Expert views on scientific policy advice on complex environmental health issues

Fact-based policies grounded in solid uncontested scientific evidence: this may sound as the ideal relation between science and policy. However, this ideal rarely holds for complex environmental health risks. When scientific knowledge is contested or incomplete, scientists can take different roles when they advise policymakers. They can advocate the policy option they consider best, or instead present all possible options. They may involve a broad range of stakeholders, or instead refrain from interaction and stick to publishing in scientific journals. We present research on the different roles experts may take when advising on complex environmental health risks. We add empirical data to prior mainly theoretical work. The main goal was to empirically discern different expert roles and viewpoints. The main research question was “What are the different views of scientific experts on their role as policy adviser on complex environmental health issues?”. Specifically we looked at experts on electromagnetic fields (EMF), particulate matter (PM) and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). These cases are examples of current health risk problems, with different levels and forms of scientific uncertainty. We explored differences in roles both within and between scientific expert communities. We used a three-pronged approach: a pilot study, a literature review and three surveys among recognized experts in these three fields. The pilot study and three surveys add empirical data to the, so far, mainly theoretical debate on expert roles. Our research confirms that different distinct roles and viewpoints exist within expert communities. For example, some EMF experts say that precautionary measures are needed (so called “early warners”) whereas other experts state that there is no need for additional measures (so called “status quo experts”). Most important differences within the PM expert community are related to their views on appropriate levels of interaction with policymakers and other stakeholders, and to their preferred professional attitude (humble or not). The survey among AMR experts showed that experts working in human medicine and experts working in veterinary medicine participate in separate roles, indicating that they hold different views on their role as science adviser. The thesis also shows there are differences in roles between expert communities. For example, compared to experts in the fields of EMF and AMR, PM experts shared a broad consensus that, based on scientific research, more stringent policies should be imposed to reduce health impacts (of air pollution). In conclusion, this thesis demonstrates the existence of different expert views on the role of experts as policy advisor. These views are partly specific to the fields of EMF, PM and AMR. The theoretical ideal-typical roles from the literature can indeed be identified. Partly as result of our research methods, the empirical evidence shows a richer variety than the classifications from the literature. Scientists generally do not think their views on risk tend to differ from those of their colleagues. Nonetheless, different views can be observed. We argue that there is a need for more explicit discussion and consideration of expert roles, within the scientific community, academic curricula, with stakeholders and within the science–policy interface