Heesen, RRubin, HSchneider, MDWoolaston, KBortolus, AChukwu, EEKaufer, RMitova, VSchwenkenbecher, ASchwindt, ESlanickova, HSogbanmu, TOHewitt, Chad2024-10-062024-08-092024-08-092024-07-302045-232239122844 (pubmed)https://hdl.handle.net/10182/17699When evidence-based policymaking is so often mired in disagreement and controversy, how can we know if the process is meeting its stated goals? We develop a novel mathematical model to study disagreements about adequate knowledge utilization, like those regarding wild horse culling, shark drumlines and facemask policies during pandemics. We find that, when stakeholders disagree, it is frequently impossible to tell whether any party is at fault. We demonstrate the need for a distinctive kind of transparency in evidence-based policymaking, which we call transparency of reasoning. Such transparency is critical to the success of the evidence-based policy movement, as without it, we will be unable to tell whether in any instance a policy was in fact based on evidence.10 pagesElectronicen© The Author(s) 2024disagreementepistemologyevidence-based policytransparencyHumansKnowledgeModels, TheoreticalPolicy MakingPandemicsCOVID-19Journal Article10.1038/s41598-024-69012-32045-2322ANZSRC::500305 EpistemologyANZSRC::440710 Research, science and technology policyANZSRC::460207 Modelling and simulationhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives