minority. While conspiracy theories can fuel unshakable beliefs in some, the focus should be on the majority who can be reassured with accurate, positive messaging. Attempting to counter negative messages directly often backfires by amplifying those messages, so communication strategies must focus on promoting trust and positive narratives.
Moderator 00:23:38: That’s insightful. Another question relates to safety concerns and the long-term effects of vaccines. How can we reassure patients about potential effects decades down the line?
Andrew 00:25:15: Concerns about long-term safety are valid, but there are key points to consider. Pandemic vaccines, despite being developed quickly, underwent extensive trials with an unprecedented number of participants. Billions of doses have since been administered, providing robust data on safety and effectiveness. Routine vaccine trials also meet stringent regulatory standards, testing thousands before approval.
While rare side effects—occurring in fewer than one in a million cases—might not appear during trials, strong post-rollout monitoring systems ensure they are identified and addressed promptly. This allows adjustments for specific population groups as needed.
As for effects decades later, most vaccine side effects emerge within four to six weeks after administration, linked to the immune response. There’s no evidence from any vaccine developed to date of issues emerging 12 or more years after administration. While it’s scientifically impossible to predict 50 years into the future, the current data is very reassuring.
Moderator 00:28:11: This is the most upvoted question, so we should address it directly. What probability would you assign to COVID-19 having originated from a lab?
Andrew 00:28:50: I don’t think COVID-19 came from a lab. Here’s why: a colleague of mine in Australia was part of a team studying viruses in parts of China before the pandemic. His team investigated the wet market thought to be the outbreak's source. Despite efforts by Chinese authorities to clean the area and remove animals, they found traces of the virus in spots linked to sick animals and early human cases.
Regarding the speculation about the furin cleavage site in the virus, which some argue could only be lab-engineered, there’s evidence of similar sequences in other naturally occurring coronaviruses. These findings make a natural origin far more plausible.
That said, whether the virus originated from the wet market or a lab isn’t the central issue. The real concern is transparency and biosecurity. Even if this virus didn’t escape from a lab, ensuring strong lab safety protocols worldwide is critical to preventing future outbreaks.
Moderator 00:30:52: Many questions have come in about the intense experience of responding to the pandemic. How did you approach solving such an urgent problem while avoiding burnout and maintaining a balance between work and rest?
Andrew 00:30:52: That period was incredibly intense, but it taught me the importance of focusing on teamwork and prioritization. Solving such a vast, urgent problem required collaboration with others who shared the ambition to make a positive impact. Delegating responsibilities and trusting team members allowed me to focus on key areas while ensuring the workload was distributed.
Maintaining balance was challenging but necessary. Building short breaks into the day, even just a walk or stepping away from the desk, helped maintain focus and perspective. Beyond that, staying connected with the team—acknowledging successes, however small—kept morale high. Ultimately, it’s about remembering why you’re doing the work: the impact it can have and the lives it can save.
Andrew 00:31:29: It’s a great question. I thought you might ask about my emotions during that time, but as a scientist, I try to focus on the things I can control. My daughter often points out that I stick to this belief. One thing I learned during the pandemic was the importance of not dwelling on things outside your control. A lot of the emotional strain comes from trying to manage what you can’t change.
However, there was a moment in July 2020 when we got the first results from the phase one trials, and the media frenzy became overwhelming. Every hour, we were getting inquiries from journalists all over the world, and it was impossible to manage the narrative. I was overwhelmed, trying to respond to everyone, but at a certain point, it became clear that controlling it wasn’t possible. That was a humbling experience.
Andrew 00:32:23: The major takeaway for me is that the pandemic response is a shared responsibility. It wasn’t just about the scientists or the leadership; it was about everyone—from the cleaner ensuring the lab was safe to the runners who kept the lab functioning. The whole team was crucial. It’s that support system, including from senior leaders, that gets you through stressful times.
Moderator 00:33:48: Who were the unsung heroes of the pandemic? I hope that helps answer that question as well.
Andrew 00:33:48: Absolutely. The unsung heroes were all those behind the scenes—those making sure everything ran smoothly, everyone in the labs and the logistical support teams. The pandemic response was a collective effort, and everyone played an essential role.
