Abstract
This perspective presents empirical data to demonstrate the existence of different expert views on scientific policy advice on complex environmental health issues. These views are partly research-field specific. According to scientific literature, experts differ in the way they provide policy advice on complex issues such as electromagnetic fields (EMF), particulate matter (PM), and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Where some experts feel their primary task is to carry out fundamental research, others actively engage in the policy dialogue. Although the literature provides ideas about expert roles, there exists little empirical underpinning. Our aim is to gather empirical evidence about expert roles. The results of an international study indicated that experts on EMF, PM, and AMR differ in the way they view their role in the policy dialogue. For example, experts differed in their views on the need for precaution and their motivation to initiate stakeholder cooperation. Besides, most experts thought that their views on the risks of EMF/PM/AMR did not differ from those of colleagues. Great dissensus was found in views on the best ways of managing risks and uncertainties. In conclusion, the theoretical ideal–typical roles from the literature can be identified to a certain extent.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 968-974 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Risk Analysis |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 2019 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This work was financed through the Strategic Research Program of RIVM (S630023). The authors would like to thank everyone who nominated experts, as well as the participants in our expert consultation. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge Sander Clahsen for his extensive contribution to analyzing the Q sorts. We thank our colleagues Arie Havelaar, Mariken van der Lubben, and Sabine de Greeff for their willingness to answer questions about antibiotic resistance. We thank Maarten Kroesen and Peter Schmolck for their advice on the Q-factor analysis. Finally, we are thankful that Stephen Jeffares offered us his data collection program POETQ.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Authors Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.
Copyright:
Copyright 2019 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
Funding
This work was financed through the Strategic Research Program of RIVM (S630023). The authors would like to thank everyone who nominated experts, as well as the participants in our expert consultation. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge Sander Clahsen for his extensive contribution to analyzing the Q sorts. We thank our colleagues Arie Havelaar, Mariken van der Lubben, and Sabine de Greeff for their willingness to answer questions about antibiotic resistance. We thank Maarten Kroesen and Peter Schmolck for their advice on the Q-factor analysis. Finally, we are thankful that Stephen Jeffares offered us his data collection program POETQ.
Keywords
- Antimicrobial resistance
- electromagnetic fields
- expert roles
- particulate matter
- policy advice
- Q methodology
- uncertainty