The idea that science should shape public policy is under serious attack. The massive funding cuts requested this year by the administration of US President Donald Trump, affecting US universities and leading scientific and research institutions, is one drastic demonstration. But there have been straws in the wind for some time.
How did assaults on science become the norm — and what can we do?
Conspiracy theories spread by people opposed to vaccines and 5G mobile phone networks, and claims that the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change are hoaxes, tell us that scientific evidence has lost its standing among parts of the public and some politicians. This trend threatens to derail the contributions science can make to improving people’s lives. Think, for example, of the announcement in August that US funding for mRNA vaccine research would be slashed.
How to meet this challenge must be a priority for researchers and the institutions of science in 2026. Rebuilding support for evidence-based policymaking among voters and political decision makers will require researchers and universities to change their outlook and ethos. Academics must recognize that the importance of science is not self-evident, and that part of the blame for the erosion of trust in science lies with scientists themselves.
Here, we offer four recommendations for the scientific community and one for policymakers.
Mixed results
‘Evidence-based policymaking’ is talked about and championed by many policymakers and scientists. Yet, the process it entails and its limitations remain widely misunderstood. In public policy, solutions to the problems society faces are rarely, if ever, purely technical. People’s values and interests often conflict, and scientific studies do not always provide direct answers to the questions that politicians and officials must grapple with, such as how to reduce crime rates or respond to a disease outbreak.
The idea of evidence-based policy was taken forward vigorously after the end of the Second World War, especially in the United States, following the wartime success of science and operations research1. An influential 1945 report called ‘Science, The Endless Frontier’, by engineer and science administrator Vannevar Bush, put science at the heart of shaping government priorities2. Since then, most policy professionals have been trained to accept that good public policy is the outcome of the rational analysis of a robust evidence base. But that’s not as straightforward as it sounds.
Government decisions around the timing, design and implementation of policies are infused with political considerations. And those political choices can often override the science — a truth laid bare during the pandemic. For example, the UK COVID-19 inquiry summarized last month how scientific advice had little influence on the chaotic decisions being made by the then government. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s decision to post on its website that “the claim ‘vaccines do not cause autism’ is not an evidence-based claim” is another (ironic) example of politics trumping science.
AI tools as science policy advisers? The potential and the pitfalls
... continue reading