Anyone reading this post will probably have seen Martin Robbins' litmus test series for The Guardian, in which the respective political parties were asked a series of specific questions on science policy.
A running theme is that of evidence-based policy. Though Ben Goldacre has been a vociferous supporter of evidence-based health policy for a number of years, it's become a deeply important issue in the wider scientific blog-o-circle in the run up to this election.
But what does evidence-based actually mean?
Essentially, it means basing policy on the best available information and advice. Hopefully it's provided independently, handled with scientific rigour, and understood by those making decisions on our behalf.
Politicians use evidence, or statements in some way related to fact, to justify policy. The data can be sliced up any number of ways to support a policy whenever it's politically convenient. So it's important that raw, independent evidence is in the public domain. If publication of raw data can be demanded of scientists, it should certainly be demanded of government.
The handling of evidence has huge consequences, whether being used to determine drugs policy, the response to climate change, or to justify war.
But what were asking for, dressed up in nerdy terminology, is that politicians use the best available information, without bias, manipulation or coercion, and are open about the whole process and the sources of the data.
It's just another way of asking for honesty. Please?
-------------
I also write the 10minus9 blog
Wouldn't it be something, to look back in wonder on an age when policy was driven by ideology, prejudice and ignorance. I hope I live to see this most fundamental change in our system of government.
I'm not optimistic. Every political party risks having its most cherished ideologies held up to the light of objective appraisal. What party leader will have the balls to say to his supporters "This central tenet of our party, this holy cow that you've held dear through umpteen general elections, it's all bollocks. The data shows it's a flawed idea."? None of the present lot, I suspect.
I´m not optimistic either. I was just thinking about what evidence based policy might actually mean, and in my view it boils down to honesty. I´ve seen enough Yes, Minister to have lost optimism on that front, but it doesn't mean losing the ideal.
Within Dutch Universities all theses and research within healthcare and food topics, it is obligatory to draw conclusions on evidence based theory.
Proof in practice is getting more and more important and theoretical analysis alone opens the door for conclusions that are wrong, just because of a growing leap between reason and practice. This could be good for science, but not for healthcare.
Cv ketels