Science is the only safe source of knowledge that works in making public policy. This statement neatly sums up the perspective of Peter Calow, a professor of science, technology, and environmental policy at the Humphrey School of Public Affairs. He’s just published a new e-book on the subject, Science in Public Policy for the Public.
Calow’s work at the intersection of science and policy has been informed by his career spanning the United States, Denmark, and Britain—in faculty positions and government advisory roles, particularly for the European Commission. At a time when public trust in institutions and scientific expertise is uneven, Calow asserts that understanding how science actually works is essential for a healthy democracy.
Calow argues in his book that the only way to consistently deliver effective policy solutions is by basing them on fact-based science, in both the natural and social sciences. However, he adds, it’s a mistake to say that science should decide what those policies should be.
We asked Calow to describe the relationship between science and public policy, and how to better communicate science processes and outcomes to the public.
What inspired you to write this book for a public audience, rather than for academics?
Science is the great success story—not only driving technological innovation and how to manage it, but also giving us a deeper understanding of our social world. It is the only source of knowledge that works. But misunderstandings about how and what science delivers at all levels can stand in the way of effective deployment. So I have written the book for a broad audience, not just academic specialists, which includes the public and policymakers.
Was there a point during your career that convinced you science needed to be better communicated to the public?
For many years, I worked as a policy advisor for the European Commission, the main executive body in the European Union (EU). Their scientific advisory committees (of which there are many) make recommendations on such things as safe standards for food, drinking water, health, and the environment. The committees make recommendations to the Commission, which has powers to implement various policies. Yet neither the advisory committees nor the European Commission are elected bodies.
For example, I saw decisions to intervene (a blanket ban) in genetically modified organisms, and not to intervene in fluoridation of drinking water. Both were decided without public consultation. As a result, citizens affected by those decisions were frustrated that they had no say. Some describe the Commission as elitist (technocracy turns people off), and this is one reason for the rise of populism.
Many people misunderstand how science contributes to policymaking. What's the difference between science "informing policy" and science "deciding policy"?
A good example comes from my own specialty of risk policy. Science informs the process by working out the relationships between exposure to chemicals from industrial and agricultural sources (including greenhouse gases), and adverse effects on people and ecosystems. But science is silent on what is acceptable. In a democracy, that should relate to the preferences of those affected, not those of the scientists doing the work. To act as if science decides policy politicizes science.
You note that science isn’t free from bias—but that it’s designed to overcome it. How can scientists and policymakers help the public understand that?
Most people will recognize bias in themselves. It is deep seated and often leads us in the wrong direction. This has gotten in the way of human progress: false knowledge does not work. The feature of science that allows escape is the requirement, invented by the first members of the Royal Society of Science 500 years ago, that research results be repeatable. Initially, this was by public demonstration; now we rely on scientific journals to check research for reproducibility.
As the business of science has expanded and artificial intelligence (AI) has become more intrusive, it has been harder to ensure reproducibility. Most recognize that scientific journals need to sharpen their acts. And they can, by using the emerging opportunities of electronic publishing to insist on publication of all data so that it is open for scrutiny well before publication; using AI itself to identify fraud; and being quicker to identify and exclude bad science.
This book bridges the natural and social sciences. What do you hope policymakers, educators, and readers in general will do differently after reading it?
For all of them, a recognition and understanding that the sciences are powerful sources of facts that are used in policies that address issues arising from the interaction of people with the natural world, and people interacting with other people. And that they recognize the important distinction between having facts and deciding what to do with them.
For policymakers, I hope they have more concern about getting the facts right through science, and connecting with the preferences of those affected, through a democratic process. For science practitioners, they should have more concern about delivering facts without confusing personal preferences.
For educators at all levels, I hope for more explicit recognition in their curricula of the general process of science, as a way of delivering public policy and as a foundation for democracy. For general readers, I hope they take away a better understanding of what science is, why it is the only safe source of knowledge that works, and how it interacts with the policy process.
If readers take away one message from your book, what should it be?
That the sciences inform policy that works, because they confront bias by requiring reproducibility and address uncertainty by systematically identifying and reducing it. There is no better source of knowledge for public policy.
