Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation

Environmental Health

Research

Arthur C Petersen¹  Anne B Knol²  Pita Spruijt³  Erik Lebret³ 

[1] Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands;Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, University College London, London, UK;Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands;Centre for Sustainability, Environment and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands;

关键词: Roles of scientists;    Electromagnetic fields;    Uncertainty;    Policy advice;    Expert consultation;    Q method;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1476-069X-14-7

 received in 2014-08-18, accepted in 2015-01-13,  发布年份 2015

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundThe 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?MethodsQ 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.ResultsFour 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-à-vis policymakers and/or other stakeholders.ConclusionThis 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.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Spruijt et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015