I've posted about how to increase the influence of science in government previously but it was a complete overhaul of our entire democracy, so wanted to explore less drastic alternatives. Modeled on the supreme court, scientists would be appointed to assess the validity of laws, which would be required to cite research. If such research weren't available metrics and studies to gauge the impact of laws would need to be outlined, along with the necessary funding to implement them. An important detail is that this is not necessarily an all or nothing judgement in many cases, as proper risk management requires partial measures be taken in the face of insufficient evidence in order to serve as a hedge. This could be quite far-reaching. For example, a farm bill could be ruled unscientific because it does nothing to address climate change impacts. Inaction is not a way to circumvent reality.
Of course having a small number of experts opens itself up to the same personal failings the Supreme Court suffers from. A better method would be to utilize all those qualified in the relevant fields, possibly weighted by expertise, to provide a broader base. An approach the Supreme Court itself could benefit from and one that was at the core of my previous posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment