( CNN ) -- Since the December 14 mass killing in Connecticut , we 've seen a lot of finger pointing . Too many guns . Not enough guns . Powerful lobbyists . Insufficient mental health services . Discussion of possible explanations is often neither civil nor constructive , and based on a closed-minded and entrenched belief that those who disagree with us have their facts wrong . The victims in Sandy Hook , Aurora and Fort Hood -- all killed or wounded by gun violence -- deserve better . There are two major ways we can zero in on facts and foster a more informed discussion . The first is to further develop and meaningfully consider high quality scientific research on violence prevention and mental health . The second is to create more opportunities for public policy discussions that incorporate this research . Politics : New Congress , new push for gun laws . The scientific literature regarding violence prevention is considerable . Yet important research that focuses on gun violence has been shut down for political purposes . The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention once considered gun violence a public health issue . The science agency had the freedom to ask important questions : Does having a gun in the home make a family safer ? Do concealed carry laws increase or reduce gun fatalities ? But in 1996 , the National Rifle Association pressured its many supporters in Congress to put the squeeze on the CDC by cutting funding that went to gun research , with the stipulation : `` None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control . '' Gun-related research ground to a halt . In 2009 , scientists funded by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism looked into whether carrying a gun increases or decreases the risk of being shot in an assault . In 2011 , Montana Rep. Denny Rehberg inserted a provision into a funding bill that extended the CDC restrictions to the rest of the Department of Health and Human Services , ending that similar research . Even Obamacare has been touched by the NRA : The new health care law restricts doctors ' ability to collect data about patients ' gun use . `` Criticizing research is fair game , '' Drs . Arthur Kellermann and Frederick Rivara wrote in opposition in the Journal of the American Medical Association last month . `` Suppressing research by targeting its sources of funding is not . '' Science and engineering research can answer important questions . For instance , can we cost-effectively engineer firearms to be used solely by the registered owner ? What 's the best way for law enforcement agencies to share gun violence data ? Does media attention focused on the killers encourage copycat crimes ? Does better access to mental health services reduce criminal activity ? Some findings could lead to policy choices that are n't yet on the table or help determine where we should best focus our attention . Republicans and Democrats alike are warming up to the idea that adequate research can lead to more informed policy decisions . Former Rep. Jay Dickey , the Arkansas Republican who led the charge against the CDC in 1996 , recently expressed regret for suppressing firearm safety research . Just as important , how do all these pieces of the puzzle fit together ? Having an informed debate means relying on credible syntheses of expert studies . To come up with answers , scientific organizations , such as the National Academy of Sciences , could convene independent panels to piece together what is known and what is not known and to evaluate various policy options . The commission set up after the 2010 British Petroleum oil spill is one such example . The 9/11 Commission is another . Analysis : Guns and the law . When independent experts who are free from conflicts of interest come together in good faith to study an issue , they can have a profound and constructive influence on government policy . At a more basic level , national and state legislative committees should hold more hearings designed to study evidence rather than using hearings as theater to advance a political point of view . Nongovernmental organizations , including the one where I work , can redouble their efforts to bring scientists and policymakers together . This is especially important after the demise of the Office of Technology Assessment , a research office within Congress that , until the mid-1990s , provided independent analyses on issues up for congressional debate . In the absence of a reliable base of information we can all agree on , we guess . We interpret the facts to suit our beliefs . We put our faith in the institutions or individuals we trust , whether it 's the NRA , religious leaders or gun control groups . And we keep on having the same broken debate . Of course , the evidence can only take us so far . Moral , economic , legal and political arguments can and should carry weight . But robust research can set the baseline for a discussion and help us make the best decisions for society . The more polarized , caustic and poorly analyzed an issue , the more intractable it becomes . We need to develop venues for rational discourse about research that is resilient to political pressures . More robust partnerships among scientists , policymakers and the public can help us work together to address critical challenges , even after they fall from the headlines . Vice President Joe Biden is leading a task force to address our country 's problem of gun violence . One critical step the task force should embrace is to lift restrictions on the research public health scientists can do . And we can all reject attempts to discredit evidence that challenges our beliefs . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Michael Halpern .
Michael Halpern : We need scientific research on gun violence to inform policy . Halpern : The NRA pressured Congress to end gun violence research at CDC . They didn't want the government funding it, so they lobbied congress not to fund it. Also , we must open our minds to findings that disagree with our beliefs , he writes .