Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance

2018 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 1981

Study snapshot

Publicationmanual · 2018

Study typeother

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance Spruijt P, Knol AB, Petersen AC, Lebret E. Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance. Risk Anal. 2018 Oct 31. doi: 10.1111/risa.13224. 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. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Excerpts The principal component analysis (PCA) resulted in six factors, which we interpreted as representing the following six roles: (1) engaged scientist, (2) pro-science expert, (3) regulatory advocate, (4) humble scientist, (5) transparent expert, and (6) issue advocate. Engaged scientists highly valued scientific knowledge and stressed the importance of a continuous dialogue between scientists and policymakers. Pro-science experts strongly agreed that new policies should be based on scientific knowledge, that knowledge possessed by the general public is less valuable, and that monitoring is the most suitable way to address the risks and uncertainties of EMF/PM. Regulatory advocates strongly agreed that possible health problems are best managed through legislation and regulation, that scientists should publish in peer-reviewed journals as their primary responsibility, and that they are not responsible for maintaining a continuous dialogue with policymakers. Humble scientists strongly agreed that scientists should be humble about the role of science in solving societal problems and had modest judgments regarding most other statements. Transparent experts emphasized the importance of transparency regarding research methods and assumptions, explicating differences of opinion among experts, and informing policymakers about the science underlying policy advice. Finally, issue advocates focused on actively interacting with policymakers and politics; they were fairly neutral in regard to the policy measures that should be taken.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother

Effect directionunclear

PopulationExperts on electromagnetic fields (EMF), particulate matter (PM), and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) participating in an international study

Sample sizeNot supplied

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

An international study found that experts on EMF, PM, and AMR differ in how they view their role in the policy dialogue, including differing views on the need for precaution and on initiating stakeholder cooperation. Most experts thought their views on risks did not differ from colleagues, but there was substantial dissensus on the best ways of managing risks and uncertainties. Principal component analysis identified six role factors: engaged scientist, pro-science expert, regulatory advocate, humble scientist, transparent expert, and issue advocate.

Outcomes measured

Expert views/roles in providing scientific policy advice
Views on precaution
Motivation to initiate stakeholder cooperation
Dissensus on managing risks and uncertainties

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "Experts on electromagnetic fields (EMF), particulate matter (PM), and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) participating in an international study",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "Expert views/roles in providing scientific policy advice",
    "Views on precaution",
    "Motivation to initiate stakeholder cooperation",
    "Dissensus on managing risks and uncertainties"
  ],
  "main_findings": "An international study found that experts on EMF, PM, and AMR differ in how they view their role in the policy dialogue, including differing views on the need for precaution and on initiating stakeholder cooperation. Most experts thought their views on risks did not differ from colleagues, but there was substantial dissensus on the best ways of managing risks and uncertainties. Principal component analysis identified six role factors: engaged scientist, pro-science expert, regulatory advocate, humble scientist, transparent expert, and issue advocate.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "policy advice",
    "expert roles",
    "precaution",
    "risk management",
    "uncertainty",
    "stakeholder cooperation",
    "principal component analysis",
    "particulate matter",
    "antimicrobial resistance"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.28,
      "reason": "Focuses on expert roles and scientific policy advice for EMF risk/uncertainty management, relevant to international EMF governance contexts."
    }
  ]
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1111/risa.13224
PubMed: Not supplied

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library