A scientist’s view of the European Parliament: How politicians approach data

The role of politicians is to formulate, debate, and enact policy. For this process to work effectively, they need high-quality, unbiased data. The way politicians choose and use data therefore has a profound influence on the world we live in. Likewise, the way scientists package their data will affect how policymakers view those data. This post discussing science-based policy comes from my time at the European Parliament as part of the British Ecological Society’s Parliamentary Shadowing Scheme.

“Evidence-based policy” is a commonly used term nowadays. I cringe when I hear it, because I think all policy should be evidence-based. The term is an extension of “evidence-based medicine” which is equally scary (what were we basing medicine on in the past – witchcraft?)

The idea is there is a single large pool of data that can be analysed and interpreted to generate policy. However, one can take different samples of the data and come to wildly different conclusions about patterns and processes; this will lead to different policy outcomes (see below).

BlogPost1

The way data is selected and used is therefore of paramount importance. The problem is that many policymakers are not scientists and therefore haven’t been trained in how to select and interpret data – it’s not their main focus. Likewise, most scientists are not trained to present data to policymakers – their main focus is to communicate with other scientists. Important aspects of patterns and process can therefore get lost in translation. This is particularly true when describing uncertainty and complexity associated with patterns in data.

The difficulties of uncertainty and complexity
Scientist: There is strong evidence that an increase in X leads to an increase in Y.
Policymaker: Can you say for certain that this is the case?
Scientist: No.
Policymaker: So the evidence is inconclusive?
Scientist: There is a 5% chance this relationship could have occurred by chance alone, so the association between X and Y is compelling.
Policymaker: So if we boost X, we’ll get an increase in Y?
Scientist: Well that depends on Z.
Policymaker: ?
This conversation isn’t particularly useful for either the Scientist or the Policymaker. Bridging the gap in approaches requires specific training for both parties. Fortunately, this is starting to happen.

Identifying consensus in the scientific community
Let’s consider the following statement: “Humans are contributing to global climate change”. There are scientists that are sceptical as to whether this statement is valid, but they are in the extreme minority. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that climate change has a significant manmade component. On more than one occasion, I heard MEPs in the European Parliament say “it depends which scientist you ask”, which while technically true, massively misrepresents the general view of the scientific community. Does every single climate scientist agree that manmade climate change is a thing? No. Is there an emerging consensus? You betcha: we are warming our planet.

Learned societies as couriers of scientific information
Having identified the gap between scientists and policymakers, we must now think of ways to fill it. First, we need scientists to better communicate their findings to non-scientists. More and more scientists are achieving this, but it is a skill that takes time to develop. Also, we need policymakers to think carefully about the evidence they use to formulate and debate policy before the policy has been drafted. This is also a skill that takes time to learn and develop. So what can be done in the meantime?
I argue that learned societies can play an important role in providing scientific advice. For example, if a policymaker wants to understand how to deal with invasive species (which can sometimes, though not always, threaten native species – e.g. North American squirrels transmitting diseases that kill our native red squirrels), then get in touch with the British Ecological Society and get the evidence*. There are numerous scientific learned societies across the world whose raison d’être is to communicate their science to as wide an audience as possible. Use them.

As ever, comments are particularly welcome.

*This isn’t just a plug for the British Ecological Society – honest!

 

Advertisements

One thought on “A scientist’s view of the European Parliament: How politicians approach data

  1. An addendum to this is that whilst scientists hope to impart a greater understanding of the methods of science to policymakers, so too it is incumbent upon policymakers (and scientists with policymaking experience) to impart a better understanding of policymaking on scientists.

    Whilst all good policy should have a strong evidence-base, it is not true that all scientific evidence makes (or can make) good policy. Policymakers must also marry the science base with all the other components that make policy, which include broader societal, economic or logistic parameters; indeed, the next step is often then one of feasibility – as to whether the science meets broader societal, economic or logistic parameters. If you’re lucky, this can see you into some collaborative funding to figure out how to operationalise the scientific advice. To some scientists the merest suggestion that the the science must be weighed against anything else is abominable. But this smacks of arrogance.

    Of course, winning over the policymaker is only half the battle. If the policymaker doesn’t think they can win the battle with their peers, stakeholders (and constituents), then this will also influence the degree to which they ‘accept’ or choose their data source. Which is to say, you may convince the policymaker – but you’ll have to help them convince the public.

    Which then returns to us the value of science communications in the public domain, especially focussed on key areas of misunderstandings. There is a social contract to take the public with us on our exploits, because even whilst some may argue against such a limitation, I think we could all list a range of scientific developments with the greatest capacity to better society, but which are uniformly rejected. The cutting edge cuts both ways.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s