Evidence-based policies: Lessons from regulatory science

IF 1.4 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Policy Pub Date : 2023-06-20 DOI:10.1111/polp.12543

José Luis Luján

{"title":"Evidence-based policies: Lessons from regulatory science","authors":"José Luis Luján","doi":"10.1111/polp.12543","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>In this article, various examples of controversies in regulatory science are analyzed concerning chemical and pharmaceutical products and functional foods. In these controversies, it is possible to show the relationship between epistemic policies and regulatory objectives (decision-making objectives). From an analysis of this relationship, four points must be noted that can be extrapolated to current evidence-based policy proposals: (1) The regulatory objectives determine the evidence hierarchies. (2) Evidence hierarchies determine the appropriate scientific methodology and, by extension, the scientific knowledge that will be generated. (3) The use of scientific knowledge in the formulation of public policies is an example of extrapolation, and such cases should be viewed as hypotheses whose testing requires evidence from different lines of research. (4) The suitability of a particular evidentiary hierarchy depends on what is at stake; that is, on an assessment of the gains and losses to which the policy or regulation based on such an evidentiary requirement may lead.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Related Articles</h3>\n \n <p>Nunes Silva, Carlos. 2012. “Policy and Evidence in a Partisan Age: The Great Disconnect—By Paul Gary Wyckoff.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 40(3): 541–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00363.x.</p>\n \n <p>Sinclair, Thomas A. P. 2006. “Previewing Policy Sciences: Multiple Lenses and Segmented Visions.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 34(3): 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00025.x.</p>\n \n <p>Smith-Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 44(6): 1053–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187.</p>\n \n <p>Lemire, Sebastian, Laura R. Peck and Allan Porowski. 2023. “The Evolution of Systematic Evidence Reviews: Past and Future Developments and Their Implications For Policy Analysis.” <i>Politics & Policy</i> 00(0): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12532.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51679,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Policy","volume":"51 4","pages":"524-537"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/polp.12543","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/polp.12543","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this article, various examples of controversies in regulatory science are analyzed concerning chemical and pharmaceutical products and functional foods. In these controversies, it is possible to show the relationship between epistemic policies and regulatory objectives (decision-making objectives). From an analysis of this relationship, four points must be noted that can be extrapolated to current evidence-based policy proposals: (1) The regulatory objectives determine the evidence hierarchies. (2) Evidence hierarchies determine the appropriate scientific methodology and, by extension, the scientific knowledge that will be generated. (3) The use of scientific knowledge in the formulation of public policies is an example of extrapolation, and such cases should be viewed as hypotheses whose testing requires evidence from different lines of research. (4) The suitability of a particular evidentiary hierarchy depends on what is at stake; that is, on an assessment of the gains and losses to which the policy or regulation based on such an evidentiary requirement may lead.

Nunes Silva, Carlos. 2012. “Policy and Evidence in a Partisan Age: The Great Disconnect—By Paul Gary Wyckoff.” Politics & Policy 40(3): 541–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00363.x.

Sinclair, Thomas A. P. 2006. “Previewing Policy Sciences: Multiple Lenses and Segmented Visions.” Politics & Policy 34(3): 481–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00025.x.

Smith-Walter, Aaron, Holly L. Peterson, Michael D. Jones, and Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall. 2016. “Gun Stories: How Evidence Shapes Firearm Policy in the United States.” Politics & Policy 44(6): 1053–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187.

Lemire, Sebastian, Laura R. Peck and Allan Porowski. 2023. “The Evolution of Systematic Evidence Reviews: Past and Future Developments and Their Implications For Policy Analysis.” Politics & Policy 00(0): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12532.

查看原文本刊更多论文

循证政策：监管科学的经验教训

本文分析了有关化学药品和功能性食品的监管科学中各种争议的例子。在这些争议中，有可能显示出认知政策与监管目标（决策目标）之间的关系。从对这种关系的分析中，必须注意四点，这些点可以推断为当前基于证据的政策建议：（1）监管目标决定了证据层次。（2）证据层次决定了适当的科学方法，进而决定了将产生的科学知识。（3）在制定公共政策时使用科学知识是一个外推的例子，这种情况应被视为假设，其检验需要来自不同研究领域的证据。（4）特定证据等级制度的适用性取决于利害关系；也就是说，基于对基于这种证据要求的政策或法规可能导致的收益和损失的评估。相关文章努涅斯·席尔瓦，卡洛斯。2012年，《党派时代的政策与证据：巨大的脱节》，保罗·加里·怀科夫著；政策40（3）：541-43。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2012.00363.x.Sinclair，Thomas A.P.2006。“政策科学的前瞻：多重视角和分段视野”；政策34（3）：481–504。https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2006.00025.x.Smith Walter、Aaron、Holly L.Peterson、Michael D.Jones和Ashley Nicole Reynolds Marshall。2016年，《枪支故事：证据如何塑造美国的火器政策》，《政治与安全》；政策44（6）：1053-88。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12187.Lemire、Sebastian、Laura R.Peck和Allan Porowski。2023.“系统证据审查的演变：过去和未来的发展及其对政策分析的影响”；策略00（0）：1–24。https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12532.

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politics & Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

23.10%

发文量