Science by Law: Scientific Epistemology versus Political Dominance in the Age of "Evidence-Based Research"

• In Event: Reproducibility and Other Problems: Practical and Institutional Responses to Contemporary Crises in Science - II

Abstract

The call for a ‘scientific-based research’, or ‘evidence-based research’ gained new force recently, strong enough to speak of a ‘scientific-based research movement’. In more recent decades the call for rigor is strongly advanced by those who claim that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can and should be applied in all the areas of the social sciences (Parra Saiani 2018). To reinforce that “experimental turn”, there were several attempts to boost the scientific basis of federally funded research by mandating a list of “valid” scientific methods established by law.
In this paper we will focus on:
1. Analyzing some legislative interventions willing to establish the borders of science: by accurately examining the data of Congress.gov we will be able to see:
1.1. the first interference of politics (and politicians) in science willing to determine what has to be considered as scientific;
1.2. the first time that reference to ‘random assignment’ appeared for the first time in the lawmaking process;
1.3. how different parties with different cultural horizons acted in a similar way for placing science under supervision;
2. Analyzing the pattern publications trends for the main social sciences (criminology, economics, political science, sociology): thanks to the main bibliographic databases (mainly, Scopus), we will see if and how the number of articles using RCTs (or similar) is really increased.

Author

• Paolo Parra Saiani, Università degli Studi di Genova