Science and politics, or on the irony of the term Political science
This edition of the Journal contains a series of articles that focus on firearm-related death and injury and it might be profitable to consider the interplay among science, politics, and policy within the American system of government.
Abstract
This edition of the Journal contains a series of articles that focus on firearm-related death and injury. They are part of an ongoing effort by the New York Academy of Medicine to increase awareness of, and action on, this issue within the medical community. As part of that effort, the Academy sponsors Doctors Against Handgun Injury (DAHI), an organization funded by the Joyce Foundation and consisting of 12 medical and clinical societies with members who include approximately 600,000 physicians. The overarching goal of DAHI is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries by adding a public health and clinical perspective to the development and evaluation of policies and programs designed to reduce firearm risks. This perspective is “based on science and rooted in established principles of epidemiology and public health practice.” Both as a way of exploring the practical impact of a public health and clinical perspective and as an introduction to these articles, it might be profitable to consider the interplay among science, politics, and policy within the American system of government. Most people would accept as axiomatic the proposition that, when scientific evidence is clear and compelling, public policy should be based on it. But, like most self-evident claims, that value statement is overly simplistic and, as a result, is honored more rhetorically than behaviorally. Policymakers, while interested in scientific results and studies, are not always guided by their conclusions. Indeed, our national experience with science, when treated as an absolute determinant of policy, has often been less than satisfying. The Endangered Species Act, when literally interpreted, produced the “snail darter disaster”—a situation in which a species, for which salvation made cosmic sense, was turned into a joke and then a significant loophole in the law.* The fact that scientific findings do not control public policy ought not come as a shock. Policy decisions, after all, require a balancing of competing interests: at a minimum, economic, social, and political factors come into play and need to be harmonized. Yet, when science identifies a problem, its para-