Roberts Marcus
Chief Executive, DrugScope, United Kingdom.
Int J Drug Policy. 2014 Sep;25(5):952-6. doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2014.04.014. Epub 2014 Apr 29.
This commentary considers the relationship between evidence, engagement and participation in drug policy governance. It argues that the use of various forms of evidence (for example, statistical data and service user narratives) is critical for meaningful stakeholder engagement and public participation in drug policy, as well as effective policy design and implementation. The respective roles of these different kinds of evidence in consultation processes need to be better understood. It discusses the limits of evidence, which it suggests is rarely conclusive or decisive for drug policy. This is partly because of the incompleteness of most research agendas and the lack of consensus among researchers, but also because issues in drug policy are inherently contestable, involving considerations that lie outside the competency of drug policy specialist as such. In particular, this is because they involve normative and evaluative issues that are properly political (for example, about the relative weight to be accorded to different kinds of harm and benefit). It concludes by supporting calls for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between evidence, engagement and politics than is implicit in the term 'evidence based policy'. It also argues that we should view the inherent contestability of drug policy not as something that can or should be resolved by 'objective' evidence, but as a source of vitality and creativity in policy development and evaluation.
本评论探讨了证据、参与度和药物政策治理中的参与之间的关系。它认为,使用各种形式的证据(例如统计数据和服务使用者的叙述)对于利益相关者有意义地参与以及公众参与药物政策,以及有效的政策设计和实施至关重要。需要更好地理解这些不同类型的证据在咨询过程中的各自作用。它讨论了证据的局限性,指出证据对药物政策而言很少是结论性的或决定性的。部分原因在于大多数研究议程的不完整性以及研究人员之间缺乏共识,还因为药物政策问题本身就存在争议,涉及药物政策专家能力范围之外的考量。特别是,这是因为它们涉及到本质上属于政治范畴的规范性和评价性问题(例如,关于不同类型的危害和益处应给予的相对权重)。最后,它支持呼吁对证据、参与度和政治之间的关系要有比“循证政策”这一术语所隐含的更为细致入微的理解。它还认为,我们不应将药物政策固有的争议性视为可以或应该由“客观”证据解决的问题,而应将其视为政策制定和评估中活力与创造力的源泉。