Evidence and morality in harm-reduction debates: can we use value-neutral arguments to achieve value-driven goals?

It is common to argue that politicians make selective use of evidence to tacitly reinforce their moral positions, but all stakeholders combine facts and values to produce and use research for policy. The drug policy debate has largely been framed in terms of an opposition between evidence and politics. Focusing on harm reduction provides useful ground to discuss a further opposition proposed by evidence advocates, that between evidence and morality. Can evidence sway individuals from their existing moral positions, so as to “neutralise” morality? And if not, then should evidence advocates change the way in which they frame their arguments? To address these questions, analysis of N=27 interviews with stakeholders involved in drug policy and harm reduction research, advocacy, lobbying, implementation and decision-making in England, UK and New South Wales, Australia, was conducted. Participants’ accounts suggest that although evidence can help focus discussions away from values and principles, exposure to evidence does not necessarily change deeply held views. Whether stakeholders decide to go with the evidence or not seems contingent on whether they embrace a view of evidence as secular faith; a view that is shaped by experience, politics, training, and role. And yet, morality, values, and emotions underpin all stakeholders’ views, motivating their commitment to drug policy and harm reduction. Evidence advocates might thus benefit from morally and emotionally engaging audiences. This paper aims to develop better tools for analysing the role of morality in decision-making, starting with moral foundations theory. Using tools from disciplines such as moral psychology is relevant to the study of the politics of evidence-based policymaking

Has Selection for Improved Agronomic Traits Made Reed Canarygrass Invasive?

Plant breeders have played an essential role in improving agricultural crops, and their efforts will be critical to meet the increasing demand for cellulosic bioenergy feedstocks. However, a major concern is the potential development of novel invasive species that result from breeders' efforts to improve agronomic traits in a crop. We use reed canarygrass as a case study to evaluate the potential of plant breeding to give rise to invasive species. Reed canarygrass has been improved by breeders for use as a forage crop, but it is unclear whether breeding efforts have given rise to more vigorous populations of the species. We evaluated cultivars, European wild, and North American invader populations in upland and wetland environments to identify differences in vigor between the groups of populations. While cultivars were among the most vigorous populations in an agricultural environment (upland soils with nitrogen addition), there were no differences in above- or below-ground production between any populations in wetland environments. These results suggest that breeding has only marginally increased vigor in upland environments and that these gains are not maintained in wetland environments. Breeding focuses on selection for improvements of a specific target population of environments, and stability across a wide range of environments has proved elusive for even the most intensively bred crops. We conclude that breeding efforts are not responsible for wetland invasion by reed canarygrass and offer guidelines that will help reduce the possibility of breeding programs releasing cultivars that will become invasive