5/4/2023 0 Comments Embr secret hosrHe knocks down false notions that scientific evidence can by itself directly influence policy outcome. “It's a much messier and complicated process than that”. They think it is a formal process by which a problem is identified, analysed, an action proposed and conclusions reached”, said Peter Gluckman, paediatrician and chief scientific advisor to the prime minister of New Zealand. “Scientists often extrapolate from the scientific method to policy. ![]() Scientists in turn can harbour false expectations. Policymakers are often confronted with making big decisions in a fog of uncertainty owing to limited information, and ambiguity due to the many ways a policy problem can be understood. Nonetheless, acting on scientific advice is not always a straightforward process. Nutt's experience was so negative that he goes so far as to say: “I'm a meritocrat. The topsy-turvy attitude was summed up, he said, by one minister who, when asked by a parliamentary committee if he understood the evidence, answered: “Evidence is what we look for to support our policy decisions”. “If you said something they wanted to hear, they loved it. Nutt commented that the government's approach to drug policy was guided by the Home Office, rather than the health department. ![]() … the liaison between scientists and governments is not always a happy one He argued that illicit drugs should be classified according to actual evidence of harm and dependence, which would rate alcohol above ecstasy and cannabis. Memorably, he noted horse riding was more risky than taking ecstasy. “When I started, I was under the impression that scientific advice would be listened to”, recalled David Nutt, psycho-pharmacologist at Imperial College London, UK, who was sacked from the UK's Advisory Council of the Misuse of Drugs in 2009 after clashing with politicians over drug harm and classification. Some advisors have even had bruising experiences at the coalface of policymaking. Researchers often complain about politicians cherry picking evidence to support particular policy decisions or policymakers who do not understand or act upon the correct evidence. However, the liaison between scientists and governments is not always a happy one. He thus believes that formal structures that provide expert advice to government are necessary, because otherwise “you are likely to pick up somebody's opinion that may have a self-interest, overtly or covertly”. It's just like finance really: you need money for everything”, said Frank Gannon, Director of the QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute in Brisbane, Australia, and former Director of EMBO and Science Foundation Ireland. ![]() “Every department crosses over into science. ![]() Scientific advice is crucial to deal with emergencies such as the Ebola or Zika outbreaks and for addressing long-term threats such as food supply, water shortages or climate change. Many challenges demand input from experts, with almost every government arm having a science angle, be it in fisheries, agriculture, transport or drug policy. Yet evidence-based decision-making has become a byword for good governance. During the Brexit referendum, a British politician made a now notorious quip about people having “enough of experts”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |