Evidence-based government in the US

[swansont]

We used to have it, and it would be nice to have it again. The Office of Technology Assessment was disbanded more than a decade ago.

 

"It's not enough to bitch about anti-science when it happens, the root of our problems stems from a government which no longer has a sound, non-partisan scientific body to guide debate. Let's ask congress to re-insert their brain, and refund the OTA."

 

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/09/bring_back_the_ota_bring_back.php

 

I think part of the US government's global warming denialism (and denialism on other topics, too) that has gone on in that span would have been far more difficult if there had been a non-partisan OTA in existence. The thing about science is that it's not democratic and politicians have to stop pretending that it is. Every viewpoint does not deserve equal consideration.

[Pangloss]

The subject seems to imply that this affects all aspects of governance, but the post focuses specifically on science and technology assessment. If you really meant the latter I'd be happy to insert the words "assessment program" between "government" and "in" in the subject for you.

 

(But if it's the former then I'll happily argue the point with you. They're both interesting points for debate, IMO.)

[swansont]

I had hoped that was self-evident, but yes, that's what I was implying. Evidence-based decisions for science and technology-related policy, instead of making up whatever you (or your think-tank) want the "truth" to look like.

[CDarwin]

Is there a petition about? Saying things on a forum is nice but it doesn't really do anything.

[Pangloss]

I don't think the purpose of the OTA was to silence critics or form actual legislation. I don't think I want to live in a scientific dictatorship any more than I want to live in a military one. It's bad enough figuring out what drugs are good for me this week as it is.

[CDarwin]

I don't think the purpose of the OTA was to silence critics or form actual legislation. I don't think I want to live in a scientific dictatorship any more than I want to live in a military one. It's bad enough figuring out what drugs are good for me this week as it is.

 

Of course not. Scientists don't make policy; that's what we elect politicians for. But politicians need the best science to make good policy.

[bascule]

I saw this article as well and entirely agree there should be a non-partisan / bi-partisan agency tasked with interpreting any bills concerning science for legislators. I believe the overwhelming majority of legislators are ill-equipped in terms of science knowledge to accurately interpret science-based legislation for themselves.

[Pangloss]

Of course not. Scientists don't make policy; that's what we elect politicians for. But politicians need the best science to make good policy.

 

Sure, like I said I don't have a problem with bringing back the OTA. Anything to help government officials understand technology and ignore all the special interests yammering in their ears is a good thing. And the OTA's budget was friggin' trivial.

 

What I'm not so sure about is:

 

The thing about science is that it's not democratic and politicians have to stop pretending that it is. Every viewpoint does not deserve equal consideration.

 

See the problem isn't the specificity of the science, it's the fact that you have ideologues running around parsing details and spinning them this way and that. You're not going to "silence" that just by having the government declare the science to be valid.

 

We do that all the time even without the OTA and where has that gotten us? The EPA, the FDA, all these agencies are perfectly happy to declare a specific bit of science valid, but you still have hoo-hah's jumping up and down afterwards (just ask Tom Cruise about depression medication). The reason for bringing back the OTA would be specifically to help Congress in this area (OTA was a congressional entity), and that's a good idea because congress is even more susceptible to special interests (and irate, ill-informed voters) than the executive branch is.

 

But it's not going to "silence" anybody. That wasn't the purpose of the OTA, it isn't the purpose of the executive-branch science-evaluating entities, and it shouldn't be the government's place to silence people anyway.

 

Besides, you just end up looking foolish when the science turns up differently a few years later. Just ask the FDA, they know all about that one. (How long before the EPA comes back with a "woopsie" on global warming? Or gosh, sorry, I guess fetuses DO feel pain. Wups!)

 

The way you silence ill-informed ideologues is by going around them and educating people. Disarm the demogogues by explaining why we're doing what we're doing, what will happen if new information changes the outlook down the road, and how you're going to monitor/test things. (Exactly what the FDA should be doing with drugs and long-term testing.)

[swansont]

One problem you have now is that you set up a "my expert vs your expert" scenario to give the appearance of legitmacy to policy that was dictated by an ideology. By being nonpartisan and independent, you can also reduce or avoid squelching science that runs counter to that policy (of which we've seen several examples recently).

 

"My expert vs your expert" isn't how science works. You can usually find a credentialed person to support outlandish claims, especially if there's money in it. But "find evidence to support my position" is not how science works. Independent review of science tells you which expert is talking through his hat, and ignoring the evidence that is counter to their position. The judicial system has been moving this way, allowing judges to consult with experts outside of the paid witnesses, to get an independent view of things, for just this reason.

[John Cuthber]

"Evidence-based government in the US

We used to have it"

When? I mean not just the US when did anyone have this?

A major part of a government's job is economics and I think the evidence there is often poor. At best it's often a toss up between believing the left wing expert or the right wing expert.

[Reaper]

Evidence and reality has always proved too much or too inconvenient for any governing body or type of culture to handle. That's why they always go to crap and fall apart in the end....

 

 

I think the one thing that has to be made clear to the public is that in science, it either is, or isn't.

[bascule]

One problem you have now is that you set up a "my expert vs your expert" scenario to give the appearance of legitmacy to policy that was dictated by an ideology. By being nonpartisan and independent, you can also reduce or avoid squelching science that runs counter to that policy (of which we've seen several examples recently).

 

Yes, the only way such a group could be successful is if those involved have absolutely nothing to do with the actual policy they're preparing science assessments for. The policy making process and science reporting process need to be completely decoupled.