Abstract
To what extent do substances have the potential to cause adverse health effects through an endocrine mode of action? This question elicited intense debates between endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) experts. The pervasive nature of the underlying differences of opinion justifies a systematic analysis of the argumentation put forward by the experts involved. Two scientific publications pertaining to EDS science were analyzed using pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT). PDAT’s methodology allowed us to perform a maximally impartial and systematic analysis. Using PDAT, the structure of the argumentation put forward in both publications was reconstructed, main standpoints, and arguments were identified, underlying unexpressed premises were made explicit and major differences in starting points were uncovered. The five differences in starting points identified were subdivided into two categories: interpretative ambiguity about underlying scientific evidence and normative ambiguity about differences in broader norms and values. Accordingly, two differences in starting points were explored further using existing risk and expert role typologies. We emphasize that particularly the settlement of normative ambiguity, through the involvement of broader ethical, social or political values, inherently requires multi-stakeholder approaches. Extrapolation of our findings to the broader discussion on EDS science and further exploration of the roles of EDS experts in policy processes should follow from further research.
Highlights
To what extent do substances have the potential to cause adverse health effects through an endocrine mode of action? This question elicited intense debates between endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) experts
In the concluding paragraph this is explicitly stated (p.37): Overall, the WHO-UNEP 2012 report on endocrine disruptors fails to achieve its objectives as an updated stateof-the-science review on endocrine disrupting chemicals, and should not be used to support evidencebased decisions
We argue that combining the systematic analytical framework offered by pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT) with (a) insights from literature studying values in science and (b) existing typologies of risk and expert roles have provided us with specific ‘lenses’ to study pertinent value differences
Summary
To what extent do substances have the potential to cause adverse health effects through an endocrine mode of action? This question elicited intense debates between endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) experts. There are numerous examples of environmental health risk issues where experts disagree about whether apparent exposure levels can adversely impact public health or the environment It remains debated whether the available evidence shows that current exposure levels to electromagnetic fields may cause detrimental effects in humans Expert disagreement about the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate (compare EFSA 2015 and FAO/WHO 2016, and IARC 2017) has made the herbicide’s regulatory (re)approval in the EU quite controversial (Science 2016) These are just a few examples where experts differ in their interpretation of scientific evidence surrounding a risk issue. We aim to analyze some of the values that appear to play a role in the various expert positions in the scientific debate on EDS risk and to identify whether these are based on different interpretations of the underlying scientific knowledge, or whether normative (value) judgments are involved. Examples of such approaches are participatory discourses (IRGC 2005; Renn 2008) or ‘extended peer-community’ approaches (see e.g. Ravetz 1999)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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
