Evidence-aware policies, causality and plurality of science

The results of research on evidence- ‐based or evidence- ‐aware decision (EBD) are seldom linked to those on the plurality of science. The heterogeneity of research programmes existing within disciplines is therefore rarely taken into account. Yet, in practice, by construction each theory has significant blind spots, and research programmes with contradictory theoretical underpinnings can yield complementary results for decision making. Ignoring this plurality can lead to over- ‐simplified representation of the problems encountered in practice, out of phase with the complex causal structures facing practitioners. First, evidence, whatever its level of proof, is always incomplete knowledge of the piece of the world that is analyses. Second, scientific approaches produce various kind of evidence (presence, causality, efficacy, toxicity…) that ought to be recombined if it is to serve to guide action and/or evaluate its effects. When these limits are not clearly indicated, the solutions devised on the basis of such simplified representations may not correspond to the objectives, and may even produce serious adverse effects. The communication, based on two case studies, willexamine this issue of adverse effects of inappropriate use of evidence for practice