Societal challenges such as climate change, public health issues, and advancements in technology have long been intertwined with scientific progress. However, there is growing debate over how science is utilized in policymaking, particularly amid increasing political polarization. A new study by Northwestern University highlights differences in how political parties in the U.S. cite scientific data in policy documents.
Research led by Dashun Wang and Alexander Furnas of the Kellogg School of Management analyzed congressional committee reports, hearings, and think tank publications. The findings indicate that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to reference science in their documents, a trend that has been increasing over the past 25 years. Wang noted, “Despite recent instances of bipartisan support for science, our study uncovered partisan differences in the use of science that highlight a profound tension at the nexus of science and politics.”
Regardless of political affiliation, the study found an overall increase in the use of scientific evidence in policymaking. “In society today, many of the societal challenges are intrinsically linked with the latest scientific developments we’ve seen,” Wang said. He added that the growing reliance on scientific evidence in policy documents is indicative of this trend.
Importantly, the study noted that Democrats and Republicans cite different types of science, even on the same issues. As observed, Democratic-controlled House committees were more inclined to cite science on social issues, while under Republican control, science on economic and healthcare-related topics was more prevalent. Wang explained, “We found that policy documents from Democratic-controlled committees are nearly 1.8 times more likely to cite science than those from Republican-controlled committees.”
The study explored the role of trust in determining whether science is cited in policy. It found that 96% of Democratic elites trust scientists to offer unbiased knowledge, compared to 63.7% of Republican elites. Wang commented, “Science is supposed to be seen as a politically neutral, trusted source of information. But as our study suggests, different political parties cite different scientific sources to back their claims.”
Think tanks also featured prominently in the study, given their influence on policy and evidence generation. “Think tanks are an understudied area that have an extremely profound influence in the U.S., unlike other democracies,” Furnas said.
The researchers intend to further examine how political dynamics shape the interaction between science and policymaking, particularly with regards to evidence interpretation and use across various institutional settings. As Furnas pointed out, differing partisan commitments can lead to selective use of scientific facts, affecting policy clarity and implementation.
To discuss the study further, interviews can be arranged with Professor Wang by contacting Shanice Harris at shanice.harris@northwestern.edu.