Friday, March 05, 2010
Science.. great, but not better than politics
Next week is National Science and Engineering Week, and I'll be mostly in Manchester with the Big Bang Fair, doing shows about engineering. So I'm partly preparing for that by catching up on what's new and exciting in technology.
But I'm also preparing for another event on March 20th, looking at science in a different context. I'm helping convene a session about evidence-based policy at the Battle for Politics.
So next week I'll be celebrating the capacity of science and technology to contribute to human progress. The following week I'll be arguing - as I do in this article in Forth - that science advice should not determine policy. If that seems contradictory, think about why politicians are so keen not only to get advice from scientists, but to be seen to get that advice.
Of course you can't make meaningful policy about something like nuclear power, or vaccination, without expert input from scientists. But there's also the issue that 62% of the general public, surveyed in 2007, said they trusted scientists. And only 18% of them trusted politicians (ranking joint bottom with journalists, I'm sorry to say).
So if you're a politician wanting to gain public support for a new policy, what do you do? Make a reasoned and principled argument for, say, banning smoking in public places? Or point to a stack of evidence for the health benefits, put together by independent scientific advisors?
I'm not saying that politicians are afraid to argue a political case, and want to hide behind the borrowed authority of science....
No, you're right, I am. If you think I'm wrong, you'd better be there on the 20th to tell me why.
But I'm also preparing for another event on March 20th, looking at science in a different context. I'm helping convene a session about evidence-based policy at the Battle for Politics.
So next week I'll be celebrating the capacity of science and technology to contribute to human progress. The following week I'll be arguing - as I do in this article in Forth - that science advice should not determine policy. If that seems contradictory, think about why politicians are so keen not only to get advice from scientists, but to be seen to get that advice.
Of course you can't make meaningful policy about something like nuclear power, or vaccination, without expert input from scientists. But there's also the issue that 62% of the general public, surveyed in 2007, said they trusted scientists. And only 18% of them trusted politicians (ranking joint bottom with journalists, I'm sorry to say).
So if you're a politician wanting to gain public support for a new policy, what do you do? Make a reasoned and principled argument for, say, banning smoking in public places? Or point to a stack of evidence for the health benefits, put together by independent scientific advisors?
I'm not saying that politicians are afraid to argue a political case, and want to hide behind the borrowed authority of science....
No, you're right, I am. If you think I'm wrong, you'd better be there on the 20th to tell me why.
