Janet Bowstead, one of our #DataImpactFellows, shares her thoughts on how the often-made distinction between “the science” and “the politics” is not as simple as it might appear and how decisions of scale are relevant to both.
In some ways we might feel that, whilst lebanon rcs data we are currently in a terrible situation, it is one in which there is a higher profile for experts to have a voice in decision-making: an opportunity for research to have an “impact”. We are in a situation where scientists are presenting data alongside the politicians who can use those data to inform – or even drive – policy decisions.
But I would argue that it is often a very reductive idea of what counts as science; and a strange concept of science with an uncontested definite article. I can’t be the only person grinding my teeth at the oft-repeated notion of “following the science” as if it were a purer and simpler process than “following the politics”.
However much anyone tries to parcel off “the science” from “the politics”, they will remain intertwined – and far from being either pure or simple.
If we are thinking about the “impact” of research, then we are often trying to make explicit a process of connecting science to politics. But such transparency is likely to reveal the complex interconnections, rather than a linear cause and effect, and to shine a light on the process of contestation and collaboration which generates scientific knowledge rather than a box of facts.