Save the census

“Science-based policy” is a remarkably vague idea, and given to sloganistic use even. The idea that scientific evidence relevant to policy decisions should be sought or produced and taken into account in policy decision-making is clear enough, and compelling. However, the phrase lends itself to being used in other less clear and compelling senses, especially as deployed in rhetorical contexts when the one using it is advocating for a particular policy outcome in a particular case.

One danger, and it occurs quite frequently in public discourse, is of a conceptual slippage from: a) policy that respectfully takes into account scientific evidence as this evidence is relevant to the policy decision; b) policy that is supposedly directed by scientific evidence (as if values were not also an essential component of policy-decision-making), and that selects the policy option preferred or recommended by those who are expert in the relevant science (in effect both obscuring, and privileging, the values that the experts, in some instances quite self-interestedly, happen to have).

The danger here has been referred to in the literature as ‘generalization of expertise’. It is necessary, and quite reasonable, to defer to experts in the matters in which they are expert. However, this deference, and such authority as experts may have qua experts, is sometimes transferred to experts (or assumed by them) even when their opinion goes beyond expert opinion and is a value judgment.  For example, the opinion of a statistics expert that a voluntary census will yield data significantly flawed and inferior compared to the mandatory long form census is properly an expert opinion. A lay person who argued with the statistician on this point would be foolish and a policy maker who neglected to take it into account would be missing an essential piece. However, the opinion of the statistical expert that we should therefore maintain the mandatory long census is not an expert decision but a value decision, a properly political decision that should take into account not just the scientific evidence (and of course ideally the best evidence available) relevant to the policy issue, but also the values engaged in and by it. The science alone does not and cannot yield policy decisions; for that, values are also necessary.

Whatever your opinion about the census issue, this opinion, on one side of the policy issue or the other, will be determined ultimately by your values. And that is true also for the experts who advocate for the policy that the long-term census should be maintained. Their expertise in the scientific evidence relevant to this question does not give them any special authority to pronounce on the policy issue. Expertise in the evidence does not carry over into expertise in the policy question (there is no ‘expertise’ in the policy question as such – it is not a matter for experts).

Here is the piece from the Nature article in which I think the generalization of expertise occurs.  

“The incident comes amid a growing sense of unease about the right-leaning Canadian federal government's apparent disregard for science-based policy. The country continues to support the mining of asbestos and its export to the developing world, despite repeated calls to ban the toxic substance and cries of protest from the medical community. Canada has been one of the most obstructive countries at climate-change talks, and continues to be protective of its development of the tar sands — one of the world's dirtiest sources of oil. The federal government has fought against maintaining the supervised injection facility for drug addicts in Vancouver, despite staunch protest from the medical community and studies showing that such programmes are helpful.”

When the ‘medical community’ calls for this or that policy option regarding the policy options mentioned, this is not an expert judgement properly speaking. For example: “What are the effects of asbestos?” is an expert question; “should its import be banned” is a policy question and in making it it will be quite appropriate to weigh the negative health impacts against other considerations. The opinion of the medical community about this ban (their value judgement) should not be confused with their opinion about harmful effects, etc.

Sorry for the length of this post, but the issue is complicated and deserves careful attention.

The cause of science-based policy will best be served if: a) politicians leave the expert questions to the experts and ensure that expertise/evidence is brought to bear on policy decision-making as appropriate; b) experts do not generalize their expertise when commenting on policy issues and usurp the role of politicians, or obscure the value issue by representing it as if it were a scientific one.