Biases are everywhere. Since it is not possible to get rid of them completely, it is all the more important to become aware of and reflect them. That was the goal of the workshop “Biases in the Acquisition and Consideration of Evidence” which was held by ZiF's Research Group “The Epistemology of Evidence-Based Policy: How Philosophy can Facilitate the Science-Policy Interface” at ZiF on 11-12 May

Which types of biases arise at the science-policy interface? Which actors and institutions are responsible for the biases in the acquisition and consideration of evidence? And how could biases be addressed? These questions were discussed in an interdisciplinary group of philosophers, biologists, ecosystem researchers, medical virologists, political scientists and experts from public health. The focus was especially on biases which were reported in the scientific literature on the global pandemic response policies.

Graphic: Universität Bielefeld

 Being not only interdisciplinary but highly international, the group also compared biases arising in different political systems such as Nigeria or the United Kingdom.

The discussions and presentations of the workshop provided insights into the biased modes of dataset developments (Sanford Goldberg), the negative epistemic effects of the systematic intimidation of scientists in climate policy (Manuela Fernandez Pinto and Anna Leuschner), the biases that arise in the process of participatory research (Morgan Thompson) and the strategic production of biases at the level of policy formulation (Justin Parkhurst).

The workshop participants shared the observation that global inequalities in research funding, access to data, inequities in data sharing and a lack of capacity to formulate evidence-based policy proposals contribute to biased processes of evidence consideration and policy formulation (Rosemary Audu).

Possible solutions or approaches advanced to deal with biases were also discussed: the inclusion of multiple groups and marginalized communities into the processes of research development and policy formulation, the integration of ethical perspectives into the processes of data set development and the development of AI tools (Emanuele Ratti), and the democratization of policy formulation processes based on the increased engagement of parliaments and publics (Jesse Uneke).

Bringing different perspectives on biased patterns of knowledge production and policy formulation together, provided crucial insights into the need to engage publics more frequently and in an institutionalized way into the formulation of research policies and more generally into politics.