Evidence-based decision-making key to improving use of science by government

CSPC 2015

Evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) has emerged as one of the hottest topics in S&T circles, energizing discussion and debate at last week's Canadian Science Policy Conference. With the enthusiasm over the Liberal government's embrace of EBDM as a backdrop, a series of speakers and panelists convened for a full day to exploring how EBDM can effectively inform government policies and programs.

Consensus emerged that while science is a fundamental competitive resource in a knowledge-based economy, existing science advisory bodies (and the previous Conservative government) have failed to bring EBDM into the decision-making process.

Current mechanisms for informing the political realm with science — the Council of Canadian Academies and the Science-Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) — were deemed insufficient for the complex and often diffuse ways in which legislators utilize science.

But science is only one of many factors to be considered by government when crafting legislation, placing the onus on selecting the most appropriate mechanisms to ensure that science is not crowded out.

"Focus on the Canadian context and requirements," said Dr Kamiel Gabriel, a professor in the Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at the Univ of Ontario Institute of Technology. "Science is only one input among many and science literacy is required to assess its capabilities and limitations."

Politicians make decisions

In determining the most effective role for EBDM, it was stressed that politicians – not scientists – should make policy decisions as they are democratically accountable. Currently weak accountability mechanisms can be bolstered through the use of citizen science which can direct the science where it is most needed.

Public values should also be weighed, said Dr Heather Douglas a professor of philosophy at the Univ of Waterloo and Waterloo Chair in Science & Society, adding that specially convened forums are more effective than telephone surveys where self-interest colours opinion. Douglas said the collaborative weight of evidence analysis is useful in bringing the public, stakeholders and scientific evidence together when considering contentious issues.

"It helps to resolve controversy in a transparent way by allowing scientists to address concerns," said Douglas. "Involving the public builds trust in science and science literacy."

One group aiming to improve the use of science in decision-making is the Science Integrity Project, which recently released a statement of principles for sound decision-making in Canada (R$, October 10/15).

"There's a feeling that the best evidence is not getting a fair hearing at all levels of government," said Dr Rees Kassen, a professor and chair in experimental evolution at the Univ of Ottawa. "The last nine years have been a motivation to engage".

The sense that Canada has fallen behind in using EBDM in government was highlighted by Paul Dufour, adjunct professor at the Univ of Ottawa, who said Canada has a long history of experimenting with different mechanisms for infusing science in policy making. Dufour noted that he preferred the term science-informed decision-making to EBDM to reflect the multiple of inputs to the decision-making process and the gap in language used by scientists and politicians.

Dufour urged a closer examination of the role Quebec's chief scientist plays in that province when the federal Liberals weigh their options for new advisory bodies. He posed several recommendations including: a Parliamentary science officer with fellowships; a scorecard to determine how science-based departments and agencies are performing with respect to scientific transparency and integrity; support of independent organizations communicating science in all its forms; international alliances; and a federal advisory body whose reports are made public.

The latter is aimed at STIC which keeps its advice to government confidential.

"Confidential advice is aberrational, especially in a democracy," said Dufour.

EBDM is also a critical tool for developing support programs for business.

Many participants came to the symposium with a list of suggestions, including Dr Margaret Dalziel, a professor of business, entrepreneurship and technology at the Univ of Waterloo and VP The Evidence Network. Dalziel suggested that business support could be approved by adopting a series of changes from the current practice.

These include: separate the scientific research and experimental development (SR&ED) tax credit program into two streams — one for research and one for development; award funding to programs on the basis of effectiveness; achieve a better balance between indirect (tax-based) and direct support; and, recognize that knowledge and funding are more transformational than either alone.

R$