Instruction
According to the Wolters (2016) reading this week, “the role of scientists in policy formation is inherently conflicted. Scientists, often slated to be the messengers of unbiased information, are torn between reporting on their research and recommending policies based on their findings.” Wolters goes on to add, “in this mode of report only, scientists avoid the public eye and instead are only a conduit of information…however, many feel scientists are arguably the most qualified to draw conclusions and recommendations from their research but in doing so they open themselves up to scrutiny as to the motivations and credibility of their research” (Wolters, 2016, p. 1-2).
Lackey (2007) adds that in the traditional model of public policy development, “the role of scientists is to provide relevant expertise about scientific data, theories, and findings that others in the policy-making process can use to make decisions, not to make the decisions themselves or to be advocates of particular policy positions…credibility can be lost only once” (Lackey, 2007, p. 12-13). As such, often scientific researchers/subject matter experts may loathe recommending public policies for fear of the perception of advocacy).
For this week’s writing assignment, you will identify a current public policy-related problem, issue, or governmental initiative where key scientific findings have been placed under the microscope for potential conflict and/or debate. Throughout the six-step public policy process, determine how professional legislators and public administrators alike can encourage, support, facilitate, and assist a full, detailed, and transparent scientific public discussion with the best/most current data possible. Are there specific steps within the six-step process that lends themselves better in facilitating full scientific engagement than others?
Length: 3-pages, not including title and reference pages
References: Include a minimum of five scholarly resources.