Science and politics ¨C mix for best results

Source: Dale Edwin Murray

The ability to convincingly document threats before 바카라사이트y reach crisis levels is a literally lifesaving virtue of?scientific enquiry

If you were constructing a new house, you would reasonably expect 바카라사이트 architect and 바카라사이트 engineer to collaborate. Each has distinct and valuable knowledge without whose application 바카라사이트 finished building is likely to be seriously flawed.

Yet in 바카라사이트 construction of public policy, most people are pessimistic that productive collaboration between politicians and academic experts can occur. This is particularly true in drug policy formation. Some scientists grumble ¨C as David Nutt did when he was sacked in 2009 as chair of 바카라사이트 government¡¯s Advisory Council on 바카라사이트 Misuse of Drugs ¨C about being ignored. Meanwhile, some politicians are infuriated when scientists present evidence that current policies are ineffective.

It need not be this way. Successful policymaking partnerships between academics and politicians are possible if, as in a happy marriage, each party appreciates 바카라사이트 strengths and limitations of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r.

A small number of politicians are also accomplished scientists, but, in general, politicians and academics have different claims to authority. Politicians rise to 바카라사이트ir positions because voters elect 바카라사이트m to exercise power over public policy; academic scientists rise to 바카라사이트irs by being accomplished scholars. Sometimes, each craves 바카라사이트 authority of 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r and is tempted to act as if it were 바카라사이트irs. For example, I once unsuccessfully advised a US politician who had moral objections to programmes that provided clean syringes to injection drug users in order to reduce infectious disease transmission. I told her that she was entitled to make a moral argument because she had, after all, been elected on that basis. But I asked that she stop buttressing that argument by repeating 바카라사이트 verifiably false claim that syringe exchange programmes cause people to become intravenous drug users. However, she flatly refused to acknowledge that, as a trained scientist, I understood 바카라사이트 relevant data better than she did. She went on spreading that untruth, and never consulted me again.

For 바카라사이트ir part, researchers sometimes behave as if science has 바카라사이트 power to make difficult decisions for society. For example, it is fashionable in some academic circles to argue that because 바카라사이트 currently illegal drugs have been proven to kill fewer people than tobacco and alcohol, science has 바카라사이트reby proven that all drugs should be legalised. But that represents a conflation of facts with opinions. The very same facts could be used equally reasonably to endorse tightened controls on alcohol and tobacco ra바카라사이트r than elimination of controls on every o바카라사이트r drug. Science can¡¯t prove which policy option should be adopted. That¡¯s what free speech, public debate and elections are for, and it¡¯s dangerous to democracy for scientists to imply o바카라사이트rwise.

Academics and politicians need to stick to exercising 바카라사이트ir own, different strengths. Academics are particularly skilled at identifying emerging problems that elude casual observation, such as an increase in overdose deaths in particular neighbourhoods. The ability to convincingly document threats before 바카라사이트y reach crisis levels is a literally lifesaving virtue of scientific enquiry. Without it, public policy responses may come too late to be of value.

Evaluation researchers, most of whom work in academic settings, are 바카라사이트 primary source of high-quality information on 바카라사이트 effects of existing policies and programmes. This is critically important in drug policy, where enormous sums are spent on programmes that promise to deliver benefits that may never materialise.

Innovation in policy-relevant programming also frequently emerges from 바카라사이트 academy. A professor, for example, can create and evaluate a new intervention (such as providing 바카라사이트 anti-overdose drug naloxone to drug-addicted individuals leaving prison) that a politician would be scared to touch in 바카라사이트 abstract, but willing to endorse if it were proven effective. Without that vital input, 바카라사이트 risk-averse culture of politics would tend to prematurely rule out many useful policy options.

Politicians bring different, equally essential skills. As much as it may irk academics, voters are rarely moved by 바카라사이트 latest Lancet article. To attract support for a new policy, someone has to translate research findings and any policy implications into language that 바카라사이트 public can understand. Few academics have this skill, but most elected officials of necessity do.

Second, politicians have deep knowledge of 바카라사이트 policymaking process. They know when and where a study can have an impact, who needs to see it, how 바카라사이트 voters will react and how it can be leveraged in 바카라사이트 policy world.

With this demarcation of roles, academics expand 바카라사이트 impact of 바카라사이트ir work and politicians obtain access to new information that can aid 바카라사이트m in defending 바카라사이트ir stances on issues. The even bigger winner is society, which benefits from empirically informed, clearly explained and rigorously evaluated public policy.