Evidence-based policy

Speakers: Nick Dusic; Dr Evan Harris; Robin Walsh; Jeremy Webb
Chair: Tony Gilland

In every field from climate change to education, politicians increasingly defer to experts, and scientific experts in particular. The government has surrounded itself with scientists, and politicians from all parties seems keen to cite experts evidence-based findings whenever they want to push new policies, whether early intervention in families to climate-change strategies. Too often the phrase the science shows is used to close down any possibility of debate; facts are scene to trump morality and politics. But is this indicative of a new respect for science, or rather a lack or political principle? Far easier to wave a peer-reviewed research paper and proclaim the science shows we have no choice rather than trying to convince the public of the merits of one or other policy decision.

Indeed it seems that when politicians dont go with the science, they find themselves without a leg to stand on. When the government sacked drugs advisor David Nutt last year, this was widely seen as an unwelcome and sordid intrusion of politics into questions better left to the experts. So do we live in a scientocracy, and if so, is this a sign of enlightenment and political maturity, or should we be worried about the undermining of democratic decision-making? Has there been an elision of the natural and social sciences, with the latter borrowing the authority of the former? Does the elevation of scientific expertise obscure unexamined political assumptions and orthodoxies? Indeed, is there a danger that policy-led research subtly reproduces political prejudices rather than uncovering genuinely inconvenient truths?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• evidence-based
• policy
• battle
• ideas
• institute
• politics
• debate
• 2010
• election
• science

[cleverfeller]

Science is an essential too. which can sometimes be weilded by incompetent or misled or misdirected by dishonest teams or individuals. .

Let's not confuse bad studies using bad proceedures with the value of good studies using good proceedures. The greatest issues around scientific politico-speak is in the areas of social-science. Frankly, I never accepted the word ''science'' and ''social'' should ever be conjoined in that perverse marriage. Social science is not science as a matter of fact.

[drchiodo]

Perhaps this discussion hadn't considered a few points:

- biases of political & scientific views as they relate to who benefits financially from the policy changes, testing the very issue direction

- scientific/economic value

- evidence based policy assumes integrity, it needs to tested by pragmatic if not long term thinking

- size of government & its costs not only financially but on the democratic process

- Libertarianism: choice, personal cost as a consequence & free will to follow through

[aerobique]

big/media is more interested in confusing the public with pseudoScandals and corporative propaganda etc.. Thats the main problem. They control the process of political/public comminication.

They manufactured a consensus in the public that its not about how to deal with global warming.. but IF it even exists

50% americans dont *believe* in global warming. This blocks reasonable political action.

[hawaiianiceman]

It's refreshing to see this discussion. As an American I wish that this type of discussion occurred here more often. Surely science can and should inform policy more than it currently does. However, science can also be "politicized" to justify strategy and outcomes of policies; eugenics being an extreme example. Research, or lack thereof, is determined by the funding sources which, in turn, are determined by influence, aka politics and/or wealth. Vicious cycle... "Independence" aside.