Policy rules and regulatory frameworks

Policy and Science

Fiddler on the Roof

Science has traditionally been presented as the a priori fact-finding, theory-establishing stage one of policy making. Stage two of this conventional approach has policy makers utilizing the "empirical truths" that science offers in support of policies to be enacted to solve a policy problem. Yet both policymaking and empirical research are -- by their very nature -- ongoing human endeavors. Policymakers want the best that science has to offer -- when they need it -- for decision-making, policymaking, and policy implementation. Science marches to its own tune, with agendas set by dynamics such as funding for research or public and private priorities and pressures (Kingdon, 1984). And, increasingly, in a funding environment that is cooling off, the ability to do research is often determined by its application -- public service adding a positive valence -- and the ability to enact policy is dependent on scientific evidence that the policy problem will be robustly and adequately addressed through implementation of the proposed policy.

Haller & Gerrie (2007) argued that "Decisions must be made and not postponed until absolute scientific consensus has been reached, and thus, scientific input to contentious policy debates must be solicited in the here and now." (p. 143). According to Haller and Gerrie, the power of science to support evidence-based policy decisions is undermined by the very act of exposing science to the demands and parameters set policymakers. The researchers further suggest that scientists position themselves as hired guns with particular interest groups rather than posing as objective consultants to decision-makers.

Speaking Truth to Power

The issue is not if science can provide "truth," but whether policymakers agree that there is not an efficient frontier for policymaking wherein all the policy makers will have perfect and complete information with which to formulate policy (Wildavsky, 1979). It is essential that scientists communicate that there is no perfect solution -- no silver bullet, no magic potion -- that can be offered up for timely utility in the policymaking stream. It is incumbent on scientists to communicate in such a way that they "identify and further the public interest by discrediting policy options serving only special interests and helping to select among 'science-confident' and 'hedging' options" (William, 2004, n.p.). The two disciplines must agree to acknowledge the degree of uncertainty and skepticism that is the hallmark of empirical science -- even when it is applied to policymaking. Uncertainty must not be mistaken for discrediting of the scientific process, nor must it be used to justify inaction (William, 2004).

The application of science is not an abandonment of its inherent open-ended nature, wherein hope for an absolute truth lives. Science is never finished, but this fact does not -- and should not -- prevent its application. The arbitrariness of picking some point in the scientific process, and basing policy decisions on that point, can be unnerving. Yet, it is what is absolutely necessary to match a policy problem to contemporary (as in most current) scientific thought in order to develop a best practice policy solution (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1984).