The Unavoidable Role of Ethics in Evidence-Based Policymaking

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Introduction: Evidence-based policymaking (EBPM) has become a widely embraced approach across fields such as medicine, education, and public policy. This trend responds to past policy failures where decisions were often grounded in weak or irrelevant considerations. Despite the centrality of evidence, some argue that ethics, i.e., ethical evidence (most broadly construed), is irrelevant to EBPM.
Findings: Arguments for “ethics-free” policymaking are motivated by concerns about relevance, objectivity, consensus, complexity, effectiveness, and analytical clarity. These arguments are too dismissive of ethical considerations in the sphere of evidence-based policymaking. However, there are also less pessimistic arguments that do not take ethics seriously in the domain of policymaking, i.e., the effectiveness argument and the separation argument.
None of the above arguments works. For example, although considering ethics makes things complicated, it would be a mistake to ignore real complexities. Similarly, although effectiveness in some ways is beyond the reach of ethics, it matters that the goals aimed at are properly picked.
Discussion: Even if policy exclusively relies on relevant evidence, it retains an intrinsic normative dimension. Emphasizing evidence is itself a normative claim: policymakers ought to base decisions on relevant facts rather than personal preference. The idea of being sensitive to reasons in forming beliefs is not a trivial matter. Furthermore, ethical considerations also guide how evidence is obtained and used. For instance, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are ethically sensitive forms of evidence-gathering. RCTs are valuable since we cannot directly run some experiments due to ethical limits on research.
Relevantly, there are epistemic and justice considerations about the sources we seek to gather evidence. Policies promoting diversity or inclusion rely on ethical reasoning to justify which perspectives are included in evidence collection (Fricker, 2007). Finally, engaging with evidence often raises normative questions, such as handling expert disagreement, conflicting societal beliefs, or biases revealed by “noise” studies (Kahneman et al., 2022; Eslami, 2023). Thus, normative considerations are unavoidable, underpinning both the selection and interpretation of evidence.
Furthermore, on another level, ethical considerations in EBPM are diverse. For example, policymaking must identify what is important and why. This includes, for example, questions about human well-being, non-human life, and environmental sustainability (Broome, 2010; Heathwood, 2021; Nussbaum, 2000). Similarly, policy possibly should account for collective values, such as equality, justice, and fairness
(e.g., Parfit, 1997).
In sum, insisting on eliminating ethics from evidence-based policymaking without further good arguments would count as the opposite of the very idea of evidence-based policymaking.

Keywords

References

Amy, D. J. (1984). Why policy analysis and ethics are incompatible. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 3(4), 573-591. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.4050030407
Birkland, T. A. (2019). An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making (5th edition). Routledge.
Boston, J., Bradstock, A., and Eng, D. (eds.) (2010). Public Policy: Why Ethics Matters. ANU E Press.
Broome, J. (2010). “The Most Important Thing about Climate Change”. In Public Policy: Why Ethics Matters, edited by Boston, et al.: 101-116.
Cartwright, N., & Hardie, J. (2012). Evidence-based policy: A practical guide to doing it better. Oxford University Press.
Choi, Y., and Fox, A. M. (2022). Fact‐value framework for adjudicating public health policy debates. Review of policy research, 39(6), 820-844. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12495
Dancy, J. (2004). Ethics without principles. Clarendon Press.
Eslami Ardakani, S. H. (2011). Status of Research Ethics in Research Method Books in Farsi: A Critical Review. Ravesh-shenasi Oluom-e Ensani 69: 89-125. [in Persian]   
https://method.rihu.ac.ir/article_211.html
Eslami, Ardakani, S. H. (2013). Environmental Ethics: Backgrounds, Views and Future Prospects. Akhlaq-e Vahyani, 3(1): 7-36. [in Persian] https://ethics.isramags.ir/article_10586.html
Eslami, Ardakani, S. H. (2017). The Limbo of Moral Studies in Contemporary Iran. Akhlaq Pazhoohi, 1(1): 7–24. [in Persian] https://ethics.riqh.ac.ir/article_12859.html
Eslami, S. M. (2025). Charity Ecosystem and Charity Studies. Motale’at-e Vaqf va Omour Kheyrieh, 3(1): 69-88. [in Persian] https://doi.org/10.22108/ecs.2024.142690.1114
Eslami, S. M. (2023). Some Noise for Philosophers. Metascience, 32(2), 265-267.               
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-023-00880-7
Francis, B. (2021) Ekhtelaf-e Nazar. Qazale Hojjati (tr.). Kargadan. [in Persian]
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Heathwood, C. (2021). Happiness and Well-Being. Cambridge University Press.
Iphofen, R., and O’Mathúna, D. (eds.) (2022). Ethical Evidence and Policymaking: Interdisciplinary and International Research. Policy Press.
 Kahneman, D., Siboney, O., Sunstein, C. (2022) Noise: Naqsi Dar Qezavat Ensan. Mohsen Eslami (tr.). Nashr-e Novin. [in Persian]
Kenny, N., and Giacomini, M. (2005). Wanted: A new ethics field for health policy analysis. Health Care Analysis, 13, 247-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-005-8123-3
Meltzer, R., and Schwartz, A. (2018). Policy analysis as problem solving: A flexible and evidence-based framework. Routledge.
Miller, C. (2019). Daramadi Bar Nazariye Akhlaq Hanjari va Faraqkhlaq Mo’aser. Mohsen Eslami (tr.). Ansoo. [in Persian]
Næss, A. (2020). Boomshenasi, Ejtema’ va Sabk-e Zendegi. Nastaran Khosravi (tr.). Baan. [in Persian]
Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development. Cambridge University Press.
Parfit, D. (1997). Equality and Priority. Ratio, 10(3): 202-221. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9329.00041
Parkhurst, J. (2017). The politics of evidence: from evidence-based policy to the good governance of evidence. Taylor and Francis.
Rachels, J. (2008) Falsaf-e Akhlaq. Arash Akhgari (tr.). Hekmat. [in Persian]
Smith, K. and Larimer, C. W. (2017). The Public Policy Theory Primer (3rd ed). Routledge.
Vélez, C. M., Wilson, M. G., Lavis, J. N., Abelson, J., and Florez, I. D. (2020). A framework for explaining the role of values in health policy decision-making in Latin America: a critical interpretive synthesis. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 1-17.        
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-00584-y
Interdisciplinary Studies in Ethics
Volume 1, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
October 2025
Pages 25-48

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 06 November 2025
  • Revise Date: 30 November 2025
  • Accept Date: 20 January 2026
  • First Publish Date: 20 January 2026
  • Publish Date: 23 September 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics