Abstract
BackgroundThe overall evidence for adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at levels of exposure normally experienced by the public is generally considered weak. However, whether long-term health effects arise remains uncertain and scientific policy advice is therefore given against a background of uncertainty. Several theories exist about different roles that experts may take when they provide advice on complex issues such as EMF. To provide empirical evidence for these theories, we conducted an expert consultation with as main research question: What are the different roles of EMF experts when they provide policy advice?MethodsQ methodology was used to empirically test theoretical notions on the existence and determinants of different expert roles and to analyze which roles actually play out in the domain of EMF. Experts were selected based on a structured nominee process. In total 32 international EMF experts participated. Responses were analyzed using Principal Component Analysis and for the open questions we used Atlas.ti.ResultsFour expert roles were found. Most striking differences between the four roles are whether experts consider current EMF policies adequate or not, whether additional –precautionary– measures are needed, and how experts view their position vis-à-vis policymakers and/or other stakeholders.ConclusionThis empirical study provides support for the so far mainly theoretical debate about the existence of different roles of experts when they give policy advice. The experts’ assessment of the degree of uncertainty of the issue turned out to be highly associated with their role. We argue that part of the controversy that exists in the debate regarding scientific policy advice on EMF is about different values and roles.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1476-069X-14-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
The overall evidence for adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at levels of exposure normally experienced by the public is generally considered weak
The following was the main research question: What are the different roles of EMF experts when they provide policy advice? The following sub question was addressed: Which factors are associated with these different roles? We explored the effects that different roles may have on policy advice
A total of 32 EMF experts participated in our consultation
Summary
The overall evidence for adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) at levels of exposure normally experienced by the public is generally considered weak. Several theories exist about different roles that experts may take when they provide advice on complex issues such as EMF. To provide empirical evidence for these theories, we conducted an expert consultation with as main research question: What are the different roles of EMF experts when they provide policy advice?. The overall evidence for the adverse health effects of EMFs at levels of exposure normally experienced by the the current policy is given against a background of scientific uncertainty. The BioInitiative, a group of scientists and public health policy professionals, published an overview of what is known about the biological effects that occur when people were exposed to low-intensity EMFs [12]. The BioInitiative report was not a systematic review, as opposed to the work of IARC and ICNIRP, and has been criticized for the selective and incomplete use of the literature [13]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
