Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Amsterdam, 1012 DK Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Sep;71(6):1049-55. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.06.023. Epub 2010 Jul 13.
Based on a case-study of the introduction of measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine in the Netherlands two decades ago, using documentary and archival sources, this paper examines the way evidence is used in policymaking. Starting from the question of 'what counts as evidence', two central claims are developed. First, the decision to introduce MMR was not one but a series of decisions going back at least seven years, over the course of which the significance attached to various forms of evidence changed. Second, results of international studies were coming gradually to be of greater significance than evidence gathered from within the Netherlands itself. These developments had, and continue to have, major consequences for national scientific competences.
基于对二十年前荷兰引入麻疹、腮腺炎、风疹（MMR）疫苗这一个案的研究，本文使用文献和档案资料，考察了证据在决策制定过程中的运用方式。从“什么才算是证据”这一问题出发，本文提出了两个核心观点。首先，引入 MMR 的决策并非单一决策，而是至少回溯至七年前的一系列决策，在这一系列决策中，各种证据形式的重要性发生了变化。其次，国际研究的结果逐渐变得比荷兰国内收集的证据更为重要。这些发展对国家科学能力产生了，并将继续产生重大影响。
