This article is written by Professor Emeritus Geoff Gallop at Sydney University and former Premier of Western Australia.

  • The problem: Too much of the wrong politics.
  • Why it matters: Wrong politics results in wrong public policymaking with poor outcomes.
  • The solution: Bring politics to the public policy table as an ally of evidence.

Following on from Part 1 in this series, in what follows I will outline ways and means by which we can incorporate political considerations into the policy process.

  1. On fundamentalism: Stand up for science and its methodologies and humanism (‘What does any policy mean for actually existing and sometimes flawed human beings?’), point out what the actual consequences of the application of particular beliefs are and counterpose ‘the greatest happiness for the greatest number’ to those who say “there is only one way, one set of fundamentals before which all should bow down”.
  2. On vested interests: Think politics! Develop alliances for change and strategies to influence public opinion and lobby politicians. Talk to colleagues who have participated in successful campaigns and seek their advice on what worked and what didn’t.
  3. On risk: When advocating to the government, don’t ignore the questions of ‘implementation’ and ‘opinion’. Politicians will want to know how risks are to be managed, what resources will be needed for success and how opinion is to be influenced. If you have thought through how to deal with these issues it will help in convincing governments of your credibility as an advocate. Remember, as Sir Geoff Mulgan points out in The Art of Strategy (2010): A good public policy is not just relevant and evidence-based, but also feasible and acceptable.
  4. On trust:
    (i) Maintain high standards in research and advocacy. Make sure all avenues are explored and that there is a proper response to all criticism that will inevitably come. In areas that are controversial detail can be everything, and not just when it comes to implementation but also when it comes to making a case for change of direction.

(ii) Take up issues that matter to the community – build relationships with civil society and its many associations. Demonstrate that you are ‘on-side’ and that your properly conducted research matters to community wellbeing. Expect challenges with fundamentalists, vested interests and unthinking populists. However, don't give up thinking it's too hard.

  1. On priorities: Make sure you are up-to-date with what’s happening in the world and how your work may or may not be relevant. Be patient when necessary and bold when circumstances demand it. The rise of new issues, whether from technological changes or new threats in social, economic, or environmental realms, will require fresh solutions. Timing is crucial, so be mindful of its impact.
  2. The last hurdle: You can never do as much preparation as is needed as time often beats you, but try nonetheless. Part of that preparation should include taking advice from a communication expert.
  3. The post-truth phenomenon: An “epistemic crisis” is emerging. In today's world, we are grappling with a novel phenomenon known as ‘post-truth thinking’ and politics. It’s an assault not just on what science-based research is informing us but on the very idea of science itself and involves the following features:
  • reliance on beliefs alone: opinions are facts!
  • distrust of science and its “inconvenient truths”
  • prioritisation of feelings over reasoned argument
  • complacency about or hostility to politics and the open society.

It suits those who resent the inconvenient truths of science, whether natural or human, to attack not just the findings themselves but the methodologies of scientific endeavour. They may be seeking to protect their religious or ideological certainties or their commercial interests. What results is a culture war that can’t be avoided.

Building a ‘team for science’ involving researchers, social scientists, public engagement experts, communicators and political strategists has become a necessity. Note too what this should mean, as the Albert Einstein Memorial in Washington DC puts it: “The right to search for the truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognised to be true.”

Tom Nichols has hit the target with the recommendations in his book _The Death of Expertise _(2017) that experts should strive to be humble and be less cynical in the face of those who make claims against the evidence. Too much is at stake for arrogance to take centre-stage.

Done reading? Make sure to share your own tips by leaving a comment below ⬇️

(Image credit: Unsplash)