IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v32y2005i1p55-64.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Controlling mobile phone health risks in the UK: a fragile discourse of compliance

Author

Listed:
  • Jack Stilgoe

Abstract

This paper describes the scientific/advisory discourse about mobile phone risk that was prevalent in the late 1990s. It argues that advisory responses to public concern constituted a ‘discourse of compliance’, which was strengthened by implicit support from the mobile phone industry. This discourse used compliance with advisory guidelines as the endpoint for discussions with the public. Evidence from non-experts and concerns about the basis of the guidelines were rejected. This discourse acted as a barrier to expert engagement with the public and with the broader context of uncertainties about the safety of mobile phones. The paper explains how this style of scientific advice was exposed as fragile, despite its claims to represent only the best available science, which, it was claimed, was well-understood and consensual. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack Stilgoe, 2005. "Controlling mobile phone health risks in the UK: a fragile discourse of compliance," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 55-64, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:1:p:55-64
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/147154305781779704
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jamie K. Wardman & Ragnar Löfstedt, 2018. "Anticipating or Accommodating to Public Concern? Risk Amplification and the Politics of Precaution Reexamined," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1802-1819, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:32:y:2005:i:1:p:55-64. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.