From Reece Hinchcliff
Hazel Muir argues that an increase in large-scale randomised controlled trials exploring the efficacy of national behaviour-change interventions will overpower the misguided forces of “common sense” currently influencing public policy decisions, and in this way produce more rational policies (24 May, p 40). As a third-year public health PhD student, I disagree.
Evidence, even convincing evidence, is often not enough in itself to influence policy action. Perhaps more attention should be paid to finding out why this might be than to the production of yet more research. Until we can scientifically determine how, why and when certain evidence is used to effect policy change, the scientific community cannot determine its actual contribution to public policy.
While this remains the case, and scientists’ accountability to the general public remains largely an illusion, it is difficult to justify allocating funds to boost the number of large randomised controlled trials as Muir proposes.
Sydney, Australia
