Scientific Greens: Aims and Strategies

Promote deeper understanding of scientific general principles and processes in the Green Party.

‘Evidence-based policy’ is already a popular buzzword in the party, but levels of understanding of its meaning and the application of it in practice vary widely. We seek to improve the quality of disagreement first, not just to win superficial support.

The sort of depth and breadth of understanding and application that we’re aiming for we expect to take decades to become so embedded that our group can lay down its concern and let its principles carry on in the general membership. We will not be seeking signatures for an ‘evidence based policy pledge’ or anything like that; rather, if more people disagree with us but with better, clearer reasons we would consider that to be real progress.

Maintain a focus on general scientific principles and processes, to counter-balance fixation on particular controversies and misimpressions of what ‘science’ is for.

We will keep a balanced focus on communicating general scientific methodological principles and how they apply to policy development and implementation processes, avoiding the old approach of focussing too much on particular controversies, which we have observed can be obstructive or counter-productive.

Without such a balance, those on the other side of an argument may sometimes feel like the scientific approach is a well-armed attack against their group, rather than an informative, principled and reasonable discussion within their group.

Especially older members may have learnt to distrust terms and ideas related to “evidence based policy” or “what works”, because in the past (80s-90s) these terms were used to disguise rather amoral nihilistic attitudes to politics and society under claims of scientific ‘objectivity’ and ‘value neutrality’.

‘Policy led evidence-making,’ meaning going out selectively looking for, or even concocting, evidence to back-up a policy actually based on ideological prejudices, anecdotal experiences and other grossly unreliable sources of knowledge is still a major problem in current uses of evidence in policy development generally in national and international politics, and our own party has much to learn to become more immune to it.

We do not defend naive objectivism or the notion of a separation of facts and values associated with it. We acknowledge that both those patterns have happened in previous discussions, but we are not aiming to do either of them. (For more detailed responses to those two concerns, see our separate essay here.)

Highlight and create more good examples of evidence based and experimentally designed policy

We will point towards existing good examples of evidence based policy (e.g. our current Health policy) and create new policy drafts ourselves to exemplify how general scientific principles can be used in policy development and implementation.

As well as using existing evidence better, the scientific approach to policy means designing new policies like experiments, using pilot studies to test assumptions before risking them on a wider population or area than is necessary for a statistically valid test, and with monitoring and evaluation always built-in in from the beginning. (See The Geek Manifesto for further explanation.)

We will advocate well-established methods for linking science and policy processes such as the Logical Framework Approach (as used and developed by all the United Nations’ agencies and UN Monitoring Agency since 1973).

Challenge and support both the Green Party and the wider public to be more courageous in educating themselves and engaging in public policy discussions in depth and detail.

Investigating the facts before deciding between policies is fundamentally important to becoming more responsible and competent electors and is essential to developing and maintaining a genuinely democratic society. Voting should be seen as more like jury duty than like individual consumer choices.

Whilst there is much room for improvement in quality and equality of public education, it is not a valid excuse at all to accept the status quo of educational inequality and democratic disempowerment as if it were a normal state and hence to communicate with the public as if they were naturally stupid rather than just not yet fully informed or trained in critical thinking. That is really elitist. By challenging and educating members of our party and the wider public about the scientific aspects of policy issues, we are seeking to regard and talk to people’s full, as yet unknown, potential.

Details are almost always what makes the most real difference between a good and a bad policy or structure or process. Framing language that manipulates a hasty unconsidered reaction from one sector of society versus another faction’s similarly unconsidered prejudices for or against a term has little or no practical meaning without its details.

To show that a scientific approach to policy is ethically required.

We aim to spread and deepen understanding of how doing politics for the Common Good ethically requires the scientific discipline of investigating the facts first and logical use of evidence. To care for other people and the outside world as effectively as possible we must investigate objectively the actual or most likely causes of problems and then design and test evidence-based or realistic strategies to help and intervene as cost-effectively as possible.

Cost-effectiveness is ethically important because there are virtually infinite moral demands from global and long-term social and environmental needs depending on limited public resources. Even our policy agendas influence the wider public political discussion and the distribution of public funds, before we are even elected to implement them.

We should be careful not to choose policies or be misled uncritically into policy agendas because they serve our own self-image projections or social identification needs, nor because they serve the marketing needs of premium niche sectors of industries competing with mainstream producers by the cheapest marketing tactic – spreading a mysterious sense of fear.

Total circumspection and judicious impartiality are required to truly do politics in the common interest, not acting on unrealistic enemy images representing outgroups (such as ‘private’ or ‘corporations’) as more homogenous and bad than they really are, combined with credulous unexamined support for terms identifying our in-group(s) (e.g. ‘natural’).

Science treats hard data as the ultimate authority, not personal or institutional authority, not strength of emotion, size of majority opinion or a mystical intuition of ‘what is right’. This radical challenge to all authorities, including ourselves, is a good check and balance to have in any public policy process to ensure that we are actually working for the Common Good and not unconsciously slipping into partisan policies, tactically appealing to the fashions or prejudices of a sector of society and thereby disregarding the real common good.

We are all naturally prone to such fast, unconscious, unprincipled and unreasoned judgements, but we should recognise the fact and take responsibility for how we can risk or do real harm, or fail to do as much good as we could and should do, to others and the real world outside our in-group awareness, if we fail to discipline ourselves to look and think more carefully and objectively than comes naturally to us, especially when we are discussing and influencing really important public policy.

written by Kester Ratcliff
co-edited by Gregg Bayes-Brown, Stuart Gallemore and Stuart Bower