Don’t let science become a fig leaf for unpopular policies

Marina Murphy

But are our politicians really using science to make the best decisions? Or, as some would argue, are they just hiding behind science, rather than using their common sense? After all if they make the “wrong decision”, it wasn’t them, it was the science what done it.

Of course politicians can’t always rely on their common sense. And there are areas of politics where you would expect science to be central. Decisions over things like levels of exposure to pollutants for example tend to be evidence-based, rather than political.

But in many other areas of science, as with politics, there is less agreement. This means that no matter what “side” you are on, science can provide relevant, legitimised facts to make your argument.

Politicians and evidence

Governments are in the unenviable position of trying to make sense of all this "evidence". And herein, lies the problem. Politicians are not necessarily equipped to make judgement
calls on the validity of any scientific evidence. And with so much confusion, it must be tempting to manipulate the evidence to serve one's political interests.

And indeed, many would argue that this is the case. “All too often, policy is coming off the printer, as someone is being sent to get the evidence,” says Tracey Brown, CEO of Sense about Science, a UK charity dedicated to promoting good science in public debates.

US president George Bush is, to many, the poster child of this particular tactic. He is routinely accused of cynically manipulating science. While much of the rest of the world discussed strategies to tackle climate change, Bush poo-pooed the science, paving the way for US oil companies to do business as usual.

Bush's climate policies have not just ruffled feathers in the US, they have put the US at odds with much of the rest of the world. Similarly, in the US/European stand off over genetically modified crops Bush claimed the scientific high ground, branding Europe's position as based on "unfounded, unscientific fears”, but neglected to mention that US farmers and agrisciences companies such as Monsanto were losing millions of dollars in potential trade because of Europe's aversion to GM.

Given that most plant scientists are in agreement about the benefits of GM, Europe's stand may be unscientific. But the fact remains that European public opinion is against GM crops. However, if politicians were to make a decision as unpopular as making Europe GM friendly, science would provide a convenient scapegoat.

If it goes wrong, blame the science

Increasingly, governments are putting new policies forward that claim to start from the scientific evidence, argues Brown. “This means that no one has to front a campaign. They can distance themselves from the decision, and if anything goes wrong, it was the science that was at fault,” she says.

This is happening in several policy arenas. The issue of women returning to work after they have children for example is now routinely discussed in terms of science rather than policy. Instead of discussing appropriate state support for the working mothers, the debate has become about the effect on child development and their early years. “The result is that women wanting to work now find themselves taking issue with the scientists rather than the politicians,” says Brown.

According to Brown the solution is to educate politicians about science and to expose abuses of science. As an example, she cites a recent decision in the UK to ban full-fat milk in schools as a means to tackle obesity. “There is no evidence to support this. In fact, vastly overweight children do not drink milk, they drink fizzy pop,” says Brown. This policy is simply a ploy. “They just want to be seen to be doing something about childhood obesity.”

But at the end of the day, the politicians may not be as clever as they think. Because regardless of what science says, we say who gets to be in government.