Introduction
The terms policymaking and science are commonly mentioned in modern society, where they play a central role in academic and professional development. Even though the terms policy and science have different meanings, they are rooted together, and, on most occasions, they are used alongside one another. According to the current model, policymakers make policy while scientists make science. Shrout, (2018) define a scientist as a professional who gathers and conducts research to expand knowledge in a specific area. Scientists can develop hypotheses through various means such as data and statistics and eventually formulate a conclusion based on the evidence. According to Kronenberg, et al (2020), a policymaker refers to an individual who creates ideas and plans, particularly the views carried out by the government or business. There is no specific study that one has to go through to become a policymaker; everyone can become a policymaker depending on the position he or she is holding in an organization or an institution. For instance, a school board member, major, or even the President can be regarded as a policymaker. Although policymakers and scientists' roles are different, they often work together to make critical decisions that can affect society.
In theory, there is a chain of tasks performed by policymakers and scientists. In most cases, scientists are known to produce evidence used by policymakers to make decisions. The policymakers, in turn, provide scientists with resources and evidence requirements for research. Therefore, before the research is conducted, it should pass through policymakers and scientists. This kind of research approach has been used because people generally feel that it is the right thing to do, but no couscous reasoning has been made regarding it. Practicing evidence-based policy has often been a challenge to both policymakers and scientists, and on many occasions, the approach has not worked well. For instance, studies have revealed that scientists are skeptical about the importance of research, considering that policymakers must approve the investigation before it is conducted. Policymakers and scientists have different mentalities because their goals, perceptions of time, career paths, languages, and attitudes towards information differ. Therefore, having the two groups speak one language or reason together is difficult. Getting scientists and policymakers to work together has been one of the most significant challenges. Scientists often feel that the policymakers misuse them because of their low numbers and lack of powers.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Similarly, some policymakers are ever opposing scientific work because they are individual-based and do not speak the people's minds. The aspect of numbers has also raised concerns; some scientists believe that their low numbers overturn their decisions. In decision making, numbers play a critical role; the majority will always carry the day. The aspect of power is also an issue of concern between policymakers and scientists. Many scientists believe that their involvement in policymaking has been compromised by their inability to contribute to the process, limited interaction with the public. They are thus restricting some of their results from reaching the public.
The argument that scientists should not be involved in policymaking is not an argument against science or scientists' roles in the policymaking process; rather, it largely depends on an individual point of view. In this course, we are all scientists, but everyone is entitled to their opinion regarding scientists' involvement in the decision-making process. As a team, we support the fact that scientists should not be involved in policymaking; we will present information to support our argument. When it comes to a debate, people tend to have different opinions; in this case, the team is hopeful that the presented data will be convincing enough to be accepted by the public regardless of whether it supports or against their opinion.
This paper will summarize three main arguments for the team. The first argument states, "Scientists are a minority and don't always share the same opinion as to the public." The second argument is that "Scientific Data/Results should be more available to the public so that they can form policy themselves instead of putting scientists in position." The third argument states that "Scientists are not always able to contribute their knowledge into policymaking." The paper will address, challenge, or acknowledge the opposing team's argument, resolving the difference in views and restating my team's position. I will review the main ideas based on the side I took during the debate. This paper aims to comprehensively capture both sides of the discussion and draw a conclusion based on the arguments' analysis. The views in the article are supported by facts and references supporting these facts.
Main Argument 1: Scientists Are a Minority and Don't Always Share the Same Opinion as to The Public.
In modern society, science is one of the subjects that enhances technological development. Science has been developing rapidly over time. Even though people know very little about scientists, they play a critical role in strengthening societal growth by making fundamental discoveries and addressing various societal threats. In the current world, scientists are involved in making individual decisions and policies. Still, their involvement has not been significant due to their low numbers and lack of policymaking powers. Policymaking is a process that has to go through various stages ranging from inception to conclusion. The government established the policy to build, formulate, adopt, implement, and evaluate the government plan. The government powers are bestowed on the people, and therefore, the government's decision is in the people's best interest. Theobald, et al (2018) defines policy as a deliberate principles' system that guides an institution's decision and achieves a rational outcome; the approach is considered a statement of intent and can be implemented as a protocol. According to the definition of policy, making policy is to provide guidelines for an institution or the people to follow.
The policy involves decision-making and, in any decision-making process, the numbers play a crucial role. According to Wolf, (2019), policymakers should speak the majority's voice since their policies affect the general population. Given that scientists are the minority; their opinions may not represent public opinion. Besides, scientists have different views from policymakers; therefore, bringing together the two groups to develop a joint decision has proved difficult. Even though most scientific work is geared towards improving people's lives, their opinions are evidence-based and may not speak the voice of the majority. Furthermore, scientists believe much in their individual views rather than general views.
Scientists and policymakers have different goals, and hence merging them would be a great challenge; the two groups speak entirely other languages with different opinions. Public policy refers to the decisions aimed at solving problems and improving the citizens' quality of life. At the national level, procedures are established to regulate businesses and industry and protect the citizens against exploitation by the company and groups. The main goal of policymakers is to obtain popular support. The policymakers' essential activity is to manage political crises and solving the troubles. They are more interested in a broader issues-particularly issue affecting the general population. Policymakers establish solutions that can be applied to a variety of problems affecting the general population. In policymaking, political correctness is the key driver. Policymakers might be making the right decisions, but the findings might be rejected because it has no political correctness. The policymakers have very little time to consider the scientific publications due to policymaking and the number of briefings and meetings involved. Policymakers are also used to reading bullet points; thus, finding time to read long paragraphs by scientists becomes a problem; they apply the initiative model to compromise scientists' research. Mazarr, (2020) defines an intuitive model as a model heavily depends on one's experience and judgment; policy-makers base their arguments on their expertise and judgment.
On the other hand, the scientists' goal is to advance science. Their main activity is to put out papers by adding to the body of knowledge. In most cases, scientists tend to be less interested in broad issues affecting the people; their target is more specific and deals with a given problem. Furthermore, scientific work does not necessarily solve a problem affecting the general population; it can make discoveries that are not necessarily solving a problem. In the research world, scientists address professorships, patents, and publications. In publications, scientists deepen their research to the extent that non-scientists can hardly understand. The scientific publications are involved; the non-scientist may have no expertise and data to complete the research. A scientist expert's specialty is to point out faults in studies, especially research done by others. Many scientists work to become experts in their areas of tasks rather than solving existing problems. Research shows that some scientists conduct research not to solve a problem but to become an expert in the field. Therefore, involving scientists in policymaking may have no impact on the process since they have a completely different approach to their research and discoveries.
Policymakers and scientists speak a completely different language; hence it becomes challenging to have scientists participate in the policymaking process. The scientist usually speaks their languages, which comprises at least some mathematical symbols and Greek letters. On many occasions, scientists' language requires "translation" to be understood by non-scientists. The scientific language is particular to the extent that even scientists in different fields cannot understand one another. It implies that only scientists in the same area can understand one another without a problem. Therefore, language scientists cannot be understood by policymakers. With the groups speaking different languages, it becomes challenging for the two groups to speak one language and develop effective policies. Policymakers also speak their language that is made up of acronyms and defined by other acronyms. Policymakers' communications are represented by a closed audience and driven by unpublicized political agendas. The policymakers do not rely on evidence; they largely depend on the general influence of the public. Policymakers' communication includes multiple signatures indicated at the end of every prepared report. The reports also include stamped confidential that approves its legitimacy. Even though policymakers also carry out research, you can hardly see their findings published in scientific journals. Based on the argument, the differences between scientists and policymakers are outstanding; therefore, bringing the groups together to perform a task becomes a big challenge. In policymaking, factors such as time factor and validity are concerns; it is always essential to ensure that policy is made at the right time and for the right purpose. Involving scientists in the policymaking process may delay the process, making it longer than expected. Besides the time factor, the difference in language may lead to misunderstanding between the groups, making it challenging to develop effective policies that can benefit the people
As stated earlier, the issue of numbers is a critical factor in the policymaking process because it is a representation of the majority. The aspect of numbers is usually essential in policymaking since most policies favor the majority. According to GEN et al (2020), scientists' voices cannot be heard when making policies because they are the minority group and reflect the full representation of during population. The reasons for policymakers are to set expectations and ensure that people comply with laws, implying that they favour the majority. Scientists could as well speak or represent the majority, depending on their intentions. But in most cases, they have to contradict opinions, which are majorly based on discoveries and evidence provided.
The public usually has different perceptions of scientists and decision making. Some people believe that scientific reasoning is based on evidence, and therefore the recommendations provided by scientists should be given priority. Other people also claim that scientific discoveries are more experimental than realistic; putting them into practice may be challenging. In policymaking, the public plays a crucial role in ensuring that the policies formed effectively bring people together and guide them on the right path. Public participation can be a useful tool for creating a greater sense of control among citizens, thus enhancing social change. In some cases, public participation can shorten the policymaking process and reduce the process's costs. Based on this argument, the public endorsement of who should participate in policymaking is equally essential.
The past survey has indicated that scientists and the public tend to have different opinions, especially on vaccinations, climate change, and food modifications, thus lowering the public trust in scientists and reducing their involvement in the decision-making process. Research conducted by the Pew Research Centre and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has highlighted some differences. Scientists and the public have different views on several topics, including the realm of technology and society. Statistics indicate that 98 percent of humans believe that humans evolved; however, when it comes to the United States adults, only 65 percent believed the same. The rest believed that humans exist in their present form since the time back in memorial. The contradicting views between scientists and citizens have lowered the public trust in scientists. Therefore, there is no need to involve societies in policymaking if they do not fully represent the public's interest.
Policy-making also tends to lean much on the humanities rather than sciences; scientists will give more scientific recommendations than humanitarian, hence making policymaking challenges.
Counterargument
As much as policies require as much inclusivity as possible, there should be no restriction on the number of people who should term with what is wrong or right. The argument about numbers has been an issue of concern without some people supporting majority should be the decision-makers and others criticizing that decision making should not depend on the number; instead, it should rely on the weight of the argument and its effectiveness the suggestions provided. Many contradictory books have been written on whether numbers should be a critical factor in decision making or no. Even though no substantial proof has been provided, numbers should not be used to indicate what is right and wrong and right. According to Paul Rulkens majority are always wrong. Rulkens, who majored in neuroscience and applying behavioural psychology, claimed that the majority's decision is still wrong based on influence and psychological behaviours ( Brysbaert, 2019). Besides, numerous psychological studies have revealed that the majority is always wrong. Based on these arguments, it is wrong to conclude that scientists' contribution to policy cannot be considered because they are the majority. Scientists are indeed the minority; however, this should not imply that the suggestions and contributions are wrong and ill-motived. Scientists may be the minority, but their recommendations are more accurate and lead the public in the right direction. Furthermore, most scientific claims are evidence-based and proven, unlike the policy makers' argument, which is experimental evidence.
Again, the claim that scientists do not share opinions with policymakers is relative; it should not forward as the main reason why the two groups cannot work together to develop more profound and detailed policies. People usually have different opinions in life, but the issue has never been used as the major excuse for not sharing ideas and better solutions. Humans are humans; they can always come together no matter the differences and develop long-lasting solutions, considering all the factors.
Main Argument 2 – Scientific Results Should Be More Available To Citizens
In any decision-making process, the information is a crucial factor as it provides options from which decision-makers make their decisions. Similarly, the policymaking process requires input from the citizens and how the outcome of the process could be communicated back to the people before making policies, the policymakers seek relevant information and sources from the people, thus enhancing an all-inclusive system which not only protects the people but also promotes their wellbeing. Policymakers should have detailed information about the citizens and things that best suit their demands. There should be close contact between the citizens' policymakers since through the interaction, and policymakers can get to know the people's problems and the challenges that can be overcome through the policies. For policymaking and implementation to be effective, the public should fully trust the people making and implementing the process difficult and ineffective. One of the main challenges of involving scientists in decision-making is that they lack close interaction with the citizens. In addition to that, most scientific results are hard to find, making it difficult to access data and make viable information regarding the people.
Another important aspect of policymaking is the ability to produce policies that the public can easily understand. The terms used in developing systems should be simple and universal among citizens. Based on this argument, scientists cannot become right policymakers because they have their language explicitly for a given scientific field. In most cases, scientists' language is not understood by the majority of people in society; therefore, having the people develop the policy would be the greatest challenge for the citizens. By writing policy in scientific language, the citizens would not understand the policy the making it ineffective. Besides, some scientific terminologies cannot be understood even by fellow scientists. Many scientific discoveries have also challenged citizens due to their difficulties in understanding the scientific languages, thus lowering their trust. The fact that people cannot understand scientific language implies that scientists' implementation would equally become a problem. The policy should be developed with a simple language that all the citizens can easily understand. The effectiveness of policy implementation largely depends on how the people interpret the approach and their willingness to practice what is contained in the policy. According to this argument, it would be inappropriate to include scientists in policymaking because they can make the systems look more complex, and in a form that cannot easily be understood by the people.
Another critical factor is the availability of scientific results. Most scientific studies are evidence-based. Scientists conducted experiments and produced products as evidence of their work. The trust is given to scientists majorly depends on their experimental evidence; failure to this, no one would trust scientists. Hence, scientists can only gain public confidence by producing results and evidence of research done to prove their claims and make them believe them. Unfortunately, the availability of scientific products has been limited, with most citizens unable to access the study findings. When creating policies within a given context, the affected parties should trust whoever is making the policy and fully understand the procedures. This cannot be achieved because policymaking is for scientists to handle; some people would never believe or trust what scientists claim since much of their scientific findings are not available in the public domain.
Counter argument
The availability of scientific results to the public has been an issue of concern for years. Citizens and policymakers have often accused the scientists of keeping their research investigations and findings underwater and failing to provide enough evidence to prove some of their claims, but this might be the case. Scientists are always open about their research work except that they share much information when a study conclusion has not been made. The majority of people who claim not to access science are either ignorant or lazy to investigate their whereabouts. He must admit that most scientists tend to believe in themselves and what they do for others. Scientists tend to be precise and follow the strict guidelines that have been produced by their seniors. By keenly following the instructions, scientists tend to be strict with themselves and only follow what they believe in. Therefore, people mistake scientists for their actions and think that they hide the most crucial information from the public domain.
Furthermore, the inability of scientific results to reach people does not only depend on the scientists themselves. It also depends on government institutions and non-government organizations. With proper assistance from the government, scientists can effectively present their work before the citizens and policymakers (Wang, 2018). Many scientists are unable to conduct detailed research and produce the results to the public domain because they lack resources and financial assistance to carry out their studies. The study has further indicated that scientists' inaccurate results were majorly attributed to low-quality equipment during the experiments. Many scientists also lack platforms where they could showcase their research intentions and study findings.
Based on the past research and claims raised by scientists, it would be very unfair to rule out that scientists cannot take part in policymaking simply because their findings cannot reach the people. Instead, the government and other stakeholders should focus on employing scientists to ensure that everything research they have done reaches the people. Furthermore, scientists have reported intimidation and threats from policymakers that have hugely compromised their research and prevented them from showcasing their study findings. There is evidence of hiding and seeking a game between the policymakers and scientists where policymakers take advantage of their political powers to compromise scientists' results and ensure that they do not reach the people. Therefore, scientists should not be judged that they have not produced enough evidence to prove their result. Many investigations should be done into the matter to ascertain the leading cause of the problem. Otherwise, scientists should be allowed to participate in decision making altogether.
Main Argument 3- Ability to Contribute to Policy and The Impact On Research
According to Díaz-Reviriego, (2019) s cientists have been given the platform to participate in the policymaking process, but their contributions have not been significant. The author has further cited that some scientific results and findings could not be put into policy. Scientists spend a better part of their time conducting research in various fields and using the findings to make their argument. The failure of scientists to produce an accurate and viable result would make their opinion invalid. With the high level of inaccuracy and validity in scientific works, involving scientists in the policymaking process becomes a challenge because some recommendations can neither be proven nor trusted. There is also a massive disparity between scientific topics and policy-related topics. Most scientific cases are more of science than humanity, making it difficult to relate the two topics .
In policymaking, compatibility is a huge factor; the policymakers should ensure that the policies made are compatible with the policy's population. Besides, the individuals making the policy should be in constant agreement with one another. The policymakers and scientists should be compatible with each other to develop working and favourable policies. Past research has indicated that scientists and policymakers have many distinct differences that make them incompatible. Many studies have also revealed that policymakers and scientists are ever in constant disagreement and cannot work together. Working together between policymakers and scientists would mean that they both know each other very well and understand one another; they should understand one another's strengths, weaknesses, and dislikes.
It has also been noted that policymakers and scientists lack respect and trust for one another, particularly regarding the roles played by both parties. Policymakers have accused scientists of lacking respect for non-scientists; scientists believe that science is an exclusive club with their own culture. Scientists believe that their research should be at the cutting age and can only be reviewed by their peers. With all the reservations that scientists are having about their work, they found it challenging to work with other partners and policymakers. Scientists are also very bitter about the policymakers' powers to control research even though they do not participate in the process. In addition to that, scientists have accused policymakers of manipulating scientific findings to suit their political game.
On the other hand, policymakers have continuously criticized scientists on the ground that their selfishness and arrogance. They have also claimed that scientists believe in themselves too much that they cannot incorporate others in their research or collective decision-making process. Policymakers also view scientific research findings as less relevant and untimely and cannot be included in the policymaking process. Policymakers also claim that some scientific research findings are mere fabrication and theoretical, hence cannot be used in policymaking, which largely depends on practical experience.
The components of the evidence are also an issue of concern between policymakers and scientists. Most scientific results are qualitative; they can be assessed repeatedly. In most cases, scientists are much possessed about their study evidence; they over trust these results and are ready to do anything to protect their proof. According to policymakers, this kind of mentality should not be the case in the policymaking process. Policymakers believe that they are less rigid and often willing to incorporate other ideas so long it is in the people's best interest. Brysbaert, (2019) believes that policymakers are more informal in their assessment regarding the nature of the information being assessed. The policymakers tend to base their argument on reflection and reality compared to scientists who incorporate some aspect of fiction in their work. One of the significant blows of scientific work is the fact that they are more theatrical than practical. Therefore, determining whether they can be practically applied in real life becomes a challenge. Scientists can develop beautiful and promising solutions to societal problems, but they end up in vain because they are not practical in real life.
Counter argument
The ability of scientists to contribute to the policy may not depend on scientists as others may assume. In most cases, the policymaking process is primarily controlled by the government and other relevant institutions. Unlike the scientific works that largely depend on research, policy is based on powers as it is developed to control and guide a given group of people. With the continued fight between scientists and policymakers, scientists' move to participate in policymaking is being compromised by policymakers who have powers in their hands.
According to GEN et al (2020), scientists' contribution in policymaking is compromised by individuals with political powers; they use their political forces to ensure that scientists and scientific studies that go against their wishes are prevented from accessing any platform that could help them reach the people or participate in policymaking. Based on the past reviews, the war against scientific contribution in decision-making is not dependant on scientists' ability is more of a political battle. Based on the issue assessment, scientists tend to be straightforward and stick to their decisions no matter the outcome; they will provide evidence just exactly as the study shows. However, policymakers do not entirely depend on honesty; they ready to comprise their decisions for the benefit of the people or their services. Therefore, scientists' failure to participate in research should not be taken as a weakness by the scientists. Instead, it should be viewed as a plan by policymakers to prevent scientists form contributing to policymaking
Conclusion
Based on the arguments represented, scientists have the reasons to participate or not participate in the policymaking process. Whether a scientist should participate in decision making or not is not entirely dependent on their contribution to the actual policymaking process. Still, it is dependent on the political powers of the policymakers. There are several reasons why scientists do not participate in the policymaking process, including their small numbers, inability to contribute to policy, and scientific research's inaccessibility. According to these arguments, there is no essence of scientists participating in policymaking; they are the monitory, and they speak a completely different language from policymakers. In addition to that, most scientists are more experimental and cannot be applied in real life. However, it is not entirely wrong to involve scientists in the decision-making process; their contribution to policymaking can be beneficial since most of their research is evidence-based and has been proven to work out. Besides, the war on whether to include scientists in policymaking is more political than practical. In my view, scientists should not be involved in policymaking because their inclusion may cause more harm than this because of their current differences with policymakers. Furthermore, some policymakers have been conducting the process much effectively without necessarily including scientists
References
Brysbaert, M. (2019). How many participants do we have to include in properly powered experiments? A tutorial of power analysis with reference tables. Journal of Cognition , 2 (1).
Díaz-Reviriego, I., Turnhout, E., & Beck, S. (2019). Participation and inclusiveness in the intergovernmental science–policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Nature Sustainability , 2 (6), 457-464.
GEN, S. W., & Wright, A. C. (2020). Nonprofits in Policy Advocacy: Their Strategies and Stories . Springer Nature.
Kronenberg, J., Haase, A., Łaszkiewicz, E., Antal, A., Baravikova, A., Biernacka, M., ... & Khmara, Y. (2020). Environmental justice in the context of urban green space availability, accessibility, and attractiveness in postsocialist cities. Cities , 106 , 102862.
Mazarr, M. J. (2020). Judgment as the Imagination of Futures: Practical Rationality in Decisions on Complex Issues. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics .
Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction: Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual review of psychology , 69 , 487-510.
Theobald, S., Brandes, N., Gyapong, M., El-Saharty, S., Proctor, E., Diaz, T., ... & Bharal, S. (2018). Implementation research: new imperatives and opportunities in global health. The Lancet , 392 (10160), 2214-2228.
Wang, J., Lee, Y. N., & Walsh, J. P. (2018). Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects. Research Policy , 47 (6), 1070-1083.
Wolf, E. E. A. (2019). Dismissing the “vocal minority”: How policy conflict escalates when policymakers label resisting citizens. Policy Studies Journal .
