IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v39y2019i5p968-974.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Pita Spruijt
  • Anne B. Knol
  • Arthur C. Petersen
  • Erik Lebret

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Pita Spruijt & Anne B. Knol & Arthur C. Petersen & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 968-974, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:5:p:968-974
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.13224
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13224
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.13224?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fergus Bolger & Gene Rowe, 2015. "The Aggregation of Expert Judgment: Do Good Things Come to Those Who Weight?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(1), pages 5-11, January.
    2. Spruijt, Pita & Knol, Anne B. & Petersen, Arthur C. & Lebret, Erik, 2016. "Differences in views of experts about their role in particulate matter policy advice: Empirical evidence from an international expert consultation," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 44-52.
    3. Charles Weiss, 2003. "Scientific Uncertainty and Science-Based Precaution," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 137-166, June.
    4. Pita Spruijt & Anne B. Knol & René Torenvlied & Erik Lebret, 2013. "Different Roles and Viewpoints of Scientific Experts in Advising on Environmental Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1844-1857, October.
    5. Oecd, 2015. "Scientific Advice for Policy Making: The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 21, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. K. L. Akerlof & Alessandro Allegra & Selena Nelson & Cameryn Gonnella & Carla Washbourne & Chris Tyler, 2022. "Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 351-367, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    2. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Werner Marx, 2016. "Policy documents as sources for measuring societal impact: how often is climate change research mentioned in policy-related documents?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1477-1495, December.
    3. Bauer, Anja & Kastenhofer, Karen, 2019. "Policy advice in technology assessment: Shifting roles, principles and boundaries," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 32-41.
    4. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. K. L. Akerlof & Alessandro Allegra & Selena Nelson & Cameryn Gonnella & Carla Washbourne & Chris Tyler, 2022. "Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 55(2), pages 351-367, June.
    6. Muradian, Roldan & Pascual, Unai, 2020. "Ecological economics in the age of fear," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Chuanshen Qin & Jianhua Xu & Gabrielle Wong‐Parodi & Lan Xue, 2020. "Change in Public Concern and Responsive Behaviors Toward Air Pollution Under the Dome," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(10), pages 1983-2001, October.
    8. Chiara Franzoni & Paula Stephan & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2022. "Funding Risky Research," Entrepreneurship and Innovation Policy and the Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(1), pages 103-133.
    9. Haas, Peter M., 2018. "Preserving the epistemic authority of science in world politics," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2018-105, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    10. Frans W. A. Brom, 2019. "Institutionalizing applied humanities: enabling a stronger role for the humanities in interdisciplinary research for public policy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    11. Chen Li & Ning Liu, 2021. "What to tell? Wise communication and wise crowd," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 90(2), pages 279-299, March.
    12. Anne E. Smith, 2018. "Setting Air Quality Standards for PM2.5: A Role for Subjective Uncertainty in NAAQS Quantitative Risk Assessments?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2318-2339, November.
    13. Roman Fudickar & Hanna Hottenrott & Cornelia Lawson, 2018. "What’s the price of academic consulting? Effects of public and private sector consulting on academic research," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(4), pages 699-722.
    14. Schmidt, Stefan & Seppelt, Ralf, 2018. "Information content of global ecosystem service databases and their suitability for decision advice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 32(PA), pages 22-40.
    15. Anca M. Hanea & Marissa F. McBride & Mark A. Burgman & Bonnie C. Wintle, 2018. "The Value of Performance Weights and Discussion in Aggregated Expert Judgments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1781-1794, September.
    16. Fudickar, Roman & Hottenrott, Hanna & Lawson, Cornelia, 2016. "What's the price of consulting? Effects of public and private sector consulting on academic research," DICE Discussion Papers 212, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    17. Marleen Kraaij-Dirkzwager & Joost Van der Ree & Erik Lebret, 2017. "Rapid Assessment of Stakeholder Concerns about Public Health. An Introduction to a Fast and Inexpensive Approach Applied on Health Concerns about Intensive Animal Production Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, December.
    18. Cameron J. Williams & Kevin J. Wilson & Nina Wilson, 2021. "A comparison of prior elicitation aggregation using the classical method and SHELF," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(3), pages 920-940, July.
    19. Roberto Barraza & Gilberto Velazquez-Angulo & Edith Flores-Tavizón & Jaime Romero-González & José Ignacio Huertas-Cardozo, 2016. "The Role of Science in Advising the Decision Making Process: A Pathway for Building Effective Climate Change Mitigation Policies in Mexico at the Local Level," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, April.
    20. Andrea Nardini & Freddy Leonardo Franco Idarraga, 2016. "A Qualitative Hydro-Geomorphic Prediction of the Destiny of the Mojana Region (Magdalena-Cauca Basin, Colombia), to Inform Large Scale Decision Making," Resources, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-25, June.

    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:wly:riskan:v:39:y:2019:i:5:p:968-974. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.