To advance their position, by claiming that it is supported by “sound science,” interest groups can also use data published in predatory journals. They can also present their version of scientific facts, while insisting that policy should only be based on what they portray as ‘sound science.’ Although this phrase seems to indicate evidence-based policy, ‘sound science’ was first used by the tobacco industry as a public relations strategy to perpetrate doubt over cigarettes causing cancer. 4, 5Īs Eden 6 indicated, interest groups, especially businesses, can use (and potentially distort) science to push policy in desired directions. Furthermore, discussions about what constitutes evidence as a base for policy making go beyond science, affecting virtually all fields of government policy. 2, 3 Through this “politicization of science,” various institutional actors sometimes adopt an adversarial style toward each other, each claiming that they have science on their side, and ignoring their own normative assumptions. It has been shown that science can be strategically used and even manipulated by scientific advisors to influence policy decisions. The idea that science can act as a tool for different interests is not new. The lack of formal acknowledgment of the limitations of the emerging scientific fields, as well as of different research approaches between regulatory and academic research contribute to the continuation of controversies in the public domain, as the public cannot easily assess the information presented. In the same time, each actor attempts to challenge the credibility of the other. We found that both groups of actors try to present their own interpretation of scientific results, taking advantage of the lack of scientific consensus, of the uncertainties associated with the negotiation in the interpretation of results, and of the wider scientific and political context.

Communications from key Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and industry groups were used for analysis of each controversy. Both studies involve emerging science issues, emphasizing tensions between regulatory and academic science.

Two high-profile controversies around animal toxicity studies in two different fields of European regulatory science (genetically modified food and food contact materials) were chosen as case studies to explore and expand the SST concept. Cordner’s concept of Strategic Science Translation (SST) shows that such actions are enabled by the uncertainty and the complexity of the scientific processes that allow the use of science in support of various, often contradictory interests and goals. When controversies develop around scientific facts or technologies, the potential of science to become a tool in plays of interests and power between different actors is not well recognized.

Hexio level 39