There are two aspects to science policy, “Science for policy” and “Policy for science“.
“Science for Policy“
To understand this, let’s look at how elected officials make decisions (in this case things related to science in general) to benefit the constituents they serve.
Most elected representatives have little to no background in science, as such they rely on a large group of advisors (typically comprising of scientists, economists etc.) when it comes to drafting bills or legislation.
Scientists bring to the table their knowledge which the elected representative relies on to make informed decisions. Lets look at an example of how science informs policy.
The Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 is an excellent example of how science influences policy. The act was passed in 2010 and was aimed at reducing disparities in federal criminal penalties for the procession of crack cocaine. Under the previous law (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986), the federal penalty for crack cocaine possession was much more severe than for powder cocaine. This was based on the incorrect view that crack cocaine is more addictive , dangerous and harmful that powder cocaine.
Subsequently, several research studies funded by the federal government reported that the above held view was rather incorrect. Thus, we had science on one hand demonstrate that crack and powder cocaine are more are less equally addictive and harmful, and a fairly lopsided law (Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986) on the other that decriminalizes the possession of crack cocaine at a much higher degree that powder cocaine.
Armed with the science, several scientists and criminal justice activists advocated for a change in the the law. This resulted in the passing of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 that dramatically reduces the federal penalties for crack cocaine. This is a rather simplistic explanation of how scientific research can be useful in shaping legislation.
“Policy for Science”
