In any stable democracy, trust in government data is critical. Without such freely shared and reliable information, it is impossible to assess the condition of the nation, what changes are necessary and how laws and policies will impact that condition. Unfortunately, the administration’s actions are eroding such trust.
Discovery fueled by curiosity has been a driving force for technological, medical and social science research and advances. Though the status quo may provide good results, researchers are constantly striving for something better. Such curiosity is at the fulcrum of innovation and facilitates entrepreneurship, a driver for economic growth and better quality of life for all.
To succeed in such advances requires a trusted stream of data. The government has typically been the source of such data. That is why close to 100 government agencies have the word “data” or “statistics” in their name or have data collection as a critical component of their mission. Federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Census Bureau are two examples. Without their data, infrastructures and skilled personnel, crafting federal policies that serve the best interests of the nation would be impossible.
Yet any time an agency reports or uses data to take actions that contradict the current administration’s agenda, key personnel at such agencies are being fired or put on leave. The list of such actions is growing and drawing widespread attention.
For example, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was fired when the agency reported a revised job report that cast a negative shadow on the administration’s economic policies.
Air Force Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was fired for reporting that the bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites did not cause as much damage as the president claimed.
Several FEMA workers were put on leave when they criticized the administration’s approach to disaster preparedness and response capabilities.
And the now-former CDC director, Susan Monarez, was fired when she refused to resign under pressure from the White House, on the grounds that “Susan Monarez is not aligned with the President’s agenda of Making America Healthy Again.” She saw it differently — as her attorney put it, “When CDC Director Susan Monarez refused to rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts, she chose protecting the public over serving a political agenda.”
The message being sent by these firings is that data should never deviate from agenda, and certainly not contradict what the president says — even when the president’s statements are based on opinion, ideology or aspirations rather than reality.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” And facts are based on data. When opinions overtake data, the path forward becomes shrouded in darkness, and the future becomes uncertain.
The lack of reliable and trustworthy data creates headwinds for scientific and medical advances. Given that such advances are what fuel economic growth and well-being, the future prospects for our economy — and our country in general — become far more bleak.
Indeed, when feckless opinions driven by ideology become the basis for crafting laws and policies, everyone suffers.
Separating data and opinion demands systematic procedures using experimentation and analysis, which creates an environment that supports reproducibility and replicability of results — a concept cited in the president’s executive order “Restoring Gold Standard Science.” This means that if an experiment is conducted several times, there is consistency in the results obtained across such experiments.
These standards are the reason medical interventions are evaluated using randomized controlled trials, whereby any new medical procedure, pharmaceutical product or medical treatment can be evaluated in a manner such that its benefits, limitations and side effects can be assessed in a controlled environment against the best available standard of care.
The same holds true with technological advances. For example, if new computer algorithms are created that can solve hard technical problems more efficiently, such results should be reproducible by different researchers. The inability to replicate such results is a red flag that the algorithms do not work as described, or there is a mismatch between what is being claimed and what the actual results are.
In both cases, just because someone thinks that an idea is good does not make it so. It requires standardized testing and evaluation, including reliable data collection and analysis, to make assessments that separate opinions from facts.
Data is the lifeblood of innovation, providing a foundation for assessing advances and provides fuel to support curiosity. If the veracity and reliability of government data are regularly criticized and devalued by the administration anytime the facts contradict the administration’s positions, and those who speak out are at risk of losing their jobs, trust in all government data, and the agencies themselves, erodes.
If the unspoken goal of the administration is to centralize power around itself and create a perception of instability surrounding the status quo, then fomenting mistrust in data is an effective approach. The recent deployment of National Guards to combat a claimed worsening of violent crimes in D.C. is an example of such data misrepresentation. If this tactic continues unfettered, lack of trust in data will eat away and erode the very pillars of stability that define our nation.
Data may not be an exciting topic for most people. Yet reliable and trustworthy data is the oil that keeps the American economic and societal engine operating at peak performance — and, most importantly, stable.
Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a computer science professor in the Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. As a data scientist, he uses his expertise in risk-based analytics to address problems in public policy. This piece was originally published by The Hill.
Related Articles
Noah Feldman: Blaming violence on free speech is a very old trick
Michael R Bloomberg: In dark times, Americans need leadership that unites
David M. Drucker: How Erika Kirk memorialized her late husband
David Brooks: The era of dark passions is unleashed
David M. Drucker: Trump is not as unpopular as his opponents think
