(junk) science and the production of policy
The notion of “astroturf” groups as contrasted with the “grassroots” is now somewhat familiar, but let’s further consider the phenomenon of industry funded institutes or “think tanks”.
These “institutions” are established to give the credibility of scholarly or scientific form to interest driven publications and statements, or to create enough noise so as to distract from or obscure the issues in play in that field. (Much as astroturf groups attempt to lend authentic public voice to particular positions, and keeping in mind that astroturf and industry funded policy think-tanks often operate in coordinated strategy.)
(NB: the science I am invoking here is human knowledge as related to practical activity… it may range from analysis of financial documents to questions of engineering potential, to environmental impact.)
If it were merely the production of ideas, studies, or reports where the content would stand on scientific or discursive merit, it would not be that bad. However, the capacity for publication and promotion of these ideas, along with resources to staff an idea (as opposed to staffing a line of inquiry or research) is the real danger.
One unfortunate result is junk science as basis for policy.
Another is loss of faith in the potential for rational (or even scientific) resolution of particular questions, especially governance and business matters with an increased likelihood that we allow mis-direction of our attention to the “freedom” of market actors.
We subjugate public policy to business interest.
Displacing civic matters with questions of business, finance, and consumption we short-change the equation we need to bring to balance. We exclude key variables.
For questions of communications policy and investment in public infrastructure, can we be objective?
Can we establish a framework for policy makers at local, regional and national levels?
In the wireless and broadband debates, can we leave open the fundamental questions surrounding ownership models, technology choice and range of network/technology/social purpose or utility?
These three questions are central to the effective planning of any infrastructure or technology project, whether in public context, or within an organization.
Among these questions we can outline a appropriate and necessary hierarchy: purpose, possibility, and plan.
Why do we have such propensity to take the plan as given, foreclosing possibilities inherent in technology and topology and tacking on purposes only to achieve sufficient buy-in from select groups? In part it’s the politics of contest, but along with a fairly uncritical acceptance of business assertions and a lack of faith in the rational potential of human discourse, we get the policy we settle for, and we settle for the policy we get.