Science and Public Policy

 

For the past 25 years I have been researching the social and ethical implications of the genetic revolution, which has profoundly impacted both the topics I have worked on, as well as the methodologies I employ in my research.  

The latter has been the most surprising part of the evolution of my thinking over the past quarter of a century.  It certainly was not something I intentionally sought to cultivate,  When I initially started down this path of research I thought I would simply be deploying something like a Rawlsian-like analysis to the genetic revolution.  But as I learned more about human biology (e.g. the complex interaction between genes and environment), the epistemic uncertainty that pervades all areas of science, new discoveries in the biology of aging, how politicized most areas of science are, and the plurality of complex considerations that arise in the context of policy decision-making to regulate biomedical innovation, I became interdisciplinary in my intellectual curiosity and understanding of these issues.  This compelled me to abandoned what I now see as fatally abstract, arm-chair oriented normative theorizing.   

The intersection of science and democracy and public policy decision-making is, IMHO, the most significant and fascinating topic scholars in the humanities and social sciences could address in the 21st century.  Sadly this remains a somewhat marginalized area of study in the humanities and social sciences.  If there were new specialized programs or courses or areas for new hires that universities should prioritize it would be in this area of study.  

Developments like climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic and Artificial Intelligence are attracting the attention of many scholars now.  I think this is, overall, an encouraging development, but it is not necessarily a positive development.  There is a risk that scholars outside of science are drawn to specific areas of scientific research deemed "hot topics" (as gene therapy was in the late 1990s, so it is a pitfall I myself fell into for the first 3-5 years of my research) because of what they are exposed to in the "mediated realities" of online and offline media rather than a comprehensive understanding of the science.   

One of the most important lessons I have learned, writing for, and publishing in, science and medicine journals over the past 20 years is that there is a significant degree of uncertainty and disagreement in all areas of science.  There are, like there is in philosophy and political theory, different "camps" and it takes time to come to understand why, and how, experts within the same field of study can come to hold opposing viewpoints on issues (e.g. what will life expectancy be 50 years into the future?, or what is the most effective way to ameliorate health disparities?).  When philosophers and political theorists engage with the policy implications of science they must go to great efforts to understand how the science is "framed" for public communication, and be aware that science communication is political communication.  

The proliferation of social media like Twitter has helped opened doors of interdisciplinary dialogue that were previously harder to open.  But it has also increased the risk that scholars in the humanities and social sciences will unwittingly become proponents of the politicization of science, with little understanding of the science they are addressing.  To guard against these risks scholars that are serious about engaging with science must take the time to become familiar with the science they are engaging with, with all its uncertainties, the different communicative frames it deploys and an awareness that there are agendas, limited research budgets, and careerist incentives behind the real (non-ideal) scientific enterprise. 

Cheers, 

Colin