Managing value‐laden judgements in regulatory science and risk assessment

Abstract

This paper argues that value-laden judgements play an important role in regulatory science and risk assessment. These judgements include choices about what topics to study; what questions to ask about those topics; how best to design studies to answer those questions; how to collect, analyse, and interpret data; and how to frame and communicate findings. Rather than defending a 'value-free ideal' for responding to these judgements, the paper calls for a 'value-management ideal' based on three principles: (1) value-laden judgements should be handled as transparently as possible;(2) these judgements should be made in ways that reflect social and ethical priorities; and (3) they should be made in a manner that is informed by engagement among interested and affected parties. Based on these principles, the paper suggests several strategies for moving forward to handle value-laden judgements in regulatory science and risk assessment in a responsible manner. First, decision makers should become more comfortable with scientific disagreement, finding ways to respect different positions on value-laden judgements and formulate policies despite inconclusive evidence. Second, those engaged in regulatory science should explore creative ways to clarify important judgements and communicate how they are being handled. Third, institutional processes for setting standards and guidelines for regulatory science and risk assessment should be scrutinised to ensure that they provide fair opportunities for all interested and affected parties to participate in and inform those processes.

Alternative perspectives of the angling community on Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) reintroduction in the River Otter Beaver Trial

“…Value-laden conflicts can be difficult to overcome (O'Rourke 2014); an availability of information may not necessarily influence attitudes when values are held most deeply (Elliott 2019;Treves and Santiago-Avila 2020), and information can be presented by individuals or groups in a way that is consistent with their own values, as observed in the case of the white-tailed sea eagles (O'Rourke 2014). As such, some disagreement may always be inevitable, but we believe that where it persists a recognition of how people understand and interpret the situation through the suggested discussion forum would help to facilitate decisions that can distinguish between evidence and ethical judgments, leading to more equitable outcomes (Stirling 2010;Crowley, Hinchliffe, and McDonald 2017a;Elliott 2019;Treves and Santiago-Avila 2020). This leads us to our second and arguably more important theme: we propose that management decisions will need to enable a sense of empowerment for individuals.…”

Conducting fit‐for‐purpose food safety risk assessments

“…Several additional strategies for moving forward in a productive fashion to address value‐laden judgements in regulatory science and risk assessment have been suggested (Elliott, ). First, Elliott suggests that decision‐makers should become more comfortable with scientific disagreement, finding ways to respect different positions on value‐laden judgements and formulate policy despite inconclusive evidence (Sarewitz, ; Pielke, ).…”

Perspectives From the Science-Policy Interface in Animal Health and Welfare

“…There is a need to recognize that the work of scientists is not value-free (50, 66). Values underpin the decisions that we make, both as people and scientists (1), with the potential to influence at many points during the scientific process, particularly at the start (when choosing the topic of study, when determining the questions to ask, when designing the study to answer these questions) and end (when interpreting the study results, during the framing and communicating of the study findings) (66).…”