Is Government policy an evidence-free zone?
Credit where it's due. A House of Commons committee plans to ask the Government Office for Science on what evidence policies are based.
This is a great idea, and should produce some interesting answers, as well as some high-quality sidesteps by civil servants and ministers. The questions the Innovation, Universities, Science & Skills Committee wants answered are: (1)What is the policy? (2) On what evidence is the policy based?
It's chosen a good list of topics, too:
- the licensing of homeopathic products by the MHRA
- the diagnosis and management of dyslexia
- swine flu vaccinations
- literacy and numeracy interventions
- the teaching of "pseudoscience" at universities
- health checks for over 40s
- measuring the benefits of publicly-funding research
- the future of genetic modification (GM) technologies
- the regulation of synthetic biology
- the use of offender data.
It has already written seeking answers to these questions, and will consider them when Parliament resumes in October.
Additionally, the Committee is calling on the public to identify other areas of government policy that require an "evidence check" and are subject to the two questions above. Topics must be within the remit of the new Committee - to be called the Science and Technology Committee - to look at all matters within the responsibility of the Government Office for Science, including cross-departmental responsibility for scientific and engineering advice-and should also be capable of being covered in a maximum of two oral evidence sessions if the Committee decides to follow up the initial evidence check (each of which could involve two or three sets of witnesses), be timely, and not relate to individual cases/matters before Courts or Tribunals.
Surely Straight Statistics readers will have a few ideas about policies that lack evidence, statistical or otherwise? They should be sent, in 750 words or fewer, saying what the topic is, why it should be evidence-checked in late 2009/early 2010, and a list of suggested witnesses, should an oral evidence session/sessions take place, to iuscomm@parliament.uk by October 1, together with a declaration of interests, if any.
JMW (not verified) wrote,
Sat, 22/08/2009 - 18:32
The list is not as ambitious as it could be. In fact, I'd consider it a "safe" list where anything on it is not actually going to make too many waves one way or the other except maybe GM.
One of the most expensive areas of policy is Climate Change, the STern report suggests some staggering costs.
We far from the "consensus" claimed and amongst the increasing number of voices raised against Athropogenic Global Warming scenario and even, if accepted, concerns about the true significance of CO2, are a great many scientists and climatologists.
The reaction of the Hadley Centre to requests for data and the secrecy surrounding the exact manner in which the temperature data has been manipulated (adjusted? compensated?) makes one wonder exactly how the Government can make such a significant commitment to climate change.
Even accepting AGW, there is a very real question (Blomberg) about whether combating it will deliver any real results or if it is the best use of what money we have. Others suggest that eco-engineering is a far better, more affordable and more cost effective approach to the problem, if it can be shown to actually exist.
In Australia they seem to have been more open eyed than most and it is no longer the case that there is even a consensus among governments.
I'd suggest that Climate Change should be at the top of the list.
We should start by requiring the CRU source code to be disclosed (e.g. as per the petition to No 10 at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CRUSourceCodes/)as part of this enquiry. Without this it is difficult/impossible to satisfy one of the fundamental requirements of the scientific method; the ability to replicate the research let alone "Peer Review" the work, but we all know Peer Review these days is little more than an exercise in Political Correctness Monitoring.