Search results

Background and Aims Policymakers frequently encounter complex issues, and the role of scientists as policy advisers on these issues is not always clearly defined. We present an overview of the interdisciplinary literature on the roles of scientific experts when advising policymakers on complex issues, and in particular on the factors that influence these roles. Methods A structured literature search was combined with literature found in reference lists of peer reviewed papers (the snowball method). In total, 267 publications were analyzed using scientometrics analyses (discipline clustering analysis and co-citation analysis) followed by a qualitative analysis and interpretation. Results The scientometrics analysis shows an amalgam of disciplines that publish on our research topic. Five clusters of authors were identified based on similarities in the references used: post-normal science, science and technology studies, science policy studies, politics of expertise and risk governance. The content of the clusters demonstrates that authors in different clusters agree that the role of experts is influenced by the type of problem (simple or complex) and by other parties (the public and stakeholders). However, opinions vary on the extent to which roles can vary and the necessity to explicate different viewpoints. Discussion and conclusions Publications on scientific experts who provide policy advice affirm that such experts should and do hold different roles, depending on the type of problem and factors such as values held by the expert and the type of knowledge. We conclude that research on expert roles has remained mostly theoretical. Existing theories about science systems can be used to study real policy advice processes. Most theories are well elaborated, but empirical proof for the described changes, roles and processes is limited.

Background and Aims: Policymakers frequently encounter complex issues, and the role of scientists as policy advisers on these issues is not always clearly defined. We present an overview of the interdisciplinary literature on the roles of scientific experts when advising policymakers on complex issues, and in particular on the factors that influence these roles. Methods: A structured literature search was combined with literature found in reference lists of peer reviewed papers (the snowball method). In total, 267 publications were analyzed using scientometrics analyses (discipline clustering analysis and co-citation analysis) followed by a qualitative analysis and interpretation. Results: The scientometrics analysis shows an amalgam of disciplines that publish on our research topic. Five clusters of authors were identified based on similarities in the references used: post-normal science, science and technology studies, science policy studies, politics of expertise and risk governance. The content of the clusters demonstrates that authors in different clusters agree that the role of experts is influenced by the type of problem (simple or complex) and by other parties (the public and stakeholders). However, opinions vary on the extent to which roles can vary and the necessity to explicate different viewpoints. Discussion and conclusions: Publications on scientific experts who provide policy advice affirm that such experts should and do hold different roles, depending on the type of problem and factors such as values held by the expert and the type of knowledge. We conclude that research on expert roles has remained mostly theoretical. Existing theories about science systems can be used to study real policy advice processes. Most theories are well elaborated, but empirical proof for the described changes, roles and processes is limited. © 2014 The Authors.

Background and Aims Policymakers frequently encounter complex issues, and the role of scientists as policy advisers on these issues is not always clearly defined. We present an overview of the interdisciplinary literature on the roles of scientific experts when advising policymakers on complex issues, and in particular on the factors that influence these roles. Methods A structured literature search was combined with literature found in reference lists of peer reviewed papers (the snowball method). In total, 267 publications were analyzed using scientometrics analyses (discipline clustering analysis and co-citation analysis) followed by a qualitative analysis and interpretation. Results The scientometrics analysis shows an amalgam of disciplines that publish on our research topic. Five clusters of authors were identified based on similarities in the references used: post-normal science, science and technology studies, science policy studies, politics of expertise and risk governance. The content of the clusters demonstrates that authors in different clusters agree that the role of experts is influenced by the type of problem (simple or complex) and by other parties (the public and stakeholders). However, opinions vary on the extent to which roles can vary and the necessity to explicate different viewpoints. Discussion and conclusions Publications on scientific experts who provide policy advice affirm that such experts should and do hold different roles, depending on the type of problem and factors such as values held by the expert and the type of knowledge. We conclude that research on expert roles has remained mostly theoretical. Existing theories about science systems can be used to study real policy advice processes. Most theories are well elaborated, but empirical proof for the described changes, roles and processes is limited.

AbstractRisk assessment of chemicals can be based on toxicology and/or epidemiology. The choice of toxicological or epidemiological data can result in different health‐based guidance values (HBGVs). Communicating the underlying argumentation is important to explain these differences to the public and policymakers. In this article, we explore the argumentation used to justify the use of toxicological or epidemiological data in the derivation of HBGVs in four different risk assessments for the chemical Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The pragma‐dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT) is hereby applied. The argumentations to select relevant health endpoints or certain studies to infer causality appeared mainly based on "symptomatic relations," that is, study results are used as characteristic of what was claimed to be a causal relation without delving into the actual causal argumentation that preceded it. Starting points that are at the basis of the chain of arguments remained implicit. Argumentation to use epidemiological and/or toxicological data was only briefly mentioned and the underlying argumentative foundation that led to the conclusion was seldom found or not addressed at all. The decision to include/exclude information was made based on the availability of data, or the motives for the choice remained largely unclear. We conclude that more depth in argumentation and a subordinative chain of arguments is needed to better disclose the underlying reasoning leading to a certain health‐based guidance value (HBGV). More explicit identification and discussion of starting points could be a valuable addition to general risk assessment frameworks for maximum use of toxicological and epidemiological data and shared conclusions of the assessment.

The number of anthropogenic chemicals, manufactured, by-products, metabolites and abiotically formed transformation products, counts to hundreds of thousands, at present. Thus, humans and wildlife are exposed to complex mixtures, never one chemical at a time and rarely with only one dominating effect. Hence there is an urgent need to develop strategies on how exposure to multiple hazardous chemicals and the combination of their effects can be assessed. A workshop, "Advancing the Assessment of Chemical Mixtures and their Risks for Human Health and the Environment" was organized in May 2018 together with Joint Research Center in Ispra, EU-funded research projects and Commission Services and relevant EU agencies. This forum for researchers and policy-makers was created to discuss and identify gaps in risk assessment and governance of chemical mixtures as well as to discuss state of the art science and future research needs. Based on the presentations and discussions at this workshop we want to bring forward the following Key Messages: We are at a turning point: multiple exposures and their combined effects require better management to protect public health and the environment from hazardous chemical mixtures. Regulatory initiatives should be launched to investigate the opportunities for all relevant regulatory frameworks to include prospective mixture risk assessment and consider combined exposures to (real-life) chemical mixtures to humans and wildlife, across sectors. Precautionary approaches and intermediate measures (e.g. Mixture Assessment Factor) can already be applied, although, definitive mixture risk assessments cannot be routinely conducted due to significant knowledge and data gaps. A European strategy needs to be set, through stakeholder engagement, for the governance of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and mixtures. The strategy would include research aimed at scientific advancement in mechanistic understanding and modelling techniques, as well as research to address regulatory and policy needs. Without such a clear strategy, specific objectives and common priorities, research, and policies to address mixtures will likely remain scattered and insufficient.