In times of crisis, such as in the case of the volcanic ash cloud, the
role of science
in policy-making processes becomes more apparent than in ‘normal’, less
controversial times. There is, however, hardly a policy area imaginable
where
science is not involved – even though that role, in general, stays
hidden from
the public at large. In the Netherlands, policy programmes such as the
financial
reform in the health care sector or those that support health promotion
rely upon
scientific knowledge. In less controversial times as well, on the
smaller scale of
policy programmes and single policy measures, policy makers do not act
without the involvement of scientists. Scientific input is needed to
answer policy questions
such as: How can we keep citizens healthy and safe, how can we safeguard
affordable
health care among ageing Dutch citizens, and how can we maintain good
quality of health care while increasing the efficiency of health care
practices?
The growing need for scientific knowledge brings along tension between
the
need for more evidence-based policy, and the fear of a technocratic and
uncritical
or uncontrollable role of science in policy-making. This paradox of
scientific
authority, as Bijker, Bal and Hendriks (2009) put it beautifully –
needing knowledge
for policy-making processes versus a critical attitude towards using
science
in policy-making – emphasises the importance of questioning the role of
science
in policy-making: How can we understand this role? What are the
consequences
of close interaction between science and policy? And, if we want to
improve the
effectiveness of scientific evidence in policy, how can we achieve this?
This thesis
addresses these questions, taking health care and economic thinking on
health
care as its focus of investigation.
http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/22194/BMG%20101209%20Egmond%2C%20Stans%20van.pdf
http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/22194/BMG%20101209%20Egmond%2C%20Stans%20van.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment