Answer the question: What influence (role) should political and/orprofessional ideology have in evidence-based research within our health policy-making process?  What are the consequences and unintended consequences ofthis interaction?

 The text this week covers evidence-based research and what policy analysts must know about its concepts and terms (e.g., the various levels of evidence) when injecting the scientific method into their analysis process. However, I’m going to focus my remarks on this weeks article by Mark A. Peterson (In the Shadow of Politics: The Pathways of Research Evidence to Health Policy Making), and his premise that when a conflict between the policy directions derived from research evidence and those aligned with influential political forces (I’ll included professional forces as well), the latter will prevail.. As scholars who believe that our “research evidence” should prevail in the policy making process, what he wrote should be alarming to us. However, lets start in the beginning of the article as once we get through his obligatory virtue signaling with a quick Trump bash and latter references to the Koch brothers (but conveniently omitted examples from the left in the role that their shadow interests have in the development of healthcare policy), its overall an intriguing read. The irony of his obvious political framing (code for political bias) in the article shouldnt be lost to the reader as latter in the article he actually discusses framing research (ideas) to impact policy when he states that framing can also be exploited by stakeholders and ideologically motivated advocates to give methodologically deficient study results greater entre e into the policy-making process..

However, his discussion on evidence-based policy making in the shadow of politics, indicates that our objective empirical analysis (testing ideas) in the policy-making process is weighted by values, perspectives, and experiences associated more with politics (power) than with science is insightful.   Hes basically stating that clashing values, contending ideological, partisan stances and competing interests shape whats actually considered as evidence-based research in our policy making process or at least in the combination of ideas and power which pushes our eventual policy process.  Essentially, research evidence as applied at least in our more apparent healthcare policy issues (e.g., healthcare access, reproductive issues, gun safety, immigration), are politically influenced in the policy making process as it works its way through our system (see his comments about production and consumption functions).  This includes political pressures from professional associations who are very vested in this process as well. As doctoral trained researchers, well need to consider our own contributions (and limits) in the policy making process as being potentially politically and/or professionally ideologically driven as we’re hardly innocent bystanders in the policy process as well. In the right hands, our “research evidence” could be used as a political weapon to frame what we and/or others want.