SCIENCE and social policy often make uneasy partners. Many think they shouldn鈥檛 mix at all. Yet in one respect at least they are inseparable: to make good policy we need information that only solid scientific studies can provide. And this is true in many areas not usually associated with science.
Take gun control, one of the most contentious issues in American politics. It seems, on the face of it, a quintessentially social problem. What does science have to do with it? Not nearly as much as it should, according to a report published last week by the US National Academy of Sciences (see 鈥淎merican tales of guns and ignorance鈥�). The National Institute of Justice, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and others asked the NAS to assess the state of research on gun ownership and the links with violent crime and suicide. Tens of thousands of people are killed or injured by firearms in the US every year. At the same time, many Americans are fiercely protective of their right to own weapons. So policies aimed at cutting the toll of violence and injuries inflicted with guns need solid data to back them up 鈥� especially if they involve gun control.
Unfortunately, the NAS discovered that with the data we have it is almost impossible to draw any firm conclusions on the effect of firearm ownership. Do the laws in many states that allow adults to carry concealed handguns decrease or increase violent crime? Do programmes designed to steer children away from guns have any effect on their behaviour or attitudes? We just don鈥檛 know. Systematic research is desperately needed to guide policy makers trying to tackle these issues.
Advertisement
The problem goes far beyond gun control. There are many areas in which life-or-death policy has been built on the shakiest of foundations. A case that has strong resonances with the research vacuum surrounding firearms arose when HIV and AIDS emerged in the 1980s. To begin with, health officials had no clue what proportion of the male population had homosexual relationships, and what proportion of those also had female partners. They had little idea how many people were intravenous drug users, and little idea about the prevalence of risky sexual practices. It was only when new surveys illuminating these issues came along that public-health officials were able to issue sensible advice that has undoubtedly saved lives.
What about environmental justice? Some claim that poor or deprived communities suffer more than others from pollution. For instance, several studies in the US found that landfills are more likely to be sited near ethnic minority communities. So campaigners in the UK and the US are pushing for laws to stop companies building plants or disposing of waste near vulnerable populations. But such action is often thwarted by the lack of firm evidence linking, say, industrial pollution to local health problems.
The need for scientific research doesn鈥檛 stop there. Look to the future and we may see pay-offs from science in other, unexpected places. Take economics. The study of how people make economic decisions 鈥� an increasingly hot area for psychologists, 鈥渘euroeconomists鈥� and 鈥渆conophysicists鈥� 鈥� could lead to ways of predicting financial crises, such as the south-east Asian crash of the late 1990s. Better still, well-designed studies could lead to ways of preventing them. Stabilising the world economy could prevent immense hardship around the globe.
鈥淕un control seems a quintessentiall y social problem. What does science have to do with it?鈥�
Another area is national well-being. Despite steadily rising average incomes, levels of happiness and satisfaction in the UK and the US have remained virtually static since the 1950s. The UK government is trying to find out if anything can be done to improve them. One key question is, how can a nation achieve economic growth and improve the overall quality of life of its citizens at the same time? Suggestions include using 鈥渨ell-being indicators鈥� to inform government spending decisions about healthcare and education, and developing an alternative to gross domestic product as an indicator of economic activity. All these ideas have emerged from the results of thousands of studies in which psychologists and sociologists have measured happiness levels across all walks of life and behaviours.
The message in all this is that rigorous scientific studies have a key role to play in many surprising areas of our lives. Should science and social policy mix? Increasingly, it seems, they cannot do without each other.