Good policy is informed by science, not dictated by it

Good policymakers have much to account for. Science may demand X, while economics demands Y, while our morals, values, and culture demand Z. When those inputs compete with one another, they become less of a certainty and more of a suggestion that must be weighed against others to derive an output. And if they conflict with the Constitution or undermine our national security, they may be futile suggestions. Policymakers are first and foremost choice makers.

A good example illustrating these competing interests is cigarette smoking. Scientists discovered nearly 60 years ago that smoking can cause lung cancer, emphysema, and other serious diseases. To activists, medical professionals, and public health officials, that scientific fact dictated stamping out smoking. The most efficient way would be to ban the manufacture, sale, and consumption of cigarettes.

However, such a ban would destroy tobacco farmers and their communities and hurt the economies of the states where it’s grown and processed. Various economic principles argue against a ban, as bans also often lead to black markets that make implementation difficult. Increased rates of lung cancer, greater medical costs to society, and secondhand smoke concerns are considered not as isolated scientific factors but instead by also weighing their secondary effects on culture, families, and society. What science itself would dictate as the solution is not the only valid input; many others must be considered.

Of course, prohibition was not the only policy available, and federal, state, and local governments have implemented policies (some good, some bad) aimed at curbing tobacco use ever since. They’ve dedicated resources to public information campaigns, facilitated litigation against tobacco companies, instituted minimum ages for buying cigarettes and slapped exorbitant taxes on them, outlawed smoking in an increasing number of public places, and more. 

Another more controversial example is climate change. Many would say that science has registered warming global temperatures. While many scientists debate the causes of or whether warming is occurring, we are told that “science is settled” on this. Some scientists ascribe that trend to human activity, such as fossil fuels creating “greenhouse gases.” Activists, abetted by the media, demand that the government curb fossil fuel energy production and consumption. But the United States economy is literally powered by fossil fuels — from oil rig jobs to plastics factories to transportation, travel, tourism, and more.

Abruptly abandoning coal, oil, and natural gas would destroy the economy and drive down our standard of living. And as we saw during the Biden administration, the vaunted wind and solar power alternatives are nowhere near ready for prime time. That is the economic view. But it would also leave the U.S. at a commercial, strategic, and maybe even tactical disadvantage versus China and other adversaries. That’s a national security problem. And finally, the massive assertion of government power entailed in pursuing “zero emissions” would leave Americans less free. That’s the constitutional and moral problem.

In real crises, when policy decision-making is compressed into hours or days, maintaining perspective about the place of science is difficult but all the more important. During COVID-19, the public health bureaucracy issued scientific pronouncements on what seemed like a daily basis — often contradicting itself. Government officials acted on them because they felt obligated to in a life-and-death situation. 

Mask-mandates, school shutdowns, bans on gatherings, and vaccine mandates — all were controversial and infringed on self-determination and personal freedom. And they all gave “the science” deference. Epidemiologists made all of those rapid scientific dictates without considering the economic impact, the moral and ethical concerns, the impacts on liberty, or even other scientific fields. In other words, even if science was the lone input, COVID-19 responses failed to factor in a multidisciplinary perspective.

We now know that the science was changing, that interpretations of it were flawed, and that bureaucratic inertia, power struggles, arrogance, and reluctance to admit mistakes, exacerbated by a lack of transparency, beset the bureaucracy. 

RFK JR. SET TO MEET WITH MAJOR FOOD BRANDS AMID ‘MAHA’ SHAKE-OUT

In short, all the human failings, complications, and competing interests that good policymakers balance affected the people who told us what science means. Downstream from them, the people charged with formulating policy were under tremendous pressure to privilege the science but were not given reliable science to work with. As a result, it will be long before public health bureaucrats and political leaders regain the people’s trust.

Gaining and keeping the people’s trust should be part of the goal of formulating any policy. Just as there are many inputs, there are many outputs. Science is one of the most important human endeavors, but it is an endeavor. It is never really settled. What we learn from science is only as valuable as our ability to interpret it. For science to contribute to the public good, policymakers must treat it as a competing good.

Wade Miller is a Senior Advisor at the Center for Renewing America.