{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.023448275862068966, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004137931034482759, 'mean_word_length': 5.420353982300885, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Rescuing Science From Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research

In October of 1998, my organization, ECRI Institute, convened a national conference titled “Evidence-based Medicine on Trial: The Impact of Health Services Research on Law and Regulation.” A central objective of the conference was to help allay the difficulties the legal system often has in making good use of scientific data and analysis. In her address to the conferees, The Honorable Joan Zeldon, Associate Judge of the District of Columbia’s Superior Court, framed the problem facetiously but insightfully by telling the audience, composed largely of clinical researchers: “We judges are smart people; we simply failed chemistry.” Having judges, juries, legislators, regulators, and policy makers at all levels use scientific information wisely in their decision-making processes is essential to the development and implementation of sound policy. Sadly, forces are often at work to distort or misrepresent scientific evidence in ways that erode, or even destroy, its credibility and usefulness. Addressing this fundamental problem to help assure the objectivity and influence of science is the theme and mission of the book Rescuing Science from Politics: Regulation and the Distortion of Scientific Research. Surely, the 15 contributors to this timely book had an easier time with their science courses than the jurists jokingly referred to by Judge Zeldon.