Models of science–policy interaction: Exploring approaches to Bisphenol A management in the EU

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.046Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Investigates science–policy interactions under conditions of uncertainty.

  • Highlights limitations of this model under conditions of uncertainty.

  • Explores alternative models, showing their limitations argues for a rethinking of the relationship between science, policy, and management.

Abstract

This study investigated science–policy interaction models and their limitations under conditions of uncertainty. In detail, it looked at the management of the suspected endocrine-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Despite growing evidence that BPA is hazardous to human and environmental health, the level of scientific uncertainty is still high and, as a result, there is significant disagreement on the actual extent and type of risk. Analysis of decision-making processes at different regulatory levels (EU, Sweden, and the Swedish municipality of Gothenburg) exposed chemicals risk management and associated science–policy interaction under uncertainty.

The results of the study show that chemicals management and associated science–policy interaction follow the modern model of science–policy interaction, where science is assumed to ‘speak truth to policy’ and highlights existing limitations of this model under conditions of uncertainty. The study not only explores alternative models (precautionary, consensus, science–policy demarcation. and extended participation) but also shows their limitations. The study concludes that all models come with their particular underlying assumptions, strengths, and limitations. At the same time, by exposing serious limitations of the modern model, the study calls for a rethinking of the relationship between science, policy, and management.

Introduction

Environmental and human health decision making is often based on information or evidence provided by science (Kriebel et al., 2001). However, for many issues, information and knowledge are largely missing. For example, in the case of industrial chemicals, there is very limited knowledge about the toxicity and ecotoxicity of many substances and mixtures, or the number of chemicals in use and levels of them found in the environment (Rudén and Gilek, 2010, Karlsson et al., 2011).

Despite these well-known problems, management of many environmental and human health risks (including chemicals) is often based on scientific knowledge generated, for example, through risk assessments, cost–benefit analyses, and modelling (Merkhofer, 1987, Russell and Gruber, 1987, Kiker et al., 2005). From this view, a linear science–policy model is derived. In this ‘modern’ model, science is seen to be capable of ‘speaking truth to power’ by delivering value-free, objective input to rational political decision making (Funtowicz and Strand, 2007).

Whilst looking at the literature in the area of science–policy interaction, several alternatives to the modern model have been developed (Bäckstrand, 2003, Funtowicz and Strand, 2007, Pielke, 2007, Stirling, 2007, Van den Hove, 2007, Renn, 2008, De Santo, 2010). For example, nowadays it is rather common to argue for a precautionary model of science–policy interaction in chemicals management (Karlsson, 2006). Furthermore, there are several other models of science–policy interaction: Funtowicz and Strand (2007) classified them as models of consensus, demarcation, and extended participation. However, with the precautionary model as a well-studied exception, it is not known to what extent and in which ways these models are used in practice, especially in the area of chemicals management.

To further investigate science–policy (risk assessment–risk management) interaction under uncertainty in practice, I selected a specific case, characterized by uncertainty and controversies — a disputed endocrine-disrupting substance: Bisphenol A (BPA) (Vandenberg et al., 2013). BPA is used in products such as plastic bottles, food can linings, plastic cups, and sealants. Exposure to BPA has been shown in studies to cause adverse health effects in animals, but clear epidemiological evidence of health effects in humans is missing (Vandenberg et al., 2013). Despite a growing flora of publications linking BPA to several toxic effects in animals, e.g. physical and neurological problems, development problems, obesity, and cancer (Maffini et al., 2006, Sekizawa, 2008), it is still debated which animal studies can be trusted as relevant and reliable for assessing risks to humans (Beronius et al., 2010). Consequently, some reports claim no concern for human health and environmental effects (Ryan et al., 2010) whilst others state the opposite (Beronius et al., 2010).

There are several reasons behind this disagreement, such as epistemic uncertainty (described, for example, in Udovyk and Gilek, 2013) on the non-monotonic dose–response curves for BPA, and on potentially sensitive windows of exposure of human infants (Gierthy, 2002, Flint et al., 2012). However, the central disagreement has been stated to mainly depend on a different type of uncertainty, connected to the risk assessor's divergent views on the reliability and relevance of non-standardized studies on the endocrine-related effects of BPA at low doses (Beronius et al., 2010). This type of uncertainty is described by Udovyk and Gilek (2013) as uncertainty in a knowledge relationship, and by Walker et al. (2003) in terms of ‘too much knowledge or too different knowledge’.

A general reaction to the divergent findings from toxicity studies investigating BPA has been concerns about the suitability of using BPA in consumer products (Scruggs, 2012), as well as concerns about its further presence in the environment (Flint et al., 2012). In response to these concerns, regulations have been adopted by a number of countries and at the international level (e.g. Canada, France, and the EU). However, regulatory responses are rather heterogeneous and, in general, there is no globally agreed regulatory strategy regarding BPA.

Since management of chemicals occurs at different geopolitical levels (e.g. international, EU, national, local municipality), it is clear that management approaches and associated science–policy interactions can play out differently at the various levels. This diversity gives more opportunities to observe alternative models of science–policy interaction. In practical terms, this study zooms in on chemicals management in a particular region of Europe: Sweden, specifically the municipality of Gothenburg.

Consequently, by exploring BPA management in the region, the study aims, first, to improve the understanding of chemicals risk management and associated science–policy (risk assessment–risk management) interaction under uncertainty, contributing to the academic discourse on management under uncertainty. Second, it aims to provide food for thought and reflection on models of science–policy interaction and their limitations under uncertainty in decision making on chemicals risk in general and BPA in particular.

Section snippets

Analytical framework and methods

Chemicals management in Europe simultaneously occurs at various interconnected geopolitical levels (Udovyk et al., 2010) (see Table 1). To operationalize the research questions, I selected one particular region in Europe (EU – Sweden – the Swedish municipality of Gothenburg; see the description in Table 1). The region is a relevant case, as the governing system for environmental and health risks has been depicted as a policy pioneer (Feistel et al., 2008, Kern and Löffelsend, 2008).

EU level

The EU Commission approached the problem of BPA by requesting a risk assessment from the European Food Safety Authority, following a rather modern approach to science–policy interaction (Table 4). During our interviews, the respondent from EFSA outlined the consensus-based procedure of decision making in the studies that were selected for the assessment. However, in general (as mentioned by the interviewee and in the literature), studies that followed standardized toxicity test guidelines (US

Modern model of science–policy interaction and its limitations

This study has shown that the majority of the analysed levels of decision making used elements of the modern model of science–policy interaction. In particular, scientific risk assessment was required in order to proceed with risk management options at the EU and national levels. Thus, in a general sense, this can be described as a modern model of science–policy interaction, where ‘science speaks truth to policy’ (Wildavsky, 1979).

Based on the empirical data collected in this study, it was

Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to understand current approaches to chemicals management and associated science–policy interaction models. The study showed that chemicals management and associated science–policy interaction can often be described by the modern model, where science is assumed capable of ‘speaking truth to policy’, despite significant uncertainty and scientific disagreements about the risks posed by BPA to human and environmental health.

The study highlighted existing limitations of

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results was funded by the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme (2007–2013) under grant agreement no. 217246 made with the joint Baltic Sea research and development programme BONUS, as well as from the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, the Swedish Research Council FORMAS, and the Foundation for Baltic and East European Studies.

References (74)

  • J. Ravetz

    The post-normal science of precaution

    Futures

    (2004)
  • J.R. Ravetz

    Post-normal science and the complexity of transitions towards sustainability

    Ecol Complex

    (2006)
  • C. Rudén

    The use and evaluation of primary data in 29 trichloroethylene carcinogen risk assessments

    Regul Toxicol Pharmacol

    (2001)
  • D. Sarewitz

    How science makes environmental controversies worse

    Environ Sci Policy

    (2004)
  • O. Udovyk et al.

    Coping with uncertainties in science-based advice informing environmental management of the Baltic Sea

    Environ Sci Policy

    (2013)
  • S. Van den Hove

    Participatory approaches to environmental policy-making: the European Commission Climate Policy Process as a case study

    Ecol Econ

    (2000)
  • S. Van den Hove

    A rationale for science–policy interfaces

    Futures

    (2007)
  • K. Bäckstrand

    Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance

    Glob Environ Polit

    (2003)
  • J.E. Bekelman et al.

    Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research

    JAMA

    (2003)
  • CEO

    Exposed: conflicts of interest among EFSA's experts on food additives

  • J.W. Creswell et al.

    Designing and conducting mixed methods research

    (2007)
  • M. Dreyer et al.

    Participatory deliberation, risk governance and management of the marine region in the European Union

    J Environ Plann Policy Manage

    (2014)
  • EC

    REACH Regulation, 1907/2006/EC.

    Official Journal

    (2006)
  • EC

    Commission directive 2011/8/EU of 28 January 2011 amending Directive 2002/72/EC as regards the restriction of use of Bisphenol A in plastic infant feeding bottles

    Off J Eur Union

    (2011)
  • ECHA

    ECHA official web page

  • EEA

    Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000

  • EEA

    Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation

  • EEB

    The EEB ClientEarth Publication ‘identifying the bottlenecks in REACH implementation: the role of ECHA in REACH's failing implementation’ is available, European Environmental Bureau

  • EFSA

    Scientific opinion on Bisphenol A: evaluation of a study investigating its neurodevelopmental toxicity, review of recent scientific literature on its toxicity and advice on the Danish risk assessment of Bisphenol A

    EFSA J

    (2010)
  • EFSA
  • EFSA

    Draft scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs, EFSA Journal

  • R. Feistel et al.

    State and evolution of the Baltic Sea, 1952–2005: a detailed 50-year survey of meteorology and climate, physics, chemistry, biology, and marine environment

    (2008)
  • S.O. Funtowicz

    Why knowledge assessment?

  • S.O. Funtowicz et al.

    Models of science and policy

  • J.F. Gierthy

    Testing for endocrine disruption: how much is enough?

    Toxicol Sci

    (2002)
  • Gothenburg

    Redovisning av uppdrag från kommunfullmäktige - utfasning av bisfenol A i stadens verksamheter, The Gothenburg City Council decision

  • Gothenburg

    Assignment from the City Council — phasing out BPA from city activities Kommunstyrelsen 29 Augusti 2012, 2:10

  • Cited by (5)

    • The rocky path from policy-relevant science to policy implementation-a case study from the South American Chaco

      2016, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
      Citation Excerpt :

      Controversies on the role of science in society, dating far back [1–5], have now regained momentum in the face of the formidable ecological and sustainability challenges of the 21st century [6–9]. There is a vast and heterogeneous corpus of literature on the science–policy interface, and more specifically on why science cannot find its way into policy more easily [10–17,18•]. There is convergence among authors in pointing that, in order to influence environmental policy implementation, scientific knowledge should, firstly, address questions and demands identified by the wider community; secondly, be framed within an interdisciplinary context; thirdly, be designed or at least produced in coordination with the users; and fourthly, be communicated in a way that can be understood and appropriated by them [13••,15,19,20,21•,22].

    View full text