Understanding conflicting views of endocrine disruptor experts: a pilot study using argumentation analysis

To what extent do substances have the potential to cause adverse
health effects through an endocrine mode of action? This question elicited
intense debates between endocrine disrupting substances (EDS)
experts. The pervasive nature of the underlying differences of opinion
justifies a systematic analysis of the argumentation put forward by the
experts involved. Two scientific publications pertaining to EDS science
were analyzed using pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT).
PDAT’s methodology allowed us to perform a maximally impartial and
systematic analysis. Using PDAT, the structure of the argumentation put
forward in both publications was reconstructed, main standpoints, and
arguments were identified, underlying unexpressed premises were
made explicit and major differences in starting points were uncovered.
The five differences in starting points identified were subdivided into
two categories: interpretative ambiguity about underlying scientific evidence
and normative ambiguity about differences in broader norms
and values. Accordingly, two differences in starting points were
explored further using existing risk and expert role typologies. We
emphasize that particularly the settlement of normative ambiguity,
through the involvement of broader ethical, social or political values,
inherently requires multi-stakeholder approaches. Extrapolation of our
findings to the broader discussion on EDS science and further exploration
of the roles of EDS experts in policy processes should follow from
further research.