From Guesswork to Evidence: When Data Steers the Course to Decisions

“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.” — Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Different societies and cultures uphold beliefs that, when subjected to scientific scrutiny, find no empirical support. Beyond the supposed preventive effect of vitamin C on colds and the alleged influence of the full moon on human behavior, we can point to notions like the permanent harm reading in dim light supposedly inflicts on vision; the myth that swallowing gum leaves it stuck in your stomach for seven years; the claim that humans use only 10% of their brains; or the belief that genetically modified foods are inherently dangerous. Peer-reviewed research, conducted by reputable institutions and replicated across various contexts, has shown that these convictions lack solid evidence. They persist in the collective imagination far more due to cultural repetition than demonstrable facts.

Governance and public policy suffer from similar maladies, with many decisions guided by unfounded assumptions, short-term interests, or poorly interpreted data. Whether it’s initiatives that overlook empirical analyses to assess the effectiveness of social programs, outdated economic models promoted without regard to current knowledge, or laws drafted based on distorted perceptions of reality, such practices reinforce a vicious cycle. This cycle restricts innovation, compromises outcomes, and ultimately obstructs the full development of societies that require not just better solutions, but a culture that values evidence, analytical rigor, and systematic verification of premises.

Concrete examples abound. The “War on Drugs,” for instance, persists in various countries despite the overwhelming data signaling its colossal failure. In the United States, the prison population has grown by more than 500% since the campaign began in the 1970s, reaching approximately 2.3 million inmates—many for nonviolent, drug-related offenses (The Sentencing Project, 2021). At the same time, the illicit global drug market continues to move an estimated US$320 billion annually, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, World Drug Report, 2022). So why rely on empirical evidence, cost-benefit analyses, or systematic reviews when empty slogans, moral hysteria, and a veneer of “toughness” yield instant headlines?

Even better: consider environmental policies that completely ignore the scientific community’s warnings and treat sustainability as a marketing prop, as though the devastation of forests and the contamination of rivers could be solved with grandiose speeches and smiling selfies at international events. While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2021) warns that the global average temperature has already risen about 1.1°C since the pre-industrial era—and projects increasingly severe impacts on ecosystems, agriculture, and human settlements—countless governments and companies prefer generic rhetoric to concrete action.

Forests continue to be ravaged—tropical forest cover losses reached millions of hectares in 2020 alone, according to the World Resources Institute—and rivers remain polluted by industrial waste, while vague promises are flaunted as miraculous solutions. But again, why bother with measurable targets and actual CO₂ reductions when well-paid marketing professionals can swap scientific rigor for empty diplomatic whispers?

This leads me to believe in the importance of separating those who set the measurement standards and especially the short- and long-term targets—let’s call them the “Board”—from the executive body responsible for taking concrete steps toward those goals. There’s nothing new here—publicly traded companies have long been accustomed to this model.

Yet we avoid this debate in public governance. Has any President, Governor, or Mayor ever been removed from office and barred from public life for failing to meet targets? Obviously, this issue will never make their agenda, as it would fundamentally alter their profession.

Legal norms should not be drafted without first defining the clear indicators to be influenced, including quantitative targets, a timeline for achieving objectives, and the identification of potential side effects on other variables. Moreover, it is crucial to establish a tolerance level for possible negative externalities, as well as a methodology for continuously evaluating a law’s effectiveness—taking into account the need to isolate external factors that could distort results, producing false positives or negatives. Equally important is the anticipation of scenarios that justify suspending the law in cases of proven ineffectiveness.

To illustrate, consider an economic policy adopted to curb inflation: All measures intended to stabilize price indices are put in place, but an abrupt interest rate hike in the United States devalues the local currency, raising import costs and, consequently, creating new inflationary pressures. In this context, data analysis and indicator review are fundamental to adjusting the strategy, ensuring that the policy is not doomed by unforeseen external factors.

I harbor no illusions about today’s conditions for implementing changes of this magnitude. But I believe in the strategy the nonprofit federation, PRIME Society, aims to create. The model involves making all standards, systems, and source codes publicly available and open, so that over the next 100 years, a future political leader—however “unconventional,” like a Trump in the United States or a Milei in Argentina—might adopt and implement the necessary constitutional and institutional reforms. Thus, governance would be guided by scientific criteria, truly devoted to improving people’s quality of life and making citizens proud of the society they inhabit.