In as much as science deals with things that cannot be affected by policy (ex: stellar physics or nuclear fusion), the "law" doesn't apply I think, except maybe in perception (people may believe that a particular nuclear fusion technique doesn't work even though it's been demonstrated but policy forbade it to be implemented).
For some cases, we would want Goodhart's law to apply - ex: climate change. We'd want actions to be taken to reduce the impact on the planet as we gather and report climate parameters accurately. Similarly, we'd want accurate reporting of gender discrimination in society to result in the reduction of such discrimination. The question really is the way the change is effected. If "salary difference" is an indicator of gender discrimination for example, law makers can pass laws that fix it, thereby removing its effectiveness as an indicator .. but we're happy for even that at some level. That would be similar to a government sending teams to re-freeze melting glaciers because climate scientists are using it as an indicator of global warming.
True policy thinkers, though, would want to ask the "five whys" and work to fix the underlying problem.
Are you kidding, most political policies seem to be have essentially no connection to scientific results. Be it in energy policy, climate policy, education policy, economic policy, or whatever...
Science is science and policy is policy. In the end, if you want science to be useful, you have to recommend a policy, and scientists can do that, too. You just have to be clear on what is scientific results and what is policy recommendations based on said results.
yes certainly science can inform policy decisions. How do I put this...
Science has nothing to say about what we should set as the objectives of our policy. Science can, however, inform our approach to attaining that objective.
There’s always a balance to be struck between what the actual science says and what will be manageable as law.
Like, sure the science could say that if the temperature range is between 10-15c you can safely gather with 20, 15-17c only 15, and 17c+ only 10. But that’s probably not the policy that is going out to the public because it’s too hard for people to actually live with and enforce.
Plus most of the purely scientific considerations were bastardized when they came in contact with political and economic considerations before being made into policy.
I think politicians generally don't make policy decisions based on science. I live in the UK and an obvious example is drug policy. They even fired the scientist whose drug research they didn't like.
But if the science agrees with a decision they've already made then they're happy to use if for justification, even if the science is junk (e.g. the crazy fines on taking children out of school in the UK).
Well, typically first there is a policy and then scientists have to come up with theories to support it. Only if it is not possible, policy changes to meet science somewhere in the middle.
I think the issue here is using science / evidence to push for policy changes when there isn't actually sound science or evidence. That can be done with sound policies that work just as well as it can be done with bad policies. But we should always be concerned when unsound science gets used. It can be used to shut down valid policy debates. And eventually, on a long enough time line, it will get abused by bad actors.
scientists shouldnt be in the business of setting policy. they should report facts and its up to the public in a democracy and its representatives to make the policy. policy setting adds value judgements to facts.
ie science can tell us the amount of deaths or tradeoffs associated with certain choices but should never make the decision itself.
I personally see it as an essential element of preserving democracy going forward. As science becomes a more influential component in public policy (it has arguably become the most influential component over the past 18 months), you end up with a governance style of “the law is whatever science says it should be”. If that science is not available for public scrutiny, then you have the added dynamic of “…and the science is whatever we say it is”.
Excuse me, but scientists are not public policy makers. Their job is to follow the evidence, not publish based on what they think will happen if they do.
Yes. I think this is especially problematic when a legitimate policy idea is defended _only_ with "It's science based". That's not enough. Good policy is agreeable to a majority of people (both in benefit and cost and is therefore usually a tradeoff for all parties). Being grounded in truth, as much as science can provide, is not enough.
You can use truth and facts to form an opinion and propose a policy, but it cannot be made to sound like the only option, or else we end up embittering those who would be put out by the policy, to the point that they have no recourse _but_ to attack the science and facts. You _have_ to be willing to tradeoff and find an imperfect compromise.
Add to that the fact that scientific discoveries and understandings are especially easy to attack _because_ they are evolving.
So the problem is basing policy on junk science. Is basing policy on junk science okay in some fields, but suddenly bad when it applied to genetics? Of course not.
What if it's not based on junk science, but on good science?
Policy makers are rewarded for making decisions. Scientists are rewarded for being accurate.
It's a constant battle. A politician with a science report has official CYA for whatever they do, as they were making the decision based on scientific estimates.
Scientists don't really ask for policies. That's the job of politicians. I'm not sure why they'd apologize for it.
Scientists just provide data and options. It's still true that the measures slowed down spread. That it didn't do it enough to justify putting the measures in place or not is more a matter of policy.
Same thing applies to climate change. Scientists provide the data that the climate is warming up. That it appears correlated with certain human activity, not all human activity, only some. And that the current prediction models show X, Y, Z effects in the coming future if the trend is not reversed.
Then politicians need to take that into consideration, and decide what policies to apply or not. Ignore the data and predictions? And possibly gamble that the harsh consequences will come, or put measures in place, which will affect the short term, but possibly avoid the predicted outcomes, alas also possibly be inconsequential because it wasn't enough or it eas too much, or there were other unknown factors at play that the models had not realized were there. Etc.
No. It's perfectly valid to use science to inform your policy decisions. But the headline demonstrates the recent tendency to assert that scientists should be the ones ultimately making policy decisions. There's an important difference there.
In as much as science deals with things that cannot be affected by policy (ex: stellar physics or nuclear fusion), the "law" doesn't apply I think, except maybe in perception (people may believe that a particular nuclear fusion technique doesn't work even though it's been demonstrated but policy forbade it to be implemented).
For some cases, we would want Goodhart's law to apply - ex: climate change. We'd want actions to be taken to reduce the impact on the planet as we gather and report climate parameters accurately. Similarly, we'd want accurate reporting of gender discrimination in society to result in the reduction of such discrimination. The question really is the way the change is effected. If "salary difference" is an indicator of gender discrimination for example, law makers can pass laws that fix it, thereby removing its effectiveness as an indicator .. but we're happy for even that at some level. That would be similar to a government sending teams to re-freeze melting glaciers because climate scientists are using it as an indicator of global warming.
True policy thinkers, though, would want to ask the "five whys" and work to fix the underlying problem.
reply