Inclusive development and prioritization of review questions in a highly controversial field of regulatory science

Environmental Evidence

Sandra Karner¹  Gloria Adduci¹  Monica Racovita¹  Armin Spök²  Ralf Wilhelm³  Christian Kohl³  Joachim Schiemann³  Greet Smets⁴  Patrick Rüdelsheim⁴ 

[1] Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt, Wien-Graz;Graz University of Technology and Alpen-Adria Universität Klagenfurt, Wien-Graz;Julius Kühn-Institut;Perseus BVBA;

关键词: Evidence synthesis;    Systematic reviews;    Transparency;    Inclusiveness;    Stakeholder involvement;    GMO impact assessment;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s13750-017-0113-z

来源: DOAJ

【 摘 要 】

Abstract How to best assess potential health, environmental and other impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and how to interpret the resulting evidence base have been long-standing controversial issues in the EU. As a response, transparency and inclusiveness became a major focus of regulatory science activities in the GMO impact area. Nevertheless, nearly three decades of controversies resulted in a heavily polarized policy environment, calling for further efforts. Against this backdrop the EU funded project GRACE explored the value of evidence synthesis approaches for GMO impact assessment and developed an evidence synthesis framework with a strong emphasis on openness, stakeholder engagement, transparency, and responsiveness to tackle regulatory science challenges. This framework was tested and implemented in the course of 14 systematic reviews or maps conducted on selected review questions spanning potential health, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts of GMOs. An inclusive development and prioritisation of review questions is of key importance in evidence synthesis as it helps to provide a better link between stakeholder demands and concerns and policy relevant outcomes. This paper, therefore, places a particular focus on the stakeholder involvement strategy developed and experiences gathered during this particular step in the course of the GRACE project. Based on this experience, possible lessons for future engagement exercises in highly controversial fields of regulatory science are discussed.

【 授权许可】

Unknown