Week 4, “The Case Study”
Science has become an integral part of public policy-making in governments
worldwide. Scientific policies have been developed and implemented by governments to
address various issues such as health, the environment, technology, energy, and many
others. However, the process of developing scientific policies is complex and requires
careful consideration of scientific evidence and various societal factors. In this essay, I will
analyze the scientific conduct behind making scientific policies in government.
When developing scientific policies, policymakers need to identify the problem they
want to solve and collect relevant data to understand the problem's scope and impact. For
example, policymakers may want to address air pollution in a particular region. They would
need to collect data on the pollutants, their sources, and the population's health in the
region affected by air pollution. This data collection process requires a thorough
understanding of the problem and the ability to identify relevant data sources.
On one hand, it is argued that scientists should be involved in policymaking because
of their expertise and knowledge. Scientists are highly trained in their fields and have
access to the latest research and data. This means that they are well-positioned to provide
policymakers with advice on issues such as climate change, public health, and energy
policy, among others.
Moreover, science is based on evidence, and policymakers need to make evidencebased decisions. Scientists can provide policymakers with the proper relevant information
needed to make informed decisions based on their latest research. This can help to ensure
that policies are effective in achieving their intended outcomes.
In the deep dive reading “The Public Wants Scientists to Be More Involved in Policy
Debates,” it states that even though the public wants scientists to be more involved in
policy Debates, “many scientists are loathe to involve themselves in policy debates for fear
of losing credibility.”(Oreskes 2022) Six in ten Americans believe that scientists should be
more active in policy debates over issues related to their fields based on a study done by
Pew Research Center. While 73% of Democrats say that scientists should be more active in
policy debates, only 43% of Republicans think this way. (Kennedy, Funk 2019) There seems
to be a general distrust in science by the Republican Party. This can be seen on display
with Covid issues. Republicans were the ones to combat mask mandates and testing even
though it was advised by the CDC. Both sides still believe that the scientific method
generally produces accurate conclusions. If the public believes that it would be beneficial
for scientists to have a more active role in the policies that affect them and they have to
abide by, then that should be taken into account.
On the other hand, there are arguments against scientists being involved in
policymaking. One argument is that scientists are not necessarily trained in policymaking
and may not understand the political, economic, and social factors that are involved in
making policy decisions. This means that scientists may not be able to provide
policymakers with advice that is practical or feasible.
Furthermore, scientists may not have a good understanding of the broader societal
impacts of the policies they are recommending. For example, a policy that is effective in
achieving its intended outcome may have unintended consequences that are harmful to
certain groups of people. Scientists may not have a good understanding of these broader
impacts, and policymakers need to take these impacts into account when making policy
decisions.
Policymakers may have biases or personal opinions that influence their decisions on
the laws and policies they make. Policymakers are not immune to the same biases that
affect everyone else, and their biases can affect their recommendations for the policies
being made. For example, a representative from Iowa has an obligation to do what is right
for their constituents in Iowa and may neglect the broader community as a whole. Given
that scientists have a broader perspective on the issues they research, allowing them to
have a more active role in policymaking can be very beneficial. Leaving it strictly up to
policymakers can lead to policies that are not evidence-based or that are not effective in
achieving their intended outcomes.
In my opinion, scientists should play a role in policymaking, but they should not be
the ones making policy decisions. Scientists can provide policymakers with the evidence
they need to make informed decisions, but policymakers are the ones who need to balance
scientific evidence with other factors such as political, economic, and social considerations.
If scientists are going to take a more active role in policy debate they must remain
committed to proper scientific conduct. This means being transparent about their research
findings and limitations, avoiding biased or exaggerated claims, and engaging in
constructive dialogue with policymakers. By doing so, scientists can ensure that their
expertise is used to inform evidence-based policies that benefit society as a whole.
The language of scientists and policymakers differ which often creates a disconnect
between the two groups. Scientific articles and data are often seen as hard to understand
and comprehend due to the use of Greek letters, mathematical symbols, and scientific
terms. (Choi, Pang, Lin, Puska, Sherman, Goddard, Ackland 2005, 633)While it’s a general
practice for scientists to publish their results and have their papers reviewed, policymakers
don’t do much to publish their findings and designate a lot of them confidential. These
scenarios create an even bigger divide between them.
Scientists will never have full control of policies related to their fields, so the only
way to move forward is to figure out how to bridge this gap. One solution is to improve
scientific communication. Scientists can make an effort to communicate their research
findings in simple language that policymakers and the public that aren’t very
knowledgeable in the specific field can understand. Policymakers can also provide
feedback to scientists on the usefulness of the information and how it can be better
communicated. This can help to improve the effectiveness of scientific evidence in policy
decision-making. Another solution is to encourage collaboration between scientists and
policymakers. This can be achieved by creating platforms for dialogue and interaction
between the two groups. For example, policymakers can involve scientists in the policymaking process by consulting them on relevant issues and providing opportunities for them
to share their expertise. This can help to ensure that policy decisions are informed by the
latest scientific evidence.
In conclusion, while scientists have an important role to play in policymaking, they
should not be the ones making policy decisions. Policymakers are responsible for balancing
scientific evidence with other factors such as political, economic, and social considerations,
and they need to take into account the broader societal impacts of the policies they are
recommending. There needs to be more communication and willingness to trust the
scientists that are involved in these discussions. By working together, scientists and
policymakers can ensure that policies are evidence-based, effective, and reflective of the
public's values and priorities.
Work Cited:
Choi, Bernard C. K., Tikki Pang, Vivian Lin, Pekka Puska, Gregory Sherman, Michael
Goddard, Michael J. Ackland, et al. 2005. “Can Scientists and Policy Makers Work
Together?” Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 59 (8): 632–37.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.031765.
Kennedy, Brian, and Cary Funk. 2019. “Democrats and Republicans Differ over Role and
Value of Scientists in Policy Debates.” Pew Research Center. Pew Research Center.
August 9, 2019. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/09/democratsand-republicans-role-scientists-policy-debates/.
Oreskes, Naomi. 2022. “The Public Wants Scientists to Be More Involved in Policy
Debates.” Scientific American, September.
https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0922-78.