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

Environmental health : a global access science source · 2015 · Unclear · Insufficient evidence

← Research stream

UnclearInsufficient evidencePaper 4799

Study snapshot

PublicationEnvironmental health : a global access science source · 2015

Study typeother

Reported directionUnclear

Evidence ratingInsufficient

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 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? METHODS: Q 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. RESULTS: Four 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. CONCLUSION: This 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.

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

PopulationInternational EMF experts providing policy advice

Sample size32

ExposureNot supplied

Evidence strengthInsufficientConfidence: 78% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Using Q methodology with 32 international EMF experts, four distinct expert roles were identified. Key differences between roles concerned whether current EMF policies were considered adequate, whether additional precautionary measures were needed, and how experts viewed their position relative to policymakers and other stakeholders; experts' assessment of uncertainty was highly associated with role.

Outcomes measured

Expert roles in EMF policy advice
Views on adequacy of current EMF policies
Views on need for additional precautionary measures
Experts' perceived position vis-à-vis policymakers/stakeholders
Association between perceived uncertainty and expert role

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": null,
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": null
  },
  "population": "International EMF experts providing policy advice",
  "sample_size": 32,
  "outcomes": [
    "Expert roles in EMF policy advice",
    "Views on adequacy of current EMF policies",
    "Views on need for additional precautionary measures",
    "Experts' perceived position vis-à-vis policymakers/stakeholders",
    "Association between perceived uncertainty and expert role"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Using Q methodology with 32 international EMF experts, four distinct expert roles were identified. Key differences between roles concerned whether current EMF policies were considered adequate, whether additional precautionary measures were needed, and how experts viewed their position relative to policymakers and other stakeholders; experts' assessment of uncertainty was highly associated with role.",
  "effect_direction": "unclear",
  "limitations": [],
  "evidence_strength": "insufficient",
  "confidence": 0.78,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "electromagnetic fields",
    "EMF",
    "policy advice",
    "expert roles",
    "Q methodology",
    "uncertainty",
    "precautionary measures",
    "risk governance"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": [
    {
      "slug": "who-icnirp",
      "weight": 0.35,
      "reason": "Focuses on EMF policy advice and adequacy/precaution in EMF policies, which commonly relates to international guideline and advisory 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: 10.1186/1476-069x-14-7
PubMed: 25604825

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library