Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultationReport as inadecuate




Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Environmental Health

, 14:7

First Online: 21 January 2015Received: 18 August 2014Accepted: 13 January 2015DOI: 10.1186-1476-069X-14-7

Cite this article as: Spruijt, P., Knol, A.B., Petersen, A.C. et al. Environ Health 2015 14: 7. doi:10.1186-1476-069X-14-7

Abstract

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.

KeywordsRoles of scientists Electromagnetic fields Uncertainty Policy advice Expert consultation Q method AbbreviationsALARAAs low as reasonably achievable

DECTDigital enhanced cordless telecommunications

EMFElectromagnetic fields

ICNIRPInternational commission on non-ionizing radiation protection

IARCInternational agency for research on cancer

POETQPartnership online evaluation tool with Q methodology

PCAPrincipal component analysis.

Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article doi:10.1186-1476-069X-14-7 contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Download fulltext PDF



Author: Pita Spruijt - Anne B Knol - Arthur C Petersen - Erik Lebret

Source: https://link.springer.com/







Related documents