"Follow the Science?"

Data isn't enough to achieve the best possible evidence-based policy outcomes.

Congressional staffers are smart. The job requires them to juggle the mountain of responsibilities that their office demands while staying organized and responding to events immediately. In that environment, you either keep up or you won’t last long on Capitol Hill. When I was there, I worked alongside some of the brightest colleagues I’ve ever had. And consider, much of my career has been based in academia.

When staffers meet with industry lobbyists, scientists, and other “experts” to discuss policy, they may nod along politely, but they are also acutely aware of being told a narrative that best supports the conclusions and policies that the presenter of information prefers. As I mentioned, they’re smart.

On science issues, they recognize that although the phrase “Follow the Science” has become popular among advocacy groups, “following the science” is not quite as simple and straightforward as it sounds.

“‘Follow the science’ can be used on both sides of the political spectrum to support, you know, whatever it is you want to support.”

- Senior congressional staffer

Or as Daniel Sarewitz put it, facts can be arranged in all sorts of different ways to support completely different versions of a situation. And the people working in Congress generally recognize this.

During my interviews, many staffers also expressed that they believe the scientists doing research often operate in a vacuum without the ability or experience to see the bigger picture. When it comes to policy issues like climate change and public health, they frequently held the perception that scientists lack a broader understanding of how their recommendations might impact the economy, national security, or simply, the next election.

“Data on a piece of paper doesn't always help you understand the implications.”

- Senior congressional staffer

And ultimately, conclusions about what constitutes “science” from various “experts” rarely align. Even when staffers seek out informed guidance, they’re likely to disagree with congressional colleagues - sometimes within their own party - about what makes a source credible.

Some of my friends in academia believe a scientist’s role is to simply show up and present “the science” to policymakers. But data by itself will never be enough to achieve the best possible evidence-based policy outcomes.

Adding more and more “science” doesn’t make decisions easy or straightforward. Scientific information can provide clarity, but as the COVID-19 pandemic illustrated, it can also enhance political polarization.