{"title":"循证政策：监管科学的经验教训","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":"{\"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}","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}
Evidence-based policies: Lessons from regulatory science
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.
Related Articles
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
