The Resolution of Technically Intensive Public Policy Disputes

One of the basic problems in resolving public policy issues with high scientific or technical content is what to do when the experts disagree. How can the politicians or the public tell which experts to believe? One could argue, perhaps, that technical issues become significant in public policy disagreements only when uncertainties in the data and evidence admit of a wide range of policy outcomes or preferences. Smallpox vaccination or polio immunizations, for example, ceased to be significant public policy issues once there was a scientific consensus on their effectiveness and safety. Technical issues enter the public policy arena primarily when there are publicly credible experts on both sides or when experts agree that a large range of uncertainty exists in key technical parameters of the issue. Dissenting members of the scientific community, however small in number, can also create a new policy issue even where there appeared to be a scientific consensus. Such a case would be the controversy over the fluoridization of drinking water for the prevention of dental caries, an issue that continues to emerge in the face of apparently universal consensus on its benefits and only minor support for its possible harm. Even in the absence of major scientific uncertainties or disagreements about what the facts are, the experts may disagree about the policy inferences to be drawn from these facts. Such