Congress is increasingly relying on science, but Republicans and Democrats often refer to different studies.
In the realm of U.S. policymaking, the integration of scientific evidence has long been a topic of contention. Critics often accuse lawmakers of disregarding scientific insights when formulating legislation regarding critical issues like climate change, gun violence, and healthcare accessibility. However, a recent study sheds light on the fact that members of Congress and their staff are indeed engaging with an abundance of research, as evidenced by the frequency of citations to technical papers in committee documents over the past few decades.
The study, recently published on the preprint database SocArXiv, delved into over 49,000 reports and hearing documents issued by committees in the Senate and House of Representatives from 1995 to 2021. It revealed a notable increase in the percentage of committee documents incorporating citations to scientific papers over the 26-year span, with citations becoming nearly six times more prevalent in 2020 compared to 1995, rising from 5% to nearly 30%. However, beneath this upward trend lies a striking partisan divide: committees under Democratic control were almost twice as likely to cite technical papers compared to those led by Republicans.
Furthermore, the study pointed out that Democratic and Republican committees predominantly referenced distinct sets of papers, with only a meager 5% of cited papers receiving acknowledgment from both sides at least once during the study period. The disparities extended across various scientific disciplines and policy areas, with even documents on the same topic from opposing sides showcasing differing citation patterns. Committees led by Democrats tended to cite recent papers that had undergone peer review and were widely acknowledged by the scientific community as crucial.
These ideological discrepancies persisted when analyzing reports from 121 U.S. think tanks that lean towards either end of the political spectrum. The disparities in citation rates between left-leaning and right-leaning think tanks appeared to correlate with a differing level of trust in scientific expertise and impartiality among policymakers and political elites in Washington, D.C.
The study raised concerns regarding the possibility of policymakers selectively citing research to buttress preconceived notions or agendas, potentially eroding public trust in both the government and scientific community. This practice could lead to less effective policies or unintended consequences. Nonetheless, the researchers highlighted a silver lining by showcasing a higher level of trust in science among federal policymakers compared to voters sharing their ideological orientation. They also emphasized the potential for the subset of papers cited by both parties to serve as a foundation for crafting policies grounded in a shared base of scientific evidence.
Although the study's comprehensive approach drawing data from various sources offers valuable insights, some experts have pointed out potential limitations. For instance, the survey of Washington, D.C.'s policy elite lacks differentiation between individuals actively involved in policymaking, such as congressional staffers, and those operating outside government spheres.
Ultimately, the study underscores the importance of bridging the gap in citing scientific research across party lines within Congress. By fostering a more collaborative approach to integrating scientific evidence into policy formulation, lawmakers could enhance the efficacy and integrity of legislative decisions in addressing pressing societal challenges.
Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/congress-using-more-science-two-parties-rarely-cite-same-studies
The study, recently published on the preprint database SocArXiv, delved into over 49,000 reports and hearing documents issued by committees in the Senate and House of Representatives from 1995 to 2021. It revealed a notable increase in the percentage of committee documents incorporating citations to scientific papers over the 26-year span, with citations becoming nearly six times more prevalent in 2020 compared to 1995, rising from 5% to nearly 30%. However, beneath this upward trend lies a striking partisan divide: committees under Democratic control were almost twice as likely to cite technical papers compared to those led by Republicans.
Furthermore, the study pointed out that Democratic and Republican committees predominantly referenced distinct sets of papers, with only a meager 5% of cited papers receiving acknowledgment from both sides at least once during the study period. The disparities extended across various scientific disciplines and policy areas, with even documents on the same topic from opposing sides showcasing differing citation patterns. Committees led by Democrats tended to cite recent papers that had undergone peer review and were widely acknowledged by the scientific community as crucial.
These ideological discrepancies persisted when analyzing reports from 121 U.S. think tanks that lean towards either end of the political spectrum. The disparities in citation rates between left-leaning and right-leaning think tanks appeared to correlate with a differing level of trust in scientific expertise and impartiality among policymakers and political elites in Washington, D.C.
The study raised concerns regarding the possibility of policymakers selectively citing research to buttress preconceived notions or agendas, potentially eroding public trust in both the government and scientific community. This practice could lead to less effective policies or unintended consequences. Nonetheless, the researchers highlighted a silver lining by showcasing a higher level of trust in science among federal policymakers compared to voters sharing their ideological orientation. They also emphasized the potential for the subset of papers cited by both parties to serve as a foundation for crafting policies grounded in a shared base of scientific evidence.
Although the study's comprehensive approach drawing data from various sources offers valuable insights, some experts have pointed out potential limitations. For instance, the survey of Washington, D.C.'s policy elite lacks differentiation between individuals actively involved in policymaking, such as congressional staffers, and those operating outside government spheres.
Ultimately, the study underscores the importance of bridging the gap in citing scientific research across party lines within Congress. By fostering a more collaborative approach to integrating scientific evidence into policy formulation, lawmakers could enhance the efficacy and integrity of legislative decisions in addressing pressing societal challenges.
Source: https://www.science.org/content/article/congress-using-more-science-two-parties-rarely-cite-same-studies
Comments
Post a Comment