Zentrum für interdisziplinäre Forschung

What are the methods, models or theories causing different interpretations of evidence? How do scientists and policy makers communicate about scientific evidence? To answer these questions ZiF's current resident Research Group "The Epistemology of Evidence-Based Policy: How Philosophy can Facilitate the Science-Policy Interface" brought together speakers (philosophers, ecologists and policy-makers) and interested participants. They discussed why and how disagreements between science and policy making in the policy sub-systems of biosecurity and pandemic policies arise and which concepts, models and theories philosophy has to offer to deal with these communication and epistemological challenges.

Participants and Research Group Fellows during the workshop (Image: Universität Bielefeld)

Presentations addressed issues and case studies related to: (mis-)interpretation of scientific evidence in ecological and biosecurity policies, the utilization of fisheries models in fishing policy (Alkistis Elliott-Graves), the control and management of aquatic invasive species in British Columbia, Canada (Thomas Therriault) and Ballast Water Management Systems in the Great Lakes region, Canada (Sarah Bailey); (mis-)interpretation of scientific evidence related to health and pandemic context, the disagreement about aerosol transmission of COVID-19 between the WHO and a group of scientific experts (Dunja Šešelja) as well as digital health tools and associated problems of data production and data quality (Stefano Canali); and science communication and its contribution to (mis-)interpretation of scientific evidence, the relevance of communicative virtues in science communication in the field of climate policy (Corey Dethier) and the role of biased science communication in science journalism (Cailin O'Connor).

Possible solutions or approaches advanced to deal with disagreements about scientific evidence and biases in the communication of scientific evidence were: a pluralistic perspective in the process of selecting models in science, awareness about the plurality of models in the sphere of policy-making, reflection on the representation of antagonistic and controversial opinions, theories and hypotheses in science production, awareness about the limitations of data-driven approaches in public health, importance of communicative virtues in the process of science communication (such as the sensitivity of science communicators towards science users' purposes), and the distorting effects of  journalistic incentives to produce novel information concerning the communication of scientific evidence.

The Research Group drew the attention of participants to the group’s conceptualization of evidence-based policy, development of a philosophical model for understanding disagreements about scientific evidence between science and policy as well as the findings of a systematic literature review on biosecurity and pandemic policies to understand disagreements at the science-policy interface. The workshop ended with highlights of the group’s upcoming workshops on biases in the selection of scientific evidence and epistemic standards of due care.