I've advocated this for a while in a somewhat obvious field, traffic law.
However, there's a flaw; science in the political arena is subject to interpretation. In VA, we've gone through this with red light cameras. For a while they were authorized at a few intersections to see if they reduced accidents.
But a few years later, red light cameras are back, the whole study thing having been an annoying thorn in the side of politicians, who like red light cameras (because they are perceived as good for safety, for money, whatever - who knows?)
How can the same study come to opposite conclusions? That's politics. In any case, the politicians decide what they want to do, and then change the science to suit.
After all, can you really imagine a politician saying "I supported X fully, until the results of the study came out, and clearly, X is not effective, so I no longer support X?"
However, there's a flaw; science in the political arena is subject to interpretation. In VA, we've gone through this with red light cameras. For a while they were authorized at a few intersections to see if they reduced accidents.
They didn't (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/18/1844.asp).
But a few years later, red light cameras are back, the whole study thing having been an annoying thorn in the side of politicians, who like red light cameras (because they are perceived as good for safety, for money, whatever - who knows?)
So an article comes out like this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02... which contradicts the link I posted before.
How can the same study come to opposite conclusions? That's politics. In any case, the politicians decide what they want to do, and then change the science to suit.
After all, can you really imagine a politician saying "I supported X fully, until the results of the study came out, and clearly, X is not effective, so I no longer support X?"
Only if the study is poll numbers, I imagine.