Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation
Spruijt P, Knol AB, Petersen AC, Lebret E. Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation. Environ Health. 2015 Jan 21;14(1):7. [Epub ahead of print].
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The overall evidence for adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at levels of exposure normally experienced by the public is generally considered weak. However, whether long-term health effects arise remains uncertain and scientific policy advice is therefore given against a background of uncertainty. Several theories exist about different roles that experts may take when they provide advice on complex issues such as EMF. To provide empirical evidence for these theories, we conducted an expert consultation with as main research question: What are the different roles of EMF experts when they provide policy advice?
METHODS: Q methodology was used to empirically test theoretical notions on the existence and determinants of different expert roles and to analyze which roles actually play out in the domain of EMF. Experts were selected based on a structured nominee process. In total 32 international EMF experts participated. Responses were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis and for the open questions we used Atlas.ti.
RESULTS: Four expert roles were found. Most striking differences between the four roles are whether experts consider current EMF policies adequate or not, whether additional -precautionary- measures are needed, and how experts view their position vis-a-vis policymakers and/or other stakeholders.
CONCLUSION: This empirical study provides support for the so far mainly theoretical debate about the existence of different roles of experts when they give policy advice. The experts' assessment of the degree of uncertainty of the issue turned out to be highly associated with their role. We argue that part of the controversy that exists in the debate regarding scientific policy advice on EMF is about different values and roles.
Key characteristics of the four roles (from Table 2)
1) early warners (n = 13): Disagreement with current policies. Transparency about methods, assumptions and personal preferences. More research. Precautionary measures.
Typical advice: Precautionary measures. Develop new more stringent policy standards.
2) pro-science experts (n = 10): Evidence-based policy. Monitor risks. Not humble about contribution of science to society.
Typical advice: Evidence-based policy, ALARA and ICNIRP guidelines*
3) status quo experts (n = 6): Agreement with current policies. No need for additional regulatory measures. Evidence-based policy.
Typical advice: Evidence-based policy, ALARA and ICNIRP guidelines*
4) issue advocates (n = 3): Interaction with policy makers and stakeholders. More sources than science. No need to explicate differences of opinion between experts.
1) early warners (n = 13): Disagreement with current policies. Transparency about methods, assumptions and personal preferences. More research. Precautionary measures.
Typical advice: Precautionary measures. Develop new more stringent policy standards.
2) pro-science experts (n = 10): Evidence-based policy. Monitor risks. Not humble about contribution of science to society.
Typical advice: Evidence-based policy, ALARA and ICNIRP guidelines*
3) status quo experts (n = 6): Agreement with current policies. No need for additional regulatory measures. Evidence-based policy.
Typical advice: Evidence-based policy, ALARA and ICNIRP guidelines*
4) issue advocates (n = 3): Interaction with policy makers and stakeholders. More sources than science. No need to explicate differences of opinion between experts.
Typical advice: ?
* The differences between status quo and pro-science experts included the following: humble attitude of scientists and value of citizens’ knowledge.
"We compared our list of respondents to the membership lists of the ICNIRP and the BioInitiative participants. The results pointed towards a relationship between involvement with one of these groups and the attributed expert roles. It was interesting that experts who participated in our consultation thought that their views on the risks of EMFs did not tend to differ from those of colleagues (statement 28). However, the results of our research clearly indicated differences in roles and viewpoints.
Our study confirmed that different distinct roles and viewpoints existed within the community of EMF experts. This research also suggested that the indicated level of uncertainty was one of the factors associated with the EMF experts’ roles and, most likely, their policy advice. Further study is needed to determine if this was a causal relation and if this also applies to other environmental health issues. This empirical study provided support for the mainly theoretical debate about the role of experts when they give policy advice. These first empirical findings need corroboration from other empirical studies and on other issues. Additionally, we need to better understand both determinants of roles as well as its effect on policy advice and debate. Based on these results, we argue that part of the controversy that exists in the debate regarding scientific policy advice is about different values and roles (i.e., normative ambiguity [17]). These insights may lead to a better understanding of the processes and differences in the results of scientific policy advice on complex issues."
Our study confirmed that different distinct roles and viewpoints existed within the community of EMF experts. This research also suggested that the indicated level of uncertainty was one of the factors associated with the EMF experts’ roles and, most likely, their policy advice. Further study is needed to determine if this was a causal relation and if this also applies to other environmental health issues. This empirical study provided support for the mainly theoretical debate about the role of experts when they give policy advice. These first empirical findings need corroboration from other empirical studies and on other issues. Additionally, we need to better understand both determinants of roles as well as its effect on policy advice and debate. Based on these results, we argue that part of the controversy that exists in the debate regarding scientific policy advice is about different values and roles (i.e., normative ambiguity [17]). These insights may lead to a better understanding of the processes and differences in the results of scientific policy advice on complex issues."
--
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety
Website: http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/SaferE
News Releases: http://pressroom.prlog.org/
Twitter: @berkeleyprc
No comments:
Post a Comment