A policy for science.
Policy and science often interact. Typically, we think of policymakers looking to scientists for advice on issues informed by science. We may appreciate less the opposite look: where people outside science inform policies that affect the conduct of science. In clinical medicine, we are forced to make decisions about practices for which there is insufficient, inadequate evidence to know whether they improve clinical outcomes, yet the health care system may not be structured to rapidly generate needed evidence. For example, when the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services noted insufficient evidence to support routine use of computed tomography angiography and they called for a national commitment to completion of randomized trials, their call ran into substantial opposition. I use the computed tomography angiography story to illustrate how we might consider a "policy for science" in which stakeholders would band together to identify evidence gaps and to use their influence to promote the efficient design, implementation, and completion of high-quality randomized trials. Such a policy for science could create a culture that incentivizes and invigorates the rapid generation of evidence, ultimately engaging all clinicians, all patients, and indeed all stakeholders into the scientific enterprise.
Office of the Director, Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/NIH, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA. lauerm@nhlbi.nih.gov
Michael S
MS
Lauer
D002309:Cardiology / Q000592:standards; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D017023:Coronary Angiography / Q000379:methods*; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards; D059039:Standard of Care / Q000592:standards; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed