While it does make sense to me that social policies should be effectively evaluated, as is the case with medical/scientific controlled trials, it is interesting to think more about the appropriateness of these trials in social policies. Are there some types of studies that cannot be completely random or objective because of the assumptions and ideologies of the researchers as well? Politicians should have an open dialogue with researchers about the evaluation of these policies, not just getting researchers to justify the policy that the politicians want put in place.

I can see the struggle for politicians to prove that they have accomplished something in a short amount of time, and how a long trial wouldn't be seen as impressive... however, a lot of people today want to see proper evaluation and justification for policies, and would rather have a politician back out of a policy after it is proven to be ineffective, rather than continue it regardless.