User:PerpetualMisfit/sandbox

=History=

The History Computer Science as a discipline
Though advances in computing go back to the work of Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace in the 1830s, the birth of computer science as a discipline occurred in the 1940s. Spurred by the work of Alan Turing and the construction of the Turing-complete computer, ENIAC, in 1945, computing as an academic interest rose to prominence. In 1961, George E. Forsythe coined the term ‘computer science’. Forsythe identified the study of computer science as the study of the theory of programming, numerical analysis, data processing, and the design of computer systems, setting apart computer science’s disciplinary identity from fields it was historically intertwined with such as mathematics and engineering. In this period there was an increased demand for instruction in computing, thus, the first degree programs and academic departments dedicated to computer science were established. In 1962, the first computer science department was officially formed at Purdue University and in 1965, Richard Wexelblat from the University of Pennsylvania became the first person to receive a Ph. D. from a computer science department.

Until the mid 1980s, the focus of the computer science field was making advances in the power of computers and increasing their efficiency and effectiveness. However, as the personal computer and the Internet became more ubiquitous, questions about how computers interact with other fields of study arose and demanded academic attention. As computers became tools used for study, and not just objects of study, ethical discussions started to take place.

Ethics in the Computer Science discipline
Though work in computing has been around for nearly two centuries, the discussion around computer ethics is relatively newer, only being founded in the 1940s. Computer ethics as a concept originated during WW2 when MIT professor Norbert Wiener was investigating the science of information feedback systems that enabled different parts of a cannon to communicate with each other. This new branch of science, which Wiener termed “cybernetics”, would later influence artificial intelligence. In 1950, Wiener warned against the negative consequences of technology on society and encouraged the development of technology that enhances the well-being of humans in his book The Human Use of Human Beings.

There was little academic interest in this new area of applied ethics until the mid 1960s, during which there was a series of computer-enabled bank robberies and privacy invasions by authoritarian government agencies. As the social consequences of technology became apparent in society, there was an increased academic interest in computer-related ethical issues. The term ‘computer ethics’ was conceived in 1976 by Walter Maner when he noticed that the use of computers in the medical field created a whole new branch of ethical considerations. He deemed this new branch of applied ethics as “computer ethics” and defined it as the study of ethical problems “aggravated, transformed or created by computer technology.” He made efforts to encourage the teaching of computer ethics in university, developing university courses and conducting workshops. By the early 1980s, the concept of computer ethics quickly caught the attention of other scholars who began to contribute to this new field.

With infamous controversies such as the Cambridge Analytica scandal that have gained widespread mainstream attention, the importance of the systematic instruction of computer ethics has become an integral part in the computer science discipline its importance will only be emphasized

Evidence in Public Policy
The study of public policy is interdisciplinary, combining fields such as political science, economics, law and public management to understand the relevant concepts and methods involved in policymaking. In UCL, the Social Policy and Social Research MSc also focuses on the links between research and policy. 

Evidence-Based Policymaking
Evidence-based policymaking is a concept that advocates for the use of qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform policy decisions. It proposes that when scientific evidence and scientific methods are used comprehensively to understand ‘what works’, policy makers can better craft policies that achieve their goals to improve public well-being. Proponents of evidence-based policymaking establish that ideally there is a wide breadth of evidence used to inform policy. Quantitative data, data that is in numerical form such as statistics and percentages, is unbiased and can enable policymakers to have a better understanding of the facts surrounding an issue. Qualitative evidence is evidence collected through interviews with the public, focus groups, surveys etc. While policies shaped by evidence mainly rely on quantitative evidence, qualitative research adds a human perspective to the numbers. Currently, evidence-based policymaking is most common when it comes to public health, an example being the Government of Tanzania basing their health service reforms on the results of household disease surveys.

The modern debate about using evidence to shape public policy was popularized by the UK Labour government in the 1990s, with their party manifesto in 1997 being ‘what counts is what works’. The Modernising Government white paper published in 1999 noted that the government "must produce policies that really deal with problems, that are forward-looking and shaped by evidence rather than a response to short-term pressures; that tackle causes not symptoms”. Though the idea of using evidence to inform policy seems to be common sense for the general public, the concept of evidence-based policymaking can be controversial.

Limitations of Evidence-Based Policymaking
Some political theorists are of the opinion that policymaking is principally the discussion of an ideal society, something science and evidence alone cannot answer.

Some have even taken the extreme stand to dismiss the entire idea of evidence-based policymaking as a concept that will never be fully applied in reality, with political scientist Jenny M Lewis saying it’s nothing more than a ‘technocratic wish in a political world’. She argues that basing policy on science and evidence simplifies the complex nature of policymaking, as the process is inherently political.

However, even from this perspective, evidence is not irrelevant. Proponents of evidence-based policymaking argue that evidence is a tool that serves to identify the possible outcomes of a policy. It informs the policy, altering the minor details to improve its effectiveness, instead of of aiming to directly influence the goal of the policy. They recognize that in a democracy, transparency and debate about social concerns are necessary, as well as how different social outcomes are valued compared with one another. This is something evidence cannot answer, as these discussions have to consider social values.

An example of this is the debate about abortion in the United States. The debate is not solely about creating an abortion policy that does the best for women’s health, something evidence can heavily inform. Instead, the debate is primarily discussed in terms of rights, whether the rights of an unborn outweighs the rights of women over their bodies. This is something based on the fundamentals of human rights, something science and evidence cannot answer.

Science in Post-Truth Politics
Scientists often have a positivist approach to truth and see it as an understanding of the world, something that is based on clear observations of reality or experiments using the scientific method. Results of experiments are verified through replication studies by other scientists that attempt to prove if the original results can be replicated under similar experimental conditions. Though scientists will never be able to verify if their scientific findings are truly ‘true’, the rigorous application of the scientific method and replication reduce uncertainty increase the credibility of the findings.

In the era of post-truth politics
Post-truth politics is a political culture where public opinion is largely shaped by a politician’s ability to appeal to emotion and personal belief rather than scientifically proven facts. Recently in the United States, this has also meant that facts backed by science are open to contestation by politicians when they do not support their political views. An example is how 45% of self-identified Republican voters deny the existence of man-made climate change, despite 97% of scientists agreeing that climate exists and humans are causing it.

The distrust about science is attributed mainly to the rising prevalence of misinformation on social media and politicians questioning the legitimacy of mainstream media outlets that disagree with their political views. As a result, there is a dichotomy between what’s seen as truth from the scientific viewpoint and for the general public.