During the ten years I have spent as a constitutional lawyer advocating for individual rights and freedoms, I learned a few things about how the government works and doesn’t. I want to convince you that we do not want politicians who treat “follow the science” as their primary duty..Unquestionably, COVID-19 infections can result in severe personal health problems for a segment of the population, even though many people experience only minor symptoms and others are asymptomatic. There is an increasingly well-defined vulnerable portion of the population. This is uncontroversial..But there are other ideas being bandied about that I simply cannot agree with. Foremost is the notion that politicians must at all times “follow the science.” Viewing “science” as a sort of Prime Directive for political leaders would bring terrible societal consequences. As well, it’s not how our political system is supposed to work..Our knowledge of the natural world is not fixed. It’s often ambiguous, capable of supporting multiple plausible theories. Our understanding of the world shifts constantly to accommodate new information. This may make many of us feel as though the carpet is constantly being yanked out from under our feet. But it should be a source of joy. As new data, new arguments, and new hypotheses arise, these are assessed and then subsumed and adapted into our previous understanding. Through the application of rational argument to empirical evidence, over time, our scientific knowledge of the world improves..Through this accommodation of new information, we are better situated to tailor our behaviours and policy measures to achieve the results that we desire. New information should not be a source of skepticism about the state of our scientific knowledge or science itself: it is the basis of the scientific method. It’s how science has historically been able to produce such wonderful results. .But, if politicians were to constantly change policies based upon newly emerging information, there would be social chaos. Sometimes new information is inaccurate, incomplete, or even distorted by bias; science is still a very human endeavor, after all. New information must be measured against what we currently believe and then assessed based on the preponderance of the evidence. As the philosopher David Hume said, “A wise man proportions his belief in accordance with the evidence.” We must do the same to avoid wild vacillations or even constant meddlesome tinkering in public policy..Otherwise, each new data point would result in the tightening or easing of restrictions, throwing society into chaos. No one could plan for the future. Our lives would be in an indefinite holding pattern of a constant oppressive “Wait, there’s more.”.Remember that once we didn’t know how COVID-19 would affect children? We now have a pretty good idea. Alberta’s public schools were shut down on Monday, March 16 out of an abundance of caution. I had already started keeping my kids home from school because at the time, nobody knew the health risks posed to children and to the adults in contact with them. I’ve learned a lot since then. .To date, in Alberta, there has not been a single Covid-19 fatality among individuals under age 20. Might that change? Perhaps. But as data from around the world continues to accumulate, it’s becoming less and less likely. If that were to suddenly change, Albertans would pivot, incorporate the new information, and change our understanding of COVID-19 and the infection it produces. That’s the messy, less than perfect nature of learning new things about the natural world in which we live..A second reason politicians should not “follow the science” as their Prime Directive is that they have been elected to be representative decision-makers for the public. They must not restrict themselves to the interest of any particular group, but rather must consider the vast panoply of interests represented in the electorate. Our system of government is itself a product of Western culture and social norms. As such, there is something almost evolutionary about the development of our political system and it would be ill-advised to surreptitiously dispense with our institutions. .Since our institutions have been developed over many years by hard times, good times, and through the influence of our climate, culture, and history, they have persisted because they are well-adapted to meet the unique needs of Alberta. I suggest that we must resist the temptation to tear down our institutions to go after COVID-19, because, there will come a time when the pandemic is over when we will wish we had not needlessly destroyed that which has served us so well..“Follow the science” sounds like a dystopian call to replace the will of our elected politicians with those of their appointed advisers, with politicians merely rubber stamping what’s presented to them. But politicians are responsible to the electorate and will eventually have to stand trial for their deeds in the court of public opinion, if not in an actual court of law. Scientific advisors face no such reckoning. Politicians must lead by the consent of the governed bound by law and custom. Scientists need not. Saying that politicians must always “follow the science” seems like a tacit endorsement of an entirely new system of government where a secret cabal of subject-matter experts manage political puppets without the important counterbalance of public opinion, the law, or custom. This is not the world that I want my children to inherit..So how should politicians act if “follow the science” is not their Prime Directive? In Alberta, the normative role of a politician is to serve as a representative of the electorate. Politicians should be guided by the advice of subject-matter experts, but they must also weigh other factors outside the expertise of the experts. As the authors of a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal said:.Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision-makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public..As representative decision-makers, politicians make decisions on our behalf while considering all factors important to the implementation of any particular policy. They must aim to compassionately balance risks and benefits while considering the whole-health of all individuals within Alberta. This not only includes the current best information about COVID-19, but also factors in our economy, social customs, lifestyle, laws, and the like. .Further, decision-makers must not commit a temporal fallacy by restricting themselves exclusively to the present moment. They must have an eye to the future: what are the five, ten, or twenty-year consequences of any given policy? How will it affect our children’s ability to get an education, find employment, raise a family within our province? Considerations like these are very much outside the expertise of infectious disease advisors..Instead of slavishly “following the science,” let’s be guided by science. Let’s recognize that scientific knowledge, while extremely important, is not, and should not, be the sole factor considered by our politicians. The proper role of our politicians is much, much broader. They must appropriately balance the whole-health of all Albertans with any steps taken to reduce the harms wrought to us by Covid-19..Derek From is a constitutional lawyer and guest columnist for the Western Standard
During the ten years I have spent as a constitutional lawyer advocating for individual rights and freedoms, I learned a few things about how the government works and doesn’t. I want to convince you that we do not want politicians who treat “follow the science” as their primary duty..Unquestionably, COVID-19 infections can result in severe personal health problems for a segment of the population, even though many people experience only minor symptoms and others are asymptomatic. There is an increasingly well-defined vulnerable portion of the population. This is uncontroversial..But there are other ideas being bandied about that I simply cannot agree with. Foremost is the notion that politicians must at all times “follow the science.” Viewing “science” as a sort of Prime Directive for political leaders would bring terrible societal consequences. As well, it’s not how our political system is supposed to work..Our knowledge of the natural world is not fixed. It’s often ambiguous, capable of supporting multiple plausible theories. Our understanding of the world shifts constantly to accommodate new information. This may make many of us feel as though the carpet is constantly being yanked out from under our feet. But it should be a source of joy. As new data, new arguments, and new hypotheses arise, these are assessed and then subsumed and adapted into our previous understanding. Through the application of rational argument to empirical evidence, over time, our scientific knowledge of the world improves..Through this accommodation of new information, we are better situated to tailor our behaviours and policy measures to achieve the results that we desire. New information should not be a source of skepticism about the state of our scientific knowledge or science itself: it is the basis of the scientific method. It’s how science has historically been able to produce such wonderful results. .But, if politicians were to constantly change policies based upon newly emerging information, there would be social chaos. Sometimes new information is inaccurate, incomplete, or even distorted by bias; science is still a very human endeavor, after all. New information must be measured against what we currently believe and then assessed based on the preponderance of the evidence. As the philosopher David Hume said, “A wise man proportions his belief in accordance with the evidence.” We must do the same to avoid wild vacillations or even constant meddlesome tinkering in public policy..Otherwise, each new data point would result in the tightening or easing of restrictions, throwing society into chaos. No one could plan for the future. Our lives would be in an indefinite holding pattern of a constant oppressive “Wait, there’s more.”.Remember that once we didn’t know how COVID-19 would affect children? We now have a pretty good idea. Alberta’s public schools were shut down on Monday, March 16 out of an abundance of caution. I had already started keeping my kids home from school because at the time, nobody knew the health risks posed to children and to the adults in contact with them. I’ve learned a lot since then. .To date, in Alberta, there has not been a single Covid-19 fatality among individuals under age 20. Might that change? Perhaps. But as data from around the world continues to accumulate, it’s becoming less and less likely. If that were to suddenly change, Albertans would pivot, incorporate the new information, and change our understanding of COVID-19 and the infection it produces. That’s the messy, less than perfect nature of learning new things about the natural world in which we live..A second reason politicians should not “follow the science” as their Prime Directive is that they have been elected to be representative decision-makers for the public. They must not restrict themselves to the interest of any particular group, but rather must consider the vast panoply of interests represented in the electorate. Our system of government is itself a product of Western culture and social norms. As such, there is something almost evolutionary about the development of our political system and it would be ill-advised to surreptitiously dispense with our institutions. .Since our institutions have been developed over many years by hard times, good times, and through the influence of our climate, culture, and history, they have persisted because they are well-adapted to meet the unique needs of Alberta. I suggest that we must resist the temptation to tear down our institutions to go after COVID-19, because, there will come a time when the pandemic is over when we will wish we had not needlessly destroyed that which has served us so well..“Follow the science” sounds like a dystopian call to replace the will of our elected politicians with those of their appointed advisers, with politicians merely rubber stamping what’s presented to them. But politicians are responsible to the electorate and will eventually have to stand trial for their deeds in the court of public opinion, if not in an actual court of law. Scientific advisors face no such reckoning. Politicians must lead by the consent of the governed bound by law and custom. Scientists need not. Saying that politicians must always “follow the science” seems like a tacit endorsement of an entirely new system of government where a secret cabal of subject-matter experts manage political puppets without the important counterbalance of public opinion, the law, or custom. This is not the world that I want my children to inherit..So how should politicians act if “follow the science” is not their Prime Directive? In Alberta, the normative role of a politician is to serve as a representative of the electorate. Politicians should be guided by the advice of subject-matter experts, but they must also weigh other factors outside the expertise of the experts. As the authors of a recent editorial in the British Medical Journal said:.Politicians often claim to follow the science, but that is a misleading oversimplification. Science is rarely absolute. It rarely applies to every setting or every population. It doesn’t make sense to slavishly follow science or evidence. A better approach is for politicians, the publicly appointed decision-makers, to be informed and guided by science when they decide policy for their public..As representative decision-makers, politicians make decisions on our behalf while considering all factors important to the implementation of any particular policy. They must aim to compassionately balance risks and benefits while considering the whole-health of all individuals within Alberta. This not only includes the current best information about COVID-19, but also factors in our economy, social customs, lifestyle, laws, and the like. .Further, decision-makers must not commit a temporal fallacy by restricting themselves exclusively to the present moment. They must have an eye to the future: what are the five, ten, or twenty-year consequences of any given policy? How will it affect our children’s ability to get an education, find employment, raise a family within our province? Considerations like these are very much outside the expertise of infectious disease advisors..Instead of slavishly “following the science,” let’s be guided by science. Let’s recognize that scientific knowledge, while extremely important, is not, and should not, be the sole factor considered by our politicians. The proper role of our politicians is much, much broader. They must appropriately balance the whole-health of all Albertans with any steps taken to reduce the harms wrought to us by Covid-19..Derek From is a constitutional lawyer and guest columnist for the Western Standard
