The lesson of history – which reaches the whole truth often requires that it combines many separate pieces of information – can be obvious at first. What if the researchers have motivated to observe only what they want to see?
This can be the case in the way Americans responsible for policy -making use scientific research, according to a new study in science led by Dashun WangKellogg Technology President and a Professor of Management and Organizations in Kellogg, where he also directs the Center for Science and Innovation (CSSI) and the Northwestern Innovation Institute, and Codirects The Ryan Institute for complexity.
The US Committees of Congress and reflection tanks draw from science or the wide group of existing research knowledge to remain as informed as possible in the development of policies and legislation. Encouraging, Wang and Coauthors Alexander FurnasA researcher Assistant Professor in CSSI, and Timothy M. Lapira of James Madison University, has found a steady increase in the use of science by policymakers in the last 25 years.
“In some sense, the relationship between the two borders of science and politics is closer than ever,” says Wang. “Many of the challenges of society are linked to scientific development – pandemic, climate change, AI – so it is very welcoming to see that policymakers and documents they produce are increasing in scientific dependence.”
However, as the overall use of science by policy has increased over time, it has the same partition Among the type of information that regrets different aspects of the use of political spectrum.
Indeed, after examining tens of thousands of policy reports and policy documents published by the federal government and reflection tanks, the researchers found that only a small fraction (about five percent) of science in these documents were mentioned by both the Republicans and the Republicans. This low overlap suggests that Republicans and Democratic Policy Officers are mainly based on different information to guide their decisions – perhaps not in contrast to the way the blind approached the elephant.
“Science is one of the tools that policy -makers can use to learn about the situation of the world, about the problems that need to be addressed and the impact of interventions,” says Furnas. “So when partisans use different sets of science and have different perceptions of the situation of the world, this may potentially cause problems for effective democratic governance and policy making.”
Rise
Congress committees and reflection tanks have been tasked with drawing up documents that transmit the opinion of experts on key issues in Congress, interest groups and various stakeholders. The process often implies the report of scientific publications in all areas of knowledge, from language to particle physics, to inform their decisions and recommendations.
For their research, Wang, Furnas and Lapira focused on a database consisting of reports by the Committee of Congress from 1995 to 2021 and the hearings of the committees from 2001 to 2021 (49,345 documents). Policy documents published by 121 reflection tanks based in 1999 (191,118 documents). and the 424,199 scientific publications referring to these documents. They then linked the scientific references identified in this first set of data in another massive database of scientific publications.
Following the examination of this large data group, the researchers found that the number of scientific publications mentioned in the policy documents steadily increased during the 25 -year period, starting from 20 % in 1995 and exceeding 35 % by the end of 2020.
“It is generally good that the use of science in politics is growing,” says Furnas, recognizing that the reason behind this trend is not completely clear.
One of the most likely reasons, he believes, is that access to science has expanded over time, which may have facilitated policy -makers to consume and report more research. The increased use of science also “occurred at the same time, at the same time, there has been a decrease in the substantive experience of the region and the legislative capacity between staff in Congress,” Furnas says. “And so you can expect people to use more external sources and reports.”
Soil lack
Although the use of science by policy -making seems to be on the rise, Wang, Furnas and Lapira have identified systematic differences between the kind of science that Republicans and Democrats tend to report their policy documents.
The researchers conducted a statistical test that estimates that there will be a natural overlap of 12 % of the reports of Republicans and Democrats. However, a review of the documents found a coating of only about five percent – less than half of the expected amount. Even after the abolition of publications mentioned only once (and therefore they could not be mentioned by both political parties), the actual references to the reports was still about half of the expected amount. This low degree of coating was consistent throughout the study period.
“What we can conclude is that when partisans use scientific elements in the policy -making process, they do not widely derive all the sciences,” says Furnas. “It is at least indicating the fact that they draw science that helps them make their point.”
Indeed, policy makers in different aspects of political spectrum tend to report different issues.
The researchers used a deep learning algorithm to design each of the scientific work as a point in space, grouped by topic. This technique allowed them to quantify and depict the separate clusters of science that Republicans refer to against democratic committees and problematic tanks in their policy documents.
Not only did Republicans and Democrats generally focus on different issues – a choice that could simply reflect their different agendas – but also reported different scientific publications when drafting documents that covered exactly the same subject.
In such a case, the center of reflection on the left of the center (the Urban Institute) and the Think Think tank (the Institute of Employment Policy) drafted a document on the impact of the increase in the minimum wage, with almost identical titles. Of the 62 scientific documents mentioned by the two reflection tanks, only one appeared in both documents.
‘Even when [Republicans and Democrats] It seems to focus on the same subject – and writing about the same policy – they use a different science with each other, “says Furnas.
In science do we trust?
Although both Democratic and Democratic Committees reported more sciences in their policy documents over time, committees controlled by the Democrats were almost 1.8 times more likely to do so. In addition, the committees that were transferred from the control of democratic places to democratic places, on average, 196 additional sciences after the transition.
The difference between the tracks was wider for political tanks. The reflection tanks on the left were five times more likely than the right-wing to report science in their documents.
Democrats also tend to report “the science of a higher impact or the documents that scientists themselves consider more important,” says Furnas. Specifically, Democratic Committees and Left Reflection Tanks were more likely to report the science that was at five percent of the most mentioned documents in a given field in the year published and more likely to report science that had been assessed by peer.
These trends motivated Wang, Furnas and Lapira to investigate whether Republicans and Democrats have different levels of confidence in science and scientists.
“Trust,” Wang says, “was always an important factor in using information.” Thus, the researchers conducted a survey of 3,500 US political elites and stakeholders-including C-Suite, judges, and government officials’ officials.
The results showed that democratic political elites significantly trusted scientists more than their Republican counterparts.
For example, 96 % of the Democrats said they fully or partly trust scientists to create knowledge that are impartial and accurate, compared to about 63.7 % of Republicans. The Democrats also evaluated the credibility of two major scientific organizations in public policy much more than Republicans: 61.2 % of Democrats rated the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine as “very reliable”, compared to 22.8 % of Republicans. And 40.7 % of Democrats evaluated the US Union to promote science as very reliable, compared to 8.2 % of Republicans.
Exploring the coating
On the one hand, the findings emphasize the strong differences between the information in which Republicans and Democrats are based on informing their policies, as well as on the gap between their confidence in science.
However, the research also confirms that there is a subset of information used by policy makers on both sides of the political spectrum and trust. The best understanding of this coating could prove critical to promote the most effective policymaking and, in turn, supporting the development of businesses and society as a whole.
“We want politics responsible to have a good sense of what their policy will be so that they can have some certainty and stability,” says Furnas. “No one really wants unintentional consequences.”
To this end, the researchers study these areas of coating as part of the continuing exploration of the crossing between science and politics. “We want to fill in this core coating and understand it better,” says Wang. “Perhaps this could be a way to promote more confidence in science and politics.”
