This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Effective Altruism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Politics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Science This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meronmetaferia. Peer reviewers: Adamkritz.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added the 'unsourced' template to THIS version of the article. Please don't remove the tag until the article is sourced. Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm working through the public policy wikiproject and I was thinking on adding a section discussing some of the criticism of evidence-based policy so to have a more neutral viewpoint, does any disagree with the idea? Jep1991 (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Evidence-based policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110114062819/http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/evidence/index.htm to http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/evidence/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Evidence-based policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100806061940/http://www.odi.org.uk:80/resources/details.asp?id=1127&title=become-policy-entrepreneur-roma to http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/details.asp?id=1127&title=become-policy-entrepreneur-roma

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Evidence-based policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/policy/evidence/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090810202035/http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm43/4310/4310.htm to http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm43/4310/4310.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the emphasis on the argument that their is a lack of agreed set of goals seems to be over-exaggerated. All political parties promise almost the exact same thing. They all promise to balance the budget, crack down on corruption, make government more effective, make people safe, allow people to provide for themselves and their families, and improve healthcare. Besides, we we shouldn't look to politicians as the source of what people need in their lives. We are trying to be an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia would talk about science as it relates to societal goals. If you go to: wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_human_needs you will see that science sees fundamental human needs. Wouldn't evidence based public policy goals be to create a society to allows for humans to meet their own needs, or to create societies that help meet these need.

Shouldn't the article be more neutral? It makes it sound like evidence-based policy is impossible because humans can't agree about anything. This doesn't seem like a neutral explanation of our situation. We don't agree about everything, but this article seems to exaggerate how much we disagree.

It seems politics disagrees about how to get to human flourishing, but no one thinks that human flourishing involves us all living in the streets fighting like dogs to the death. No one disagrees that societies should try to protect their citizens from psychopaths. myclob (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that is true. The scientific movement has had problems with Church and State from the beginning, even before medicine was scientific. Those in Charge have always tried to cite evidence to support their actions, and why God chose them to be in Charge. It seems just as likely that people that have called for Evidence Based Policy have come from purely scientific fields, with no sort of specific medical backgrounds. I'm going to remove this wording, because their is no citation that explains how the founders of Evidence Based Policy had medical backgrounds. myclob (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. Their are different goals within healthcare just as their are different goals within public policy. Each party inside of healthcare is motivated by different concerns. Doctors want to make the most money, while working the fewest hours. They want to reduce risk to lawsuits. They might want to extend life-span, or they might want to reduce suffering. Some doctors wanted to support assisted suicide. Their is no more agreement in the goals of medicine than their is agreement in the goals of economics. myclob (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is very poorly worded. You can't take specifics and apply them generally. It says a "single" piece of evidence doesn't "most" policy decisions... The sentence doesn't work...myclob (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means a universally accepted "fact". Evidence that some policies lead to pointless suffering, loss of safety, harm Fundamental_human_needs. All politicians promise to improve society. The vast majority promise to be more efficient. It is clear that pointless war is worse than peace between good nations. You can't take your philosophy 101 classes and say that they are facts. Some people say their is no such thing as facts. There are only things that are highly probable, and less probable. It is highly ironic that you say that it is a fact that there is no "right". The belief that their is "no right" is a belief about what is right, and it is self-contradictory statement. myclob (talk) 19:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a History of Evidence-Based Medicine" on the main article for "Evidence-Based Medicine." I guess it is fine that we talk about Medicine on this article, in addition to linking to it, but do we really need to recount the history of evidenced based medicine on this website? Myclob (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Overseas Development Institute has pioneered RAPID Outcome Mapping Approach (ROMA) as a means to help aid donors and partners better transform research into policy initiatives.^[1]

Why do we care about any of this? None of it is about Evidence-based policy!!!! Myclob (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ROMA approach takes these lessons into account has been field tested through more than 40 workshops and training courses worldwide. It is an eight-step approach for each of which the ODI has developed resources and policy tools to ensure each step is comprehensively addressed:

1. Define a clear, overarching policy objective. (This is not evidence based, if you start with the policy objective first Myclob (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Map the policy context around that issue and identify the key factors that may influence the policy process. The RAPID framework provides a useful checklist of questions. (This is more how to get stuff done, if you already know what you want to do, not "how do we figure out what really is the best thing to do?" Myclob (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Identify the key influential stakeholders. RAPID’s Alignment, Interest and Influence Matrix (AIIM) can be used to map actors along three dimensions: the degree of alignment (i.e. agreement) with the proposed policy, their level of interest in the issue, and their ability to exert influence on the policy process.This is more how to get stuff done, if you already know what you want to do, not "how do we figure out what really is the best thing to do?"Myclob (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Develop a theory of change – identify the changes needed among them if they are to support the desired policy outcome. This is more how to get stuff done, if you already know what you want to do, not "how do we figure out what really is the best thing to do?"Myclob (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Develop a strategy to achieve the milestone changes in the process – Force Field Analysis is a flexible tool that can be used to further understand the forces supporting and opposing the desired policy change and suggest concrete responses. This is more how to get stuff done, if you already know what you want to do, not "how do we figure out what really is the best thing to do?"Myclob (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Ensure the engagement team has the competencies required to operationalize the strategy. This is more how to get stuff done, if you already know what you want to do, not "how do we figure out what really is the best thing to do?"Myclob (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Establish an action plan for meeting the desired policy objective – useful tools include the RAPID Information matrix, DFID’s log frame and IDRC’s Outcome Mapping Strategy Map among them. This is more how to get stuff done, if you already know what you want to do, not "how do we figure out what really is the best thing to do?"Myclob (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Develop a monitoring and learning system, not only to track progress, make any necessary adjustments and assess the effectiveness of the approach, but also to learn lessons for the future. This is more how to get stuff done, if you already know what you want to do, not "how do we figure out what really is the best thing to do?"Myclob (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An example of ROMA approach can be seen in the case of the Wildlife Enforcement Monitoring System (WEMS) Initiative^[2] where a systematic approach of agreement has brought its implementation in Africa. Who cares?!!! This has nothing to do with the topic22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This has resulted in:^[1]

1. Over 50 case studies on successful evidence-based policy engagement have been compiled, a network What? Someone copied and pasted and forgot to copy some stuff, because this doesn't even make any sense!' Also, Who cares?!!! This has nothing to do with the topic22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Development and facilitation of the evidence-based policy in Development Network (ebpdn), which links more than 20 institutional partners and thousands of practitioners working on evidence-based policy processes. This is the very first thing that mentions anything about evidence based policy, but it doesn't fit into context at all. I guess I will bring it back, under "Evidence-based policy Initiates from Non-government Organizations"22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
3. Creating an array of practical toolkits designed with civil society organisations, researchers and progressive policymakers in mind. For example, at the recent Tokyo Conference on Combating Wildlife crime, United Nations University and ESRI presented the first case of evidence-based policy making maps on enforcement and compliance of CITES convention.^[3] Who cares?!!! This has nothing to do with the topic22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
4. Direct support to civil society organizations (CSOs) to provide training in policy influencing and strategic communication. Who cares?!!! This has nothing to do with the topic22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
5. Strengthening the capacity for the UK Department for International Development (DFID) to influence other actors. Who cares?!!! This has nothing to do with the topic22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Six key lessons have been developed, which are:

1. Policy processes are complex and rarely linear or logical and simply presenting information to policy-makers and expecting them to act upon it is very unlikely to work. Policy processes are not purely linear as they have various stages that each take varying lengths of time to complete and may, in fact, be conducted simultaneously. Strategies must be fluid. This might be true, but it doesn't matter that it came from the ODI. We might be able to put this in a new section called "need for EBD" or something...22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
2. Policy is often only weakly informed by research-based evidence due to information gaps, secrecy, the need for speedy responses, political expediency and the fact that policymakers are rarely scientists. This might be true, but it doesn't matter that it came from the ODI. We might be able to put this in a new section called "need for EBD" or something...22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Research-based evidence can contribute to policies that have a dramatic impact on lives. Success stories quoted in the UK's Department for International Development's (DFID) new research strategy include a 22% reduction in neonatal mortality in Ghana as a result of helping women begin breastfeeding within one hour of giving birth and a 43% reduction in deaths among HIV positive children using a widely available antibiotic.

1. The need for a holistic understanding of the context in which the policy is to be implemented. For this to be relevant, it has to be shown that it started with data, and this data was able to change policy22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

1. (I would re-word this to say Without a formal system in place to push Evidence-based Those with data need additional skills to influence policy.^[4] They need to be political fixers, able to understand the politics and identify the key players. They need to be good storytellers, able to synthesize simple compelling stories from the results of the research. They need to be good networkers to work effectively with all the other stakeholders, and they need to be good engineers, building a program that pulls all of this together.

1. Policy entrepreneurs need clear intent – they need to really want to do it. Turning a researcher into a policy entrepreneur, or a research institute or department into a policy-focused think tank involves a fundamental re-orientation towards policy engagement rather than academic achievement; engaging much more with the policy community; developing a research agenda focusing on policy issues rather than academic interests; acquiring new skills or building multidisciplinary teams; establishing new internal systems and incentives; spending much more on communications; producing a different range of outputs; and working more in partnerships and networks.

I would change this to: "Turning a somone who finds data into someone who uses data, in our current system, involves a fundamental re-orientation towards policy engagement rather than academic achievement. This requires engaging much more with the policy community, developing a research agenda focusing on policy issues rather than academic interests, acquiring new skills or building multidisciplinary teams, establishing new internal systems and incentives, spending much more on communications, producing a different range of outputs, and working more in partnerships and networks."Myclob (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my updated version. Believe it or not, it is much shorter. I also think I have re-worked it to keep the relevant approaches, to sound less like an advertising brochure for the organization. I also don't think we need to assume their conclusions are correct, or that they method of achieving their goals are valid, or have anything to do with evidence based policy, instead of how to achieve goals politically.

The ODI (Overseas Development Institute) claims that Research-based evidence can contribute to policies that dramatically impact lives. Success stories quoted in the UK's Department for International Development's (DFID) new research strategy include a 22% reduction in neonatal mortality in Ghana as a result of helping women begin breastfeeding within one hour of giving birth and a 43% reduction in deaths among HIV positive children using a widely available antibiotic.

After many policy initiatives, ODI evaluated their evidence-based policy efforts. They identified specific reasons that policy is weakly informed by research-based evidence. Policy processes are complex and rarely linear or logical. Therefore, simply presenting information to policy-makers and expecting them to act upon it is very unlikely to work. These reasons include information gaps, secrecy, the need for speedy responses and slow data, political expediency (what is popular), and the fact that policy-makers are not interested in making the policy more scientific. When a gap is identified between the scientific and political process, those interested in shrinking the gap must choose between making their politicians use scientific techniques or their scientists use more political methods.

ODI concluded that, with the lack of EBP progress, those with the data should move into the political and advertising world of emotion and storytelling to influence those in power. They replaced simple tools such as cost–benefit analysis and logical frameworks, ^[5] with identifying the key players, being good storytellers, synthesizing complex data from their research into simple, compelling stories. ODI didn't advocate for re-making the system to support evidence-based policy but encouraged those with data to jump into the political process.

Further, they concluded that turning someone who 'finds' data into someone who 'uses' data in our current system involves a fundamental reorientation towards policy engagement rather than academic achievement. This focus requires engaging much more with the policy community, developing a research agenda focusing on policy issues rather than academic interests, acquiring new skills or building multidisciplinary teams, establishing new internal systems and incentives, spending much more on communications, producing a different range of outputs, and working more in partnerships and networks.

Based on research conducted in six Asian and African countries, the Future Health Systems consortium has identified a set of critical strategies for improving uptake of evidence into policy,^[6] including improving the technical capacity of policy-makers; better packaging of research findings; use of social networks; establishment of fora to assist in linking evidence with policy outcomes.^[7][8]

Myclob (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very poorly written, when compared to Effective altruism. However, effective altruism doesn't use as much money, and is probably less important than effective government. Governments are trying to prevent war. They have exclussive power of violence. It is far more important that we get governments to be evidence based, rather than altruism, but this is extremely poorly written comparatively speaking. I edited this page years ago, and now I come back and see no one has improved it in all these years. I don't know what to say, except that I am freaking out. Myclob (talk) 02:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we have a "philosophy" section, like effective altruism? This is the link: https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/Effective_altruism#Philosophy. This is the text:

Effective altruists have posed philosophical questions about the most effective ways to benefit others. They have tried to figure out the most plausible answers to those questions, so that people can act on the basis of those answers. Such philosophical questions shift the starting point of reasoning from "what to do" to why and how.

Effective altruists have yet to reach consensus on the answers to all such questions. But the minimal philosophical core of effective altruism involves having some reason to benefit all others, that is, reason to promote their well-being, "and more reason to benefit them more, and most reason to benefit them as much as possible, at least defeasibly and if other things are equal".[43] This core is likely to be compatible with a wide variety of views about morality and meta-ethics.

Views vary about whether effective altruism entails normative ethical claims such as "we should do the most good we can". 12–15  One view is that effective altruism is not a set of normative claims telling people what they "should do", but instead a process of trying to figure out how to do the most good with a given unit of resources and of putting what has been learned into practice.  According to this view, the normative ethical theories of consequentialism, egalitarianism, prioritarianism, utilitarianism, contractualism, deontological ethics, virtue ethics, as well as many traditional religious teachings on altruism such as those in Christianity,[1][9] can all be compatible with the project of effective altruism. Effective altruism is not a complete philosophy of how to live morally, but effective altruism may be relevant for any view that assumes some reason to promote the good and that the well-being of others is part of the good.

Effective altruists have reported that the questions posed by effective altruism have helped them learn as well as find meaning and satisfaction from helping others more effectively.

Important ideas that are discussed in literature about effective altruism include impartiality, cause prioritization, cost-effectiveness, and counterfactual reasoning.

Impartiality

In allegorical image of equality by Jean-Guillaume Moitte, 1793

Altruism, or benefitting others, can be driven by various motivations and justifications, including impartial or impersonal reasoning and sentiments such as sympathy and compassion.Much of the published literature on effective altruism emphasizes impartial or impersonal reasoning and concludes that, other things being equal, everyone's well-being (and suffering) counts equally, without regard to individual identities.[33]: 85–95 [43][91]: 17–19  For example, philosopher Peter Singer, in his 1972 essay "Famine, Affluence, and Morality", wrote:[13]: 231–232, 237 

It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child ten yards away from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away. ... The moral point of view requires us to look beyond the interests of our own society. Previously, ... this may hardly have been feasible, but it is quite feasible now. From the moral point of view, the prevention of the starvation of millions of people outside our society must be considered at least as pressing as the upholding of property norms within our society.

This view has been influential among effective altruists.[97] Singer's arguments for impartiality were later repeated in other books by Singerand expanded in the 1996 book Living High and Letting Die by philosopher Peter Unger.[98]

Impartiality about benefitting others combined with seeking to do the most good is compatible with prioritizing benefits to those who are in a worse state, because anyone who happens to be worse off will benefit more from an improvement in their state, all other things being equal (see § Global health and development above).

Impartiality is also the basis of what is called the cause neutrality of effective altruism (see § Cause prioritization below): choosing among possible altruistic activities or causes (problems) based on whether they will do the most good with limited resources—as opposed to choosing among them based on other factors such as personal connections.

Some effective altruists have argued that because the total sum of members of future generations will be larger than the current population, the way to do the most good is to focus on promoting long-term well-being by, for example, reducing existential risks to humanity (see § Long-term future and global catastrophic risks above).

Some effective altruists think that the interests of non-human animals should be accorded the same moral weight as similar interests of humans, so they work to prevent the suffering of animals (see § Animal welfare above),[ e.g., the suffering of animals raised in factory farms.

Obstacles to impartiality

Singer speculated in "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" that whether people think and act impartially is likely to be affected by social influence: "What it is possible for a man to do and what he is likely to do are both, I think, very greatly influenced by what people around him are doing and expecting him to do."  In his 2015 book The Most Good You Can Do, Singer admitted that even though he had argued in 1972 that "we ought to give large proportions of our income to disaster relief funds", he did not do it himself: "even though I argued that this is what we ought to do, I did not do it myself".[33]: 13  He noted the role of social influence and psychological inertia as obstacles to acting altruistically. Sociological research has shown that social influence can undermine altruistic activity.[102] To support people's ability to act altruistically on the basis of impartial reasoning, the effective altruism movement promotes additional values and actions that are not part of the minimal philosophical core of effective altruism, such as a collaborative spirit, honesty, transparency, and publicly pledging to donate a certain percentage of income or other resources.

Cause prioritization

Many nonprofits emphasize effectiveness and evidence, but this is usually done with a single cause (problem) in mind, such as education or climate change. Effective altruists, however, seek to compare the relative importance of different causes and allocate resources among them objectively, adopting cause neutrality.[104] One approach to cause neutrality, for example, is to choose the highest priority causes based on whether activities in each cause area efficiently advance broad goals, such as increasing human or animal welfare, and then focus attention on interventions in those cause areas.

Effective altruist organizations such as 80,000 Hours and Open Philanthropy prioritize problems using the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework, which aims to estimate the marginal benefit of allocating an additional unit of resources, such as money or people, toward addressing a problem. The three criteria that this framework uses to evaluate problems are:

Importance or scale, the amount of value that would be created if a problem were solved.

Tractability or solvability, the fraction of a problem that would be solved if additional resources were devoted to it.

Neglectedness, the paucity of resources already allocated to attempts to address a problem; a cause is more neglected the fewer resources are going toward it.

The information required for cause prioritization may involve collecting and processing complex data sets, comparing possible outcomes with what would have happened under other conditions (see § Counterfactual reasoning below), and identifying various kinds of uncertainty. The difficulty of these tasks has led to the creation of organizations that specialize in researching the relative prioritization of causes. Causes that have been accepted among effective altruists include: poverty in the developing world, the suffering of animals in factory farms, as well as risks to civilization, humans, and planet Earth (see § Cause priorities above).

Cost-effectiveness

Effective altruist organizations have argued that some charities are far more effective than others, either because some do not achieve their goals or because of the varying cost of achieving those goals.[110][49] When possible, they seek to identify charities that are highly cost-effective, meaning that they achieve a large benefit for a given amount of money.[12] For example, they select health interventions on the basis of their impact as measured by lives extended per dollar, quality-adjusted life years (QALY) added per dollar, or disability-adjusted life years (DALY) reduced per dollar.[6]: 34  This measure of disease burden is expressed as the number of years lost due to ill-health, disability, or early death.

Some effective altruist organizations prefer randomized controlled trials as a primary form of evidence,[12][44] as they are often considered to be at the highest level of evidence, e.g., in healthcare research.[111] For example, the Deworm the World Initiative was started by Michael Kremer and Rachel Glennerster after they conducted randomized controlled trials in Kenya to find out the best way to improve students' test scores; they tried new textbooks and flip charts, as well as smaller class sizes, but found that the only intervention that raised school attendance was treating intestinal worms in children.[12] Others have argued that requiring this stringent level of evidence unnecessarily narrows the focus to only those issues on which this kind of evidence can be developed, and that the history of philanthropy suggests that many effective interventions have proceeded without this level of evidence.

Room for more funding

Effective altruist organizations consider the expected impact of a funding increase rather than evaluating the average value of all donations to the charity.[113][114] Effective altruists would avoid donating to organizations that lack "room" for more funding – those that face bottlenecks other than money that would prevent them from effectively employing additional resources.[115] For example, a medical charity might not be able to hire enough doctors or nurses to distribute the medical supplies it is capable of purchasing, or it might already be serving all of the potential patients in its market.

Counterfactual reasoning

Effective altruists have argued that counterfactual reasoning is important to determine which course of action maximizes positive impact. Counterfactual reasoning involves considering the possible outcomes of alternative choices. It has been employed by effective altruists in a number of contexts, including the topic of career choice. Many people assume that the best way to help people is through direct methods, such as working for a charity or providing social services,but since charities and social-service providers can usually find people willing to work for them, effective altruists would compare the amount of good somebody does in a conventional altruistic career to how much good would have been done had the next-best candidate done the work instead. According to this reasoning, the marginal impact of a career is likely to be smaller than the gross impact.

Isn't Evidence-based policy just an attempt to do to policy, what effective altruism has done to philanthropy. How do we frame it within a larger philosophy? Myclob (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Syracuse University supported by WikiProject United States Public Policy and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cost Benefit analysis is the only real example of evidence based policy to actually achieve much of anything. Here is a draft:

Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) plays an integral role in evidence-based policy. This economic tool is employed to assess the economic, social, and environmental impacts of policies, thereby guiding policy makers towards decisions that maximize societal welfare.^[1]

One of the earliest mandates for the use of cost-benefit analysis in policy-making was introduced by President Ronald Reagan's Executive Order 12291 in 1981. This order stipulated that administrative decisions should be based on adequate information concerning the potential impacts of regulation. Among the five general requirements of the order, the principle of maximizing the net benefits to society was highlighted.^[2]

Subsequent presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, altered but continued to emphasize the importance of cost-benefit analysis in their executive orders. Clinton's Executive Order 12866, for instance, maintained the requirement for cost-benefit analysis, but emphasized the importance of flexibility, public participation, and coordination among agencies.^[3]

Under the Obama administration, Executive Order 13563 further reinforced the role of cost-benefit analysis in regulatory review, while also urging agencies to consider values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, such as equity, human dignity, and fairness.^[4]

The utilization of cost-benefit analysis in these executive orders underscores its importance in evidence-based policy. By weighing the potential impacts of different policy options, cost-benefit analysis helps inform policy decisions that are grounded in empirical evidence and aimed at maximizing societal benefits.

The current classification on Wikipedia suggests "Evidence-Based Policy" as a subcategory of "Evidence-Based Practice." While this connection recognizes the shared principle of using evidence to inform decision-making, it can inadvertently restrict the perception of evidence-based policy to only occupational or professional contexts. This is potentially misleading, as the concept of evidence-based policy extends beyond professional practices and applies to a wide array of sectors. These sectors include, but are not limited to, education, health, criminal justice, and social welfare. In reality, evidence-based policy-making is a distinct intellectual concept, necessitating its unique set of theories, methodologies, and practices. This approach involves the systematic use of research findings and empirical evidence to inform policy decisions, with the goal of enhancing societal outcomes in a cost-effective manner. Therefore, it might be more accurate to consider "Evidence-Based Policy" as an extension of the scientific method or Enlightenment thinking, rather than a mere subset of occupational practices. To address this classification issue, it may be beneficial for Wikipedia to establish "Evidence-Based Policy" as a standalone topic, rather than positioning it under the "main" article of "Evidence-Based Practice". This change would recognize the distinct complexities and considerations involved in policy-making, while still maintaining the shared emphasis on evidence-based decision-making. Furthermore, setting "Evidence-Based Policy" as a separate category ensures a dedicated space for contributors to enrich the discourse around this topic. This would enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of the information available to the public on this critical aspect of policy-making.Myclob (talk) 13:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently riddled with references to Effective Altruism and the work of Singer, both things that at best are related to the topic of Evidence based policy (although I would argue that that is probably not the case). I propose (and will start) to remove these references. 12Zebras (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose to get rid of the entire Global Development and health section. It’s not clear what it has to do with the subject at all, doubly so for the longtermist stuff. Vectro (talk) 17:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change just now. Vectro (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]