The Disconnect Between Science and Policy

By: Julianna Fischer

The notion that science and policy have a direct relationship is one that many in the sciences and policy making disciplines likely share. It is generally understood and taught in our education system that science seeks to uncover new information and further knowledge, and policies can be drafted to fit new scientific findings once a study is published. Conducting scientific studies is an indicator of where policy is required to intervene, and what is performing as we hope it does. Conflicts can be remedied by turning to science, reducing any uncertainty, and implementing a policy to bring about a desirable outcome.

Based on these conceptions, climate policy in the United States would be aggressive, encompassing, and effective because scientific consensus has alerted policymakers that there is a critical problem with atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, which needs to be addressed. There would be no dispute as to whether or not climate change is occurring and we would be taking steps to mitigate and adapt to the changes. So why aren’t there policies of this sort? Why is there widespread inaction in Congress when science is the most advanced it has ever been? Analyzing the complex relationship between science and policy making suggests a direct relationship across disciplines does not exist in the way that is commonly understood.

The book Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making by David Collingridge and Colin Reeve offers an analysis of how science has come to function in modern society. The authors present two myths that are fundamental in understanding the modern relationship between science and political decision-making. The first myth “holds that the first step in making any decision is to reduce the uncertainties with which it is surrounded by gathering in as much relevant information as possible” (Collingridge & Reeve, 1989). The author explains that reducing uncertainty would require relevant facts to be gathered before a policy is decided upon. Gathering facts and performing studies takes time, and many political problems are not positively affected by the addition of new information. The new version of the study which was performed in order to reduce remaining uncertainty would be outdated by the time it was published, and more studies would be needed leading to a cycle of study after study with no new policy implementation (Collingridge & Reeve, 1989).

As was touched upon in How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse by Daniel Sarewitz, more scientific knowledge often does the opposite of clear up uncertainty; it leads to more political controversy (Sarewitz, 2004). Sarewitz suggests scientific uncertainty, similarly to Collingridge and Reeve, can be understood “not as a lack of scientific understanding but as the lack of coherence among competing scientific understandings” (Sarewitz, 2004). With this explanation it becomes clear that the uncertainty is not caused by uncertainty of the technical aspect of science, but competing disciplines or values that are hard to remedy by technicality alone.

The second myth touched on by Collingridge and Reeve is that science is capable of providing any information that is necessary to influence policymaking (Collingridge & Reeve, 1989). “The myth of the power of science holds that whatever information is needed to reduce uncertainty in making a particular policy choice, science can meet the challenge…” (Collingridge & Reeve, 1989). Science however, does not have the answer to all of the questions necessary to formulate a best-case-scenario policy. Scientists cannot determine the social justice implications of a new water treatment facility, or the effects on an indigenous community’s standard of living if their sacred burial grounds are sacrificed to industry. Science cannot quantify personal narratives, experiences, or values. Values are especially important in policymaking as Collingridge and Reeve assert this is the true source of disconnect between science and policy making (Collingridge & Reeve, 1989).

Roger Pielke labels problems that the second myth holds true for as Abortion Politics (Pielke, 2014). Abortion politics are conflicts in policy making in which a dispute is not based on technical aspects of the science, but of values surrounding the implications of various policy alternatives. Abortion politics are influenced by power and emotion, rather than facts and comprehensive knowledge (Pielke, 2014). Sarewitz touches on a similar idea in what he refers to as the scientization of politics. Scientization of the problems we face is a political strategy by advocates or opponents of action in order to “advance their value positions or interests” (Pielke, 2014). When science is politicized we get away from debating about what the science is telling us, and the debate becomes based on values and goals of politicians and policymakers.

The problematic nature of the scientization of politics, or the politicization of science, can be seen in the lack of effective climate change policy that was touched on earlier. Climate science is at a point where a very strong majority of scientists agree the climate is changing and is caused by anthropogenic changes to the atmosphere primarily caused by the burning of fossil fuels. But climate science was never that heavily disputed, the scientists and politicians that casted doubts on the topic were generally doing so for political reasons, notably in order to protect the business model and profits of corporations. It is clear that climate change was not debated on scientific grounds, but rather differing values about economic models of progress and the implications climate policy could have on these interests. The politicization of science seems to be ingrained in our democracy so deeply it would be implausible to strive to prevent this.

Not all controversies are politicized however (Sarewitz, 2004). Sarewitz outlines a number of reasons why some science avoids the politicization process. One reason he gives for this distinction is that “value positions are well articulated from the beginning” (Sarewitz, 2004). If policy makers are straightforward with their values about controversial subjects the root of the controversy is brought to light and the conversations can be more effective in mitigating the differences in value. Other explanations Sarewitz provides also relate to the transparency of values, except for one. The fourth reason he gives as to why some controversies are not highly scientized is that, “available policy options are broad and appealing enough to attract a political consensus” (Sarewitz, 2004). I find this to have the most legitimacy in avoiding scientization in our bipartisan political arena.

If a policy option is attractive to both sides of an issue, regardless of the values and beliefs that are at the root of this agreement, then policies can be effective in their end goal. This is the type of argument that puts environmentalists and conservative business owners in the same domain talking about transitioning our energy systems, except one party is concerned with energy security and the other, environmental concerns. By focusing on the end goals instead of the values that are underlying the reasons for these goals, policies can be implemented that are attractive to all parties involved. But does this really get at the problem of disconnection between science and policymaking? While this may be effective in creating policies that are useful and true to the science, this does not solve the underlying issue of systemic disconnect between science and policy at all. It seems the most effective way for this problem to be remedied is by transparency of the values underlying beliefs surrounding a controversy.

As time goes on the easiest problems will continue to be solved and the most challenging problems will have to be addressed. Small steps in the right direction will only make small strides in contested political debates such as climate change. Is it possible to confront the values of oneself with those of an opposing belief system? This seems unlikely in our current political context. Sarewitz advocated for a “quiet period” in which science is put on pause in order to “create space for underlying value disputes to be brought in the open, explored, and adjudicated as such in democratic fora” (Sarewitz, 2004). I believe it may take a shift in paradigm thinking and reevaluation by each discipline in order to stop the politicization of science and forge a new bond between science and policymaking.

Bibliography

Collingridge, D., & Reeve, C. (1989). Science Speaks to Power: The Role of Experts in Policy Making. New York: St Martin’s Press.

Pielke, R. (2014). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sarewitz, D. (2004). How Science Makes Environmental Controversies Worse. Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, 385-403.