The abuse of science in politics

The pretense to subject political, business and organizational decisions to purportedly "scientific" evidence often results in errors and opportunism. Implementing a set of three guidelines can enhance the utilization of science and information, particularly in the context of public decision-making.

How ​​to use and not use ‘evidence’ in decisions

A triad of guidelines can help improve the use of science and information in decision making:

1. Coordination. The production of information is expensive and its cost must be lower than the benefits it provides. This implies that it must adapt to the decisions that are to be made. It is not appropriate to produce more information, causing waste, distraction and conflict, if the information already available is sufficient to decide and yet it has not being used.
2. Balance. Social systems are usually more complex than physical ones and have an internal logic whose structure we are generally unaware of, so decision-makers must moderate their claims and be prudent when modifying it. To consider this complexity effectively, the information for decision making must offer similar quality in all essential decisional factors, which implies rejecting partial rigorism as costly and irrelevant.
3. Complementarity. Much of the complexity of social systems is that human beings respond in creative and unexpected ways to any incentive system. The use of information must take into account that agents react creatively to any effort to collect information, which makes it necessary to use in a complementary manner both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as objective and subjective information.

Link to Letras Libres