Making sense of science in the 21st century: A personal view

Published on November 20th, 2024

“Making sense” of a particular domain at the level of an individual or a group of individuals is an act that results from a dynamic interaction between related stakeholders, influenced by their socio-economic and political environment. As such, there is room for subjective judgement and differing interpretations, as well as the potential for change over time. 

On the other hand, the body of science evolves on its own, as knowledge is accumulated, reconfigured and restructured, and new tools are developed, tested and deployed, at an accelerated pace, but also through interactions with its surrounding environment, as illustrated by the phenomena we are observing today with the use of AI in science and for science, and in society. 

In this sense, I believe that the act of “making sense of science,” with a particular reference to “scientists” and “policymakers”, and their interaction, should be exercised not in a static but dynamic way, and not confined to the realm of science, but open to value-based discussion. 

In a democratic state, the process of policy making is defined by the legal framework. In practice, however, it is a combination of discussion, negotiation, confrontation, compromise, or consensus between different forces, and we often observe a kind of alchemy or “art” at work that consolidates over time and leads to stability. 

At the turn of the 21st century, a voice for “evidence-based policymaking” emerged to challenge this practice. The OECD, pioneer and leader for setting standards and using statistical data to help member countries in their policymaking, was at the forefront. In the field of science, technology and innovation (STI), the Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (NESTI) was instrumental in providing the basic framework and materials for evidence-based policymaking. 

This approach, based on the premise that evidence comes from the scientific endeavor (what I call here “scientific evidence”) and is ideally quantifiable, has been well received by many countries, and in some cases, has been embedded in the policy cycle, that includes the impact assessment. 

However, the link between “scientific evidence” and the policy objective is not a one-to-one linear relationship and needs to be considered within a complex interaction of identifiable and imperceptible factors behind the policy objective. In addition, the evolving nature of “scientific evidence” and the characteristics of “art” in policymaking add further complexity to this exercise. 

Today, “product liability”, which identifies the responsibility of those who place a product on the market, is a fairly well accepted concept in many countries, and has encouraged industry to set its own safety standards and to develop after-sales services, in short to establish a relationship of trust with their customers. 

By analogy, we could imagine a kind of “scientific evidence liability,” not with a view to establishing a legal framework, but to encourage the providers of “scientific evidence”, i.e. scientists, to establish a relationship of trust with their users, e.g. “policymakers”. To put this idea into practice, as a first step, we can define, through an open and humble dialogue between “scientists” and “policymakers”, a list of principles to be respected in order to use “scientific evidence” in policy making with precaution. Given the evolving nature of science and its socio-economic and political context, a self-correcting mechanism, such as learning-by-experiencing or sharing good and bad practices across countries, should also be built into this process. 

Last but not least, I would like to note that “scientists” and “policymakers” share a communality of being ordinary citizens. As such, they have a priviledge and responsibility to bring the societal perspective to their exercise of making sense of science. 

Copyright: © 2024 [author(s)]. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in Frontiers Policy Labs is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.