Science vs Policy

There is a difference between "science" and "public policy." They have different roles and different scopes. The conflation of the two (not recognizing the difference) leads to frustration, bad science, and bad public policy. I fear that this conflation is driving some of the contention in our national and community discussion.

Science proposes hypotheses, then runs experiments or reviews data sets to test the hypotheses. Science has limitations, uses assumptions, and makes human interpretation of results. Good science recognizes these limitations, calculates confidence intervals, and uses independent verification. There are frequent debates in science regarding the accuracy and interpretation of findings. There are established processes for resolving competing theories and reaching consensus.

Public policy’s role is to consider the best research and best practices regarding the issue at hand in order to make decisions for the community based on the values and preferences of the people being governed.

When people advocating for a particular policy claim that science requires the policy, it leads those who oppose the policy to question the science. In these instances, both sides are mistaken. Science does not require specific government action, and policy preferences do not change facts. The fact that COVID-19 is an easily spread infectious disease that can cause serious illness and possibly death does not require a mask mandate, a stay-at-home order, or businesses to be shut down. Those are all public policy decisions that may be made in response to those facts. On the flip side, just because someone feels that businesses shouldn't be shut down, does not mean that reported transmission rates must be false. The science and the policy should be kept separate. I believe people are questioning the broad consensus of doctors, public health officials, and infectious disease researchers, and embracing outlier opinions because they are being told that if they follow "the science" then they have to support public policies that they don't agree with.

There is plenty of room to debate what public policies are justified by the best scientific understanding of the pandemic. For example, I personally think that, as a country, we went too far in shutting the economy down. Instead, we could have had lower transmission with less economic damage by embracing masking and social distancing guidelines to allow for more activity under safer conditions. (Of course, I'm saying this with the advantage of hindsight.)

First, let’s be guided by the consensus of experts, specialists, and health officials who are working hard in difficult situations to provide the best data. Despite confidence intervals, noise in the data, necessary assumptions, and ongoing refinement as more is learned, we have a reasonably clear idea of the scope and severity of the pandemic. We know the most common modes of transmission, and we know how effective different behavioral changes are in slowing the spread. The science isn't perfect, but we can have a high level of confidence in it.

Next, let's decide as a community what public policies make the most sense for our community. Let the debate be about what the best response is to the best data and science that we have access to, not about what conspiracy the whole scientific and medical community is trying to pull on us. There is a near-infinite set of combinations of public policy options and each will have a different set of consequences. There is no "right" answer. But we can debate together as a community to reach a solution that makes the most sense for us.