Frank Gibson: The dark area between science and politics

By Frank Gibson

Whanganui Chronicle·

3 May, 2018 03:00 AM6 mins to read

The New Zealand Parliament, where scientific study and analysis can transform into law.

Machiavellian manipulator or honest broker? Victoria University public policy lecturer Dr Verna Smith was the speaker at the Whanganui Science Forum last week, examining the interface where scientific data meets political expediency. FRANK GIBSON took notes on how government policy is made.

Benjamin Franklin is reputed to have said "in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

We cannot (yet) do much about the death part but we ignore taxes at our peril.
In many ways it is taxation that binds a society together. What the members of that society get in return for their taxes can make and break that society.

The job of working out the best way to spend the taxes, in a democratic society, is given to the elected representatives and therein lie the problems.

Dr Verna Smith started her talk by giving a rundown of her academic qualifications and working life in the area of public policy development. She is eminently qualified to speak on this topic, and she also believes the current crop of students of public policy making will do great things in the next 20 years.

The title of the talk was "Honest brokers, research purists or Machiavellian manipulators" — references to the possible motivations of people involved in public policy making.

A scientist is someone who gatherers data about things and uses this data to develop theories, and Smith asked the question of how important this science is in public policy making.

It would seem reasonable that decisions concerning public policy on expensive areas of spending such as health services and education should be based upon the best possible evidence. In her opinion this has not always been the case but things are getting better.

An apparent driving force in this revitalising of policy making techniques came from New Labour in the UK under (believe it or not) Tony Blair. It urged a move away from ideological policy making toward rational policy making. It is summed up in the phrase "what matters is what works".

The demon is in the detail. Any proponent of any ideology, especially one using this ideology as a way to move into a position of power, would claim that his/her ideology is the most rational approach possible. It is also true that the most important aim of anyone in power is to remain in power. This is where it gets Machiavellian.

Since the time of Galileo there has not been a lot of political mileage in disputing the structure of the universe, so the research purists of cosmology happily plod on with pushing their ideas into the first attosecond of existence without worrying about its effect on international politics. This cannot be said of other areas of science.

In a move that we can be proud of, New Zealand has just put a stop to most fossil fuel prospecting within national boundaries.

Do we see in this the effects of a coalition government involving the Green Party? Do we call this Machiavellian manipulation or do we call it honest brokery of the findings of purist researchers? Either way it looks like evidence-based policy making.

In another country half a world away the same evidence is available. The leader of that country has little understanding of science and places personal power above all. By ignoring the evidence he can claim to be working for the good of the common man by rebuilding industries around fossil fuels and thus (he claims) bringing economic revival to depressed areas.

You can only base your policy making on the evidence you have at hand. By strangling the stream of evidence you can still claim to be evidence-based. It could be asked whether such purposeful ignoring of information could be described as being within the democratic process.

Smith asked the audience if they knew the phrase "Welsh mining moment". This was the time that large numbers of Welsh (and Yorkshire, Scottish and North-eastern) miners suddenly found themselves out of a job in the 1980s with little prospect of new employment.

This policy decision was undoubtedly evidence based. At the time electricity fuelled by North Sea oilfields was coming on line and it was cheaper to import the coal that was needed. The differences between this and the way that New Zealand is tackling the change lie in the people being consulted about the decisions (via on the ground research) and the factors to be considered.

Smith referred to how this works within the governments formed from the coalitions that are likely to be the future of New Zealand parliamentary politics under MMP. Shane Jones, as Minister for Regional Development, was obviously not happy with a decision that could put people out of work. However, he could probably see that, worldwide, fossil fuel extraction is falling back in the face of solid anthropogenic climate change evidence and that the effects of this change, if unchecked, could be catastrophic.

The effects upon individuals and communities from events such as industry closures are huge. This may be obvious, but research into specific aspects such as the effects of unemployment on life expectancy, depression and suicide now put solid numbers onto these factors.

With well researched advice on both the climate and societal aspects a plan was developed that could harness the intellectual capital built up in the New Zealand oil and coal industries and redirect it into sustainable energy developments. In a world longing for renewable energy this has the potential to be long term profitable and green.

Working to limit the effects of climate change illustrates further aspects of the relationship between researchers and policy developers. Research evidence may be complex and not readily readable by the non-scientist politician or public servant.

Evidence may not be complete. Some evidence may not be collectable for ethical or cultural reasons. Evidence may throw up more questions than it answers. Researchers themselves are humans with biases and personal interests which can creep, however unintentionally, into their findings. This is especially the case with qualitative (as opposed to quantitative ) evidence which makes judgements about relative merits rather than absolute measurements.

This means that for the process to be at its most effective there should be a constant dialogue between scientists and policy makers.