Case for due diligence in public policy

This is a great, if horrifying, read. Bruce McCulloch and Ross McKitrick have compiled a case-book of unsupported claims in science and public-policy research that complements Gary Banks' recommendations on evidence-based public policy.

"Empirical research in academic journals is often cited as the basis for public policy decisions, in part because people think that the journals have checked the accuracy of the research. Yet such work is rarely subjected to independent checks for accuracy during the peer review process, and the data and computational methods are so seldom disclosed that post-publication verification is equally rare. This study argues that researchers and journals have allowed habits of secrecy to persist that severely inhibit independent replication. " Extract from Check the Numbers: The Case for Due Diligence in Policy Formation

McCulloch and McKitrick have collaborated on many projects to check the empirical basis for economic and scientific research. In this paper—to which Ian Castles drew my attention—they present a powerful case for taking a skeptical, empirical approach to claims in journals that appear to support a convenient prejudice (dogma, belief, impression) or challenge common-sense.

Among a dozen-or-so accounts of lazy, mendacious research they include an extraordinary story of the "Boston Fed Study" that contributed to the regulatory failures underlying the 'sub-prime' financial markets collapse in the United States.

 Read more…

Earlier Entries

You'll find a complete list of entries here. You could also search by keywords.