One of the reasons public health sciences are so bad is because there is a cultural expectation that every research report should include a “policy implications” statement. This not only introduces inappropriate personal political philosophy, but is also done without any policy analysis, a semi-scientific assessment of what a policy would actually cost and cause to happen.
One of the reasons *current* public health policies are so bad, is that they totally ignore “policy implications” - ask the taco-loving population of Michigan about the implications of rolling back food safety surveillance & regulations, ask anyone involved in international epidemic relief efforts about the implications of offshore quarantine ...
Yes, well policy enactment obviously should involve some policy analysis. Or a lot of policy analysis.
A research paper on an outcome remains different. So long as the authors do not presume to suggest what should be done (policy) in light of their research, they do not need to do policy analysis. There is even some room to make a properly caveated statement like "These results suggest that we should investigate if there is a practical and cost-effective way to...." If someone makes a more concrete normative statement than that (even something as vague as "we should increase efforts to...", however, then they are making a claim about policy effects, cost-benefit, etc., and should not do it without doing a policy analysis (which they cannot do, and so they should just not do it).
so John Snow should have made a properly caveated statement like "These results suggest that we should investigate the cost-benefit ratio of obtaining your water from the Broad Street pump"?
When I hear “follow the science”, I imagine the facts, as revealed by science, leading you as far along a path of reason as it can and then a judgement must be made. Others might imagine having to follow a white coated pied piper along that path. Inevitably we always arrive at the conflict between what is said, what is heard and what is meant.
I really like the point Alistair made in this essay, which is that the science can show you what the world looks like, but at the point of policy, there are other values that come into play too. It seems like a clear jumping-off point.
That said, as a scientist, I spend a lot of my time speaking to policy makers and showing them data. It does become hard not to advocate for policies that you think will work, especially ones where you have done the research to show that they do. In that sense, I see a finer line.
If you haven't come across them previously, the distinguished German sociologists, Max Weber, wrote companion papers on 'Science as a Vocation' and 'Politics as a Vocation', first published in 1919 but widely reprinted in translation. They are a classic, and subtle, exploration of the issues that you deal nicely with in this blog..
Your points are well-taken. The waters are muddied by all those Actual Scientists in regulatory agencies like the FDA, CDC, NHI etc. charged explicitly with policy decisions.
Policy decisions may (in my view SHOULD) be informed by actual evidence when dealing with public health. But if they generally were, it's unlikely I would have read yet again an article in JAMA in the past 24 hours that ivermectin is ineffective in treatment of covid.
" Science has nothing to say about which of these values is right or wrong, better or worse." I need to take issue with this. Scientific investigation tells us clearly that we are inextricably interconnected, interdependent, as humans, living beings, and constituents of our extended environment. That's not just woo-woo Buddhistish philosophy, but hard scientific evidence. Science effectively informs values consistent with our interconnectedness. Repealing environmental regulations, clean water & food security safeguards, e.g., represent "value-like choices" that fly in the face of hard evidence.
“Stop epidemiologists from giving public health advice. Epidemiology has nothing to do with what people should do” - so it's OK to drink from the Broad Street pump?
So who then is going to set public health policy? Ron Johnson? Rand Paul? RFK Jr.? 47 himself? The PR departments of Taylor Farms and Raw Farms? Before I'm accused of being "political," there is nothing "political" about my critiques of these jokers.
Yes, it is for policy makers to make policy. That is indeed what they are elected for, as distasteful as some policy makers may seem to us.
Public health straddles this world. They can of course utilise evidence to recommend or implement interventions or policies - but this is not the job of the scientists, rather the practitioners.
So is silent complicity appropriate in the face of uneducated, unwise, or malicious policy? Seems the duty of every informed individual - regardless of the role society assigns them - to speak truth to power. Especially true now, where policymakers are not staying in their own lane, but have their dumb heavy hands on the levers of scientific investigation. I'd assert that it is not only appropriate, but essential that the scientific community calls out atrocities in public health policy. The PR department of Taylor Farms (no relation) seems to feel no compunction to relent.
Scientists are able, as anyone else, to advocate for what they think is right. These opinions can be informed by science.
But these opinions are not “following the science”. They are opinions that take into account science, our values and our worldview. That is the distinction.
Much of the "political" discourse in the scientific community has nothing to do with politics, but with issues that have been framed as "political" as if there were validity to differences in opinion. Regarding "at the point of policy, there are other values that come into play too" - like xenophobia, not valuing human life, ignoring our interdependency, prioritizing the "needs" of the oligarchy??
One of the reasons public health sciences are so bad is because there is a cultural expectation that every research report should include a “policy implications” statement. This not only introduces inappropriate personal political philosophy, but is also done without any policy analysis, a semi-scientific assessment of what a policy would actually cost and cause to happen.
One of the reasons *current* public health policies are so bad, is that they totally ignore “policy implications” - ask the taco-loving population of Michigan about the implications of rolling back food safety surveillance & regulations, ask anyone involved in international epidemic relief efforts about the implications of offshore quarantine ...
Yes, well policy enactment obviously should involve some policy analysis. Or a lot of policy analysis.
A research paper on an outcome remains different. So long as the authors do not presume to suggest what should be done (policy) in light of their research, they do not need to do policy analysis. There is even some room to make a properly caveated statement like "These results suggest that we should investigate if there is a practical and cost-effective way to...." If someone makes a more concrete normative statement than that (even something as vague as "we should increase efforts to...", however, then they are making a claim about policy effects, cost-benefit, etc., and should not do it without doing a policy analysis (which they cannot do, and so they should just not do it).
so John Snow should have made a properly caveated statement like "These results suggest that we should investigate the cost-benefit ratio of obtaining your water from the Broad Street pump"?
No, he should report the findings and implications of the relevant interventions to the appropriate policy makers so they could decide how to proceed
When I hear “follow the science”, I imagine the facts, as revealed by science, leading you as far along a path of reason as it can and then a judgement must be made. Others might imagine having to follow a white coated pied piper along that path. Inevitably we always arrive at the conflict between what is said, what is heard and what is meant.
I really like the point Alistair made in this essay, which is that the science can show you what the world looks like, but at the point of policy, there are other values that come into play too. It seems like a clear jumping-off point.
That said, as a scientist, I spend a lot of my time speaking to policy makers and showing them data. It does become hard not to advocate for policies that you think will work, especially ones where you have done the research to show that they do. In that sense, I see a finer line.
other values like the cost of the FDA Food Traceability Rule to big agriculture?
Excellent piece. Stands the test of time.
If you haven't come across them previously, the distinguished German sociologists, Max Weber, wrote companion papers on 'Science as a Vocation' and 'Politics as a Vocation', first published in 1919 but widely reprinted in translation. They are a classic, and subtle, exploration of the issues that you deal nicely with in this blog..
Your points are well-taken. The waters are muddied by all those Actual Scientists in regulatory agencies like the FDA, CDC, NHI etc. charged explicitly with policy decisions.
Policy decisions may (in my view SHOULD) be informed by actual evidence when dealing with public health. But if they generally were, it's unlikely I would have read yet again an article in JAMA in the past 24 hours that ivermectin is ineffective in treatment of covid.
" Science has nothing to say about which of these values is right or wrong, better or worse." I need to take issue with this. Scientific investigation tells us clearly that we are inextricably interconnected, interdependent, as humans, living beings, and constituents of our extended environment. That's not just woo-woo Buddhistish philosophy, but hard scientific evidence. Science effectively informs values consistent with our interconnectedness. Repealing environmental regulations, clean water & food security safeguards, e.g., represent "value-like choices" that fly in the face of hard evidence.
Confuse uninformed or malicious ideology with politics at your peril.
“Stop epidemiologists from giving public health advice. Epidemiology has nothing to do with what people should do” - so it's OK to drink from the Broad Street pump?
consider the deafening complicity of silence
So who then is going to set public health policy? Ron Johnson? Rand Paul? RFK Jr.? 47 himself? The PR departments of Taylor Farms and Raw Farms? Before I'm accused of being "political," there is nothing "political" about my critiques of these jokers.
Yes, it is for policy makers to make policy. That is indeed what they are elected for, as distasteful as some policy makers may seem to us.
Public health straddles this world. They can of course utilise evidence to recommend or implement interventions or policies - but this is not the job of the scientists, rather the practitioners.
So is silent complicity appropriate in the face of uneducated, unwise, or malicious policy? Seems the duty of every informed individual - regardless of the role society assigns them - to speak truth to power. Especially true now, where policymakers are not staying in their own lane, but have their dumb heavy hands on the levers of scientific investigation. I'd assert that it is not only appropriate, but essential that the scientific community calls out atrocities in public health policy. The PR department of Taylor Farms (no relation) seems to feel no compunction to relent.
Scientists are able, as anyone else, to advocate for what they think is right. These opinions can be informed by science.
But these opinions are not “following the science”. They are opinions that take into account science, our values and our worldview. That is the distinction.
elected representatives who are ignorant of these differences are at far greater risk of causing harm, as we are seeing played out on a daily basis.
Much of the "political" discourse in the scientific community has nothing to do with politics, but with issues that have been framed as "political" as if there were validity to differences in opinion. Regarding "at the point of policy, there are other values that come into play too" - like xenophobia, not valuing human life, ignoring our interdependency, prioritizing the "needs" of the oligarchy??
I'd suggest we are living in strange times, but truth is, we are living in very familiar times.