The theme of this blog is “all things evidence and policy”, that is, what works and doesn’t work to get evidence translated into public health action. This theme is being highlighted at a symposium I am chairing  at the Epidemiology Congress in Montreal this month entitled “Epidemiology, Science Policy, and Society--Making More Effective Use of Data When The Facts Don't Speak For Themselves”. We will ask leaders in the field to address three questions

1. What conceptual framework works best to help epidemiologists understand and navigate the process of data translation?

2. What have we learned from our study and practice about what works to successfully translate data into action?

3. What promising approaches are being used today that can serve as models to make more effective use of data

Stay tuned for the answers.

Although facts will sometimes appear to speak for themselves by leading to a clear cut conclusion, more often than scientists would like, the facts are not the whole story in persuading people to take a course of action.   This conclusion is the topic of a very interesting article in Mother Jones magazine recently by Chris Mooney entitled “The Science of Why We Don’t Believe Science” or “Rapture Ready-- The Science of Self-Delusion”
 http://motherjones.com/print/106166

Examples of failure to navigate this gap between science and policy are all around us on issues such as vaccines and autism, climate change, mammography screening guidelines, and other topics.

Mooney quotes Yale University’s Dan Kahan  that “We’ve come to a misadventure , a bad situation, where diverse citizens, who rely on diverse systems of cultural certification, are in conflict”.

In looking for a framework from which to approach this challenge, Mooney’s conclusion is helpful. According to Mooney, “…you don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.”

How this might be applied in translating epidemiologic findings into policy?  One example I have heard about is one in Kansas where leaders were reportedly getting no traction in discussing climate change and getting agreement on actions that could be taken to mitigate the effects. However, when this issue was presented as one of environmental stewardship as a part of Christian stewardship, progress was achieved. Recommended actions, such as reducing carbon footprints, by those pursuing Christian stewardship are of the type that would be fully acceptable to climate change activists coming at the issue from a different frame of reference. Bottom line: Facts are not stand alone entities. They take on meaning only in reference to some context, and epidemiologists and public health professionals need to factor this in when doing data translation.

Want to make a comment ?  Use the form below and we'll post comments as quickly as possible