Facts, Science and Evidence-Based Policy Making: Pushing Back Against Fake News and Propoganda
Written by Richard Howitt, Editorial Committee Member, Skytop Contributor and Host, SkytopTV’s “Corporate Rapporteur”
Richard’s background celebrates three decades as a strategic thinker who integrates innovation into organisational practice. A 22-year member of the European Parliament Rapporteur on Corporate Social Responsibility, he led the EU’s Non-Financial Reporting Directive. This initiative, recognized as the world’s foremost legislation on Corporate Transparency, brought him to new challenges.
This includes his work as CEO of the International Integrated Reporting Council, the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosure, Advisor to the UN Global Compact, Member of the European Commission SDG Platform, and the UN Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights Reporting Framework Eminent Persons’ Group.
Richard is recognized as a Sage Top 100 Global Business Influencer, Thomson Reuters ‘Top 30’ Influencer in Risk, Compliance and Regtech. He is a Member of the B20 International Business Leaders’ Group and its Climate and Resource Efficiency Task Force. He currently serves as Strategic Advisor on Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability, and Senior Associate at the law firm Frank Bold LLC.
Anti-Evidential Bias
The words 'fake news' have entered the political lexicon.
This is in the United States, where senior advisors famously countered uncomfortable evidence by proclaiming falsehoods and describing them as 'alternative facts'.
But it is also in Europe, where the co-leader of the U.K.'s Brexit campaign, equally famously announced that "the people of this country have had enough of experts."
The proponents of these attacks on what is an evidence-based approach to policy, are typically from what might be called the radical right.
But if there is to be a return to rationality in public policy, those in what the radical right would call the liberal elite, need to be self-critical.
It is easy for liberals to ridicule the worst excesses of deceit and dishonesty in their opponents, by speaking in conferences, developing papers for think-tanks or writing learned (or not so learned) articles such as this - essentially in speaking amongst themselves.
Although there is some merit in building a collective solidarity amongst those under attack, liberals are addressing their defense of knowledge and of evidence to their own echo chamber, simply adding to the polarization which has been established between the different political positions.
Unwittingly, not only are their messages failing to reach the people who most need to hear them, but they are potentially reinforcing the prejudices which suggest that so-called experts 'know best', contrary to the life experience of what is characterized as 'ordinary people'.
Any tendency towards self-righteousness amongst academics and other experts should be tempered by Pew Research Center multi-country research, which showed that 66% reported trusting people with “practical experience” to solve problems over experts.
This neatly fits the conservative mindset that evidence is less important, because societal interests can best be pursued through Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of free market economics.
An anti-evidential bias may be integral to a rise in populist politics but may simply represent conservative mistrust of what they see as necessary only for liberal interventionism.
Countering Populism
Recent attacks on the free press as the 'enemy of the people' has been noted to be a direct quote from Joseph Stalin about political opposition in Communist Russia.
It can also be recalled that attacks on universities, artists and scientists were the hallmark of the persecution and killings perpetrated by Chairman Mao's 'Cultural Revolution' in Communist China.
Whether the growth of the Far Right will lead to totalitarianism - parties winning elections to subvert the power to hold free elections in the future - is questionable.
However, there is no doubt that freedom of thought and belief, the ability to express dissent and for independent institutions, including universities and the media to enable such plurality, are important elements of free democracies.
The attack on educational and scientific knowledge may or may not be a political attack seeking to destroy opposition, but it is certainly a cultural attack which has the political effect of undermining democracy.
If what we are witnessing - not simply in America but in countries around the world - is the rise of populist politics and politicians, this is not just about effective policymaking, it is about fundamental democratic values.
Espousing that argument, when a leader is referred to as a 'dictator', risks getting lost amongst the political polarization.
The intellectual case recognizes that anti-democratic forces may only be emboldened by simply being dismissed.
Ironically, the defense of evidence-based policymaking comes in exposing lack of evidence behind populist rhetoric and seeking a more informed understanding of what the politics of the radical right actually mean.
At one level, this is a call for liberals to hold their nerve.
But some of the assumptions of the radical right cannot and should not be easily dismissed.
Questioning the Science
The attack on evidence-based policy making is rooted not in today's politics, but in the field of medical research.
Scientists have been accused of bias in research findings, in favor or against commonly accepted—by science--prescription drugs or treatments, depending on the financial sponsor of the research or in prejudicial thinking about what the problem is in the first place.
The criticism is less that field trials have been organized using a flawed methodology, but in the assumption that better treatments must always be the answer at the expense of different viewpoints. For example, about better public health education and giving higher priority to prevention over cure.
Extremes exist here too, of course.
Nearly a quarter of a million people died in the United States during the first part of the COVID pandemic due to lack of vaccination, due in part to the circulation of unverified claims about the potential impact of such vaccinations.
This followed disputed claims about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, which contributed to a decline in uptake and the subsequent reemergence of measles in some countries where it had previously been eliminated.
It is surprising to many that someone with a well-known skepticism toward vaccines has been appointed as Secretary at the U.S. Department of Health.
Nevertheless, the criticism of scientific bias has also been characterized in classic liberal causes, including in anti-tobacco campaigns, against the use of baby formula over breast milk and in the health effects from lead in gasoline.
“Follow the science' does not mean follow all or anything expressed in scientific terms but does advocate the use of scientific rigor to examine and seek to avoid bias in the assumptions which underlie any scientific findings.
Challenging the assumptions is not an attack on science, but a quest for even better science.
On climate as much as in medicine, a defense of evidence-based policy involves a defense of science and of scientists.
Some science is incontrovertible.
More than 600 delegates attended the most recent Flat Earth International Conference, whilst the Flat Earth Society has 200,000 followers online. They have a right to their own beliefs, but there is no justification for representing that belief in public policy.
It took the Vatican 350 years, from 1633 until 1992, to pardon Galileo's conviction for heresy for arguing that the Earth circled the Sun, rather than the opposite, which Galileo had been forced to publicly renounce to save his own life.
The Flat-Earthers of today, whose ideas must not take centuries to refute, are the climate-deniers, anti-vaxxers and those who deny the business benefits which accrue from workforce diversity.
Although I wouldn't quite go this far, there remains some truth in what the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has said: “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”
A Proper Separation Between Policy and Evidence
During the COVID pandemic, in his daily press conferences the British Prime Minister was flanked by two leading scientists, the country's Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Advisor, precisely because it was believed that the public would be more receptive if messages were delivered not only by politicians but by 'experts'.
Although it is understandable given the exceptional nature of the situation that those daily press conferences saw policy and evidence merge, self-criticism should also lead us to recognise the differences as well as the connection between policy and evidence.
First, there is a difference between analysis and synthesis.
Most of the social and environmental questions with which we are dealing are complex in nature and long-term in impact. Our understanding is rapidly changing, and current accepted knowledge may be based on what could quickly become apparent to be false assumptions.
This can be described as the problem of flux.
Any one piece of evidence might always be disconnected from a wider truth and unrepresentative of longer-term trends.
Once again, it does not make that evidence 'wrong' but imposes limitations on how we can interpret it and creates a necessity to put it into context.
It means that information from the margins should not necessarily be dismissed as an outlier and that there is room for experimentation to yield new results, in what might genuinely turn out to be new challenges.
Policy determination may be informed by evidence but is a process which must remain separate from the evidence itself.
There is a second, even more significant proper disconnect between evidence and policy: it is not wrong for policymakers to make value-based judgments.
Values-Driven Judgments
There is no automaticity between evidence and policy. There will always be the necessity to make judgments, and it is not wrong for policymakers to use emotion, values and ideology to drive a preferred conclusion.
Politicians will always come to decisions based on their own beliefs and on their assessment of the political acceptability of pursuing any course of action.
Those politicians who over-rely on evidence-based solutions are sometimes criticised for being too technocratic, managerial and lacking conviction.
If it is not that the evidence will always dictate the solution, it is right that decision-makers are held to account, including in cases where the decisions they make run counter to the evidence.
'Freedom of information' requests exist to test whether politicians have acted in the best interest, according to advice and information which is available to them.
Transparency of that information remains a bulwark against prejudice and corruption.
It is an important safeguard for efficiency and effectiveness in public institutions.
Defense of knowledge should not argue that there is a 'higher truth' which invalidates a particular policy response but can argue that the proper attainment and assessment of evidence has an essential role amongst the governance principles through which effective public institutions operate.
Ignorance - the ignoring of evidence - can never be excused.
Confirmation Bias
One aspect of the misuse of evidence to which liberals as well as conservatives can fall prey is in seeking or valuing information only to confirm their own premeditated position.
One public official, of which I am aware personally, described this as "policy-based evidence rather than evidence-based policy."
Academics describe it as confirmation bias.
The most famous example in history is of U.S. signals intelligence intercepting Japanese military communications about their plans to attack U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor, which was heard but simply not believed.
Once again, the answer to this challenge lies in proper thought and attention paid to counterevidence and in systems of transparency which enable this to be tested.
It also requires a culture of openness and a balance of power within institutions, which can allow countervailing evidence to be articulated.
A willingness for self-doubt and public admission of misjudgment can be powerful tools to puncture the false certainties of political opponents.
Communicating the capacity to question one's own beliefs might help depolarize public opinion by causing others to do so too.
The true believer, those only faithful to the text, the zealot - all taken from religious rather than political terminology - will never brook alternative views or evidence.
The bias which is needed is towards the fullest appreciation of information itself, not in pre-determining what that information might be.
Fact or Fiction
At the heart of the debate about 'fake news' and misinformation is the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction.
Most definitions of 'fact' include the concept of truth, but also in the actual existence of what is asserted and in proof of its truth.
This leads us back to evidence and the acceptance of its validity.
There may be a high bar or a low bar to the proof, but the problem comes where the bar is so high, no proof can ever be good enough.
In the justice system, 'beyond reasonable doubt' includes a test of reason, which embraces concepts both of fairness and of acceptability.
There is no escaping judgment.
However, as India's first post-independence Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru said: "Facts are facts and will not disappear on account of your likes."
In the modern era, media organizations have increasingly set up 'fact-checking' functions to test political claims, which the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism report are now established in 50 countries worldwide.
It can be argued that good journalism always relied on such proper fact-finding.
However, the rise of social media and the phenomenon of deliberately using misinformation for political, industrial or even military aims, has markedly changed the assessment.
The rise of social media itself and the onset of big data have fundamentally changed traditional record-keeping and the existence of shared memory in organizations.
Extremists want to continuously rewrite history, and modern communications make this easier, not harder, to do.
This challenge may be exacerbated many times over in the rise in use of artificial intelligence.
For fact-checking itself, there are those who criticise the 'checkers' as simply representing a new form of political bias or censorship.
Some critics would even suggest there is a bias towards Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic, (“WEIRD”) viewpoints, of which liberals would be the first to want to be aware.
However, research evidence (if I may use an evidential argument) seems to suggest warning labels on social media, and corrections for accuracy in traditional media do successfully impact behavior.
On social media, quite simply, fewer people share.
It is in this context that Meta's decision to end independent fact checking for Facebook and Instagram and to replace it with users being able to post their own comments on accuracy ("community notes"), looks like a retrograde step.
Traditional media always sought to distinguish between fact and opinion.
This latest decision seems to undermine that entirely.
Objectivity Remains Subject of Debate
The case has already been made that a certain degree of subjectivity is both inevitable and desirable.
Philosophy describes objectivity as being 'independent from perception' - but how far is that really possible?
As a young philosophy student, I learnt that we cannot be sure of anything in the real world, except in our own perceptions about it.
This is summed up in the philosophical conundrum: does an object exist if no one is observing it?
Aristotle defines ethics as being distinct from science. Judgment is not only determined by rules, but by emotions and social skills, including values of courage and justice, to apply uniquely to any specific situation.
Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins disagrees, pointing to the empirical truth that (for the most part) science works. Machines work according to engineering. Medicines work according to molecular science.
All of this may seem far removed from arguments about misinformation in the political or business world.
In an era where there is a high degree of political consensus between competing political viewpoints, actual evidence can be the shared value, which allows mediation between different political actors.
In an era where there is a breakdown of political consensus, there is no such shared space where competing interests can be reconciled.
Today's radical right would not express it in this way, but the uncomfortable truth for liberals in the current context is that there is an intellectual case for conservatives to reject evidence, however compelling it may appear to liberal minds.
Even here, U.S. constitutional rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as "self-evident" and "inalienable", sets some scientific safeguards against the unfettered action of any government.
But the difference between evidence and self-evidence still leaves a huge chasm for interpretation.
Lessons to be Learnt
These are challenging times where, however simple is the rhetoric of the radical right, the answers will never be so straight-forward.
I have heard and read descriptions that there is an attempt to 'lobotomize America' or to turn the country into an 'idiocracy'. Concerns have been raised about the accuracy of information on the social media platform 'Truth Social,' with some drawing comparisons to Orwellian themes.
However reassuring such analysis is to the liberal mindset, these criticisms will reinforce rather than challenge conservative arguments.
For universities, the research community and other knowledge institutions, there is an extra imperative to be transparent about assumptions and about funding, open about limitations and about the complexities in evidence which is presented.
This is already very much part of established academic discipline, but even more important when the criticism on all sides is one of bias and of false certainty.
There is also a need to communicate and to seek partnerships outside traditional circles, to reach new audiences which would not normally have access to the benefits of research.
For political and business leaders and for activists, the need for self-criticism may be the key to finding the best response.
Attempting simply to dismiss or ridicule the arguments of the radical right, whose convictions are deeply held—sometimes with near-religious intensity—is unlikely to be effective.
Liberals should never themselves use the epithet 'fake news' against their political opponents.
Instead, the use of evidence itself to dismantle counterarguments and to put forward liberal propositions is both the tool and the outcome of defending the evidence-based approach.
Self-criticism involves accepting that public policy encompasses a degree of subjectivity and is determined by values as well as evidence.
The response should not be to deny values, but to positively assert the different values which guide alternative policy responses.
Openness to countervailing evidence can build credibility and challenge others to do the same.
It must also be acknowledged that there is an intellectual case for policymakers to make decisions contrary to evidence, even if political opponents do not try to make this case.
The answer here is not to deny the right for such decisions to be made, but to hold decision makers to account for doing so, in terms of the costs and consequences of ignoring the evidence.
It is proper to keep a separation between policy and evidence; there is not a deterministic relationship between the two.
But science does work, and a defense of science is crucial to addressing the challenges of our time.
While separation of policy may be desirable, it is equally necessary for all actors in the public sphere to be able to distinguish fact from fiction.
The test of reason and reasonableness in determining truth may be a very difficult one, but it is a moral, legal and even a constitutional requirement, which means that the more challenging it may be, the more important it is to undertake.
This article has sought to be not a manifesto against 'fake news', but a careful deliberation of how it can successfully be countered.
Those who willfully misrepresent the difference between truth and falsehood should recall the advice of Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin: 'honesty is the best policy'.