Thursday, March 09, 2006
Policy From Science
On Tuesday, Prometheus blogged about using science as a policy definer as opposed to informer. It's a very refreshing post, let me quote the conclusion
The second sentence in that quote is highly informative; however, science likes the power it currently has - it wants to be able to hold it when it can. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion the public will never have a sufficient understanding of science to not experience the "undermined confidence" about which they worry.
What matters in this instance is clarity. In public debate we need to learn to once again express our values as opposed to merely making "scientific" assertions, especially when the data does not make the assertion nearly as strongly as the PR guy needs to make it to get the policy done.
In the end this demonstrates the failure of a purely naturalistic worldview. If the data is inconclusive from whence can values be drawn? Quite the dilemma, isn't it.
That is the role the Judeo-Christian ethic has played in our nation's history until very recent times. That is the role is needs to continue to play.
Related Tags: public policy, science policy, inconclusive data, global warming, acid rain, values
So long as policy debates are dominated by people who believe that universal agreement on a particular set ?facts? or perspective on ?truth? is a prerequisite to policy action, don?t be surprised to see continued gridlock and inaction. That is a truth you can count on.The fact of the matter is science often doesn't know with certainty, so it cannot be relied upon to dictate the correct policy choices. That does not mean science cannot provise useful information ot the public policy discussion, it just means that science cannot provide enough certainty to dictate what policy should be. The post quotes extensively an editorial from the journal Global Environmental Change and one of the quotes provides a great example of what I am talking about
the accumulation of information may lead to ?contradictory certainties? that may make decisions more complicated rather than self-evident. The result is often a surfeit of information from which decision makers with opposing viewpoints can pick or choose. A decade ago, writing in this journal, Herrick and Jamieson (1995) recognized just this problem with the US National Acid Precipitation Assessment Programme (NAPAP), which generated a veritable banquet of data and findings, but little guidance to help non-specialist decision makers to determine which items should be considered in the policy choice. As a result, the Clean Air Act Amendments were passed without the benefit of a clear scientific direction. In the end, public disagreements about science become a surrogate for political debates about values and science is reduced to the spectacle of duelling assessments.Do you see the issue here? Science quite often does not automatically lead to truth! So how do we make decisions? The same quoted editorial says this
Opening up to the public the conditional, and even disputatious nature of scientific inquiry, in principle, may be a way of counteracting society's currently excessive reliance on technical assessment and the displacement of explicit values-based arguments from public life (Rayner, 2003). However, when this occurs without the benefit of a clear understanding of the importance of the substantial areas where scientists do agree, the effect can undermine public confidence. [emphsis added]The first sentence of that quote is the important one - VALUES matter. Science does not have values, at least it shouldn't. In the end policy decisions are and should be based on values, not merely data, particularly when data conflicts or is inconclusive.
The second sentence in that quote is highly informative; however, science likes the power it currently has - it wants to be able to hold it when it can. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion the public will never have a sufficient understanding of science to not experience the "undermined confidence" about which they worry.
What matters in this instance is clarity. In public debate we need to learn to once again express our values as opposed to merely making "scientific" assertions, especially when the data does not make the assertion nearly as strongly as the PR guy needs to make it to get the policy done.
In the end this demonstrates the failure of a purely naturalistic worldview. If the data is inconclusive from whence can values be drawn? Quite the dilemma, isn't it.
That is the role the Judeo-Christian ethic has played in our nation's history until very recent times. That is the role is needs to continue to play.
Related Tags: public policy, science policy, inconclusive data, global warming, acid rain, values
