Policy Decisions Based on Scientific Evidence

During her senate confirmation hearing to head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson firmly stated that she will rely on scientific evidence and data to guide her policy judgments and decisions. She stated,

Science must be the backbone of what EPA does… EPA’s addressing of scientific decisions should reflect the expert judgment of the Agency’s career scientists and independent advisers.

If I am confirmed, I will administer with science as my guide. I understand that the laws leave room for policy-makers to make policy judgments. But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity for EPA’s technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.

When it comes to science policy, I completely agree with Ms. Jackson; policies that are put in place need to be based on the related scientific evidence and findings, and I am quite ecstatic that she made the above statements publicly.

Interestingly, Erik Stokstad of Science Insider noted that Ms. Jackson’s statements, understandably, mentioned that science will be the “backbone” and will serve as a “guide”, which, as Mr. Stokstad highlights, leave some wiggle room to make judgment-based decisions.

I think we all agree that there is a necessary and inevitable wiggle room when crafting policies. However, it made me wonder about previous failed science policies…

Did they fail because they were not based on scientific evidence? Is it possible that the evidence turned out to be wrong or was used prematurely? Or is it possible that the “wiggle room” was sufficient to compromise the value and in some ways negate the scientific findings that the policy was trying to reflect?

I think it is crucial to identify and evaluate previous failed science policies and try to understand where they went wrong. Careful examination of the reasons behind past failed science policies will help us avoid previously-made mistakes when crafting new science policies.