8 2 / 2022 // LEOPOLDINA / NEWS

Series of articles on “ Policy advice in the field of tension between science , politics and the media ”

Particularly in science-based policy deliberations , it is important to be attentive and transparent in dealing with value judgements . Recommendations and statements of “ ought ” are not a scientific description of the world and its causal relationships . Rather , they are statements which explicitly or implicitly compare alternative situations in an evaluative way . As a rule , the evaluation criteria on which they are based are not rooted in science themselves .

BY REGINA T . RIPHAHN ML *

“ It is important to be transparent about the fact that value judgements are not made according to scientific criteria ”.

Regina T . Riphahn Vice President of the Leopoldina

Image : Markus Scholz | Leopoldina

For science to be accepted as an advisory instance it must be independent . Furthermore , it is important to note the difference between value judgementfree statements of being ( descriptions ) and value judgement-laden statements of “ ought ” ( norms ).

Separation of fact and opinion

Whether a three percent decline of economic output is an “ acceptable price ” for a measure to achieve foreign policy goals is not a scientific question , nor is the question whether it is “ appropriate ” to close schools to prevent 500,000 infections with a certain percentage of expected deaths . Everyone is entitled to their opinion on such questions . In this context , the opinion of scientists is a priori no more valid than that of other people .

The separation of fact and opinion counts for the credibility and persuasiveness of researchers ’ advisory statements . This is indicated by the survey

of members of the German Bundestag commissioned by the Leopoldina ’ s “ Initiative for Evidence-Based Policy Making ” in spring 2021 . The evaluation of the results included the feedback of the parliamentarians : “ Recommendations for actions derived from findings should be clearly separated from them (...).”

This idea was also reflected in paragraph 2 of the Act on the Formation of a German Council of Economic Experts ( SachvRatG ). The statement reads : “ In its reports , the Council of Economic Experts shall present the respective overall economic situation and its foreseeable development . (...) The study should be based on different assumptions and their different effects should be presented and assessed . However , the Council of Economic Experts shall (...) not make any recommendations for specific economic and social policy measures .”

A matter of responsibility

But what about the scientists ’ responsibility ? Should not the experts , who have special insight and overview , speak up in an emergency ? They may and should do so , just as every citizen may . However , where scientific validity of the statements is implied or may be understood as such , it must be worded particularly carefully . This could be done by using an if-then-argumentation and , if necessary , naming value judgements as such .

Accurate presentation

After all , the strength of the experts lies in the accurate presentation of options for action based on objective , valuefree analyses and not in their subjective opinions . The authors of the SachvRatG already saw it that way in 1963 when they passed the Act .

* Regina T . Riphahn has been Vice President of the Leopoldina since 2017 . The economist represents the Evidence Initiative , which is under the umbrella of the Leopoldina . The initiative provides a platform for dialogue and networking with and for those involved and interested in politics and science .

Topic in Focus “ Evidenzbasierte Politikberatung ” ( German only )