ABSTRACT

Science plays many roles in public policy, but its most pervasive applications have been in the field of health and environmental regulation. Scientific instruments are frequently required to detect environmental pollutants, scientific evidence and reasoning is used to define the hazard represented by pollutants, and scientific claims typically underpin the formation and enforcement of regulations which control environmental hazards. However, ‘regulatory science’ is frequently characterized by uncertainty and disagreements, partly because, as Jasanoff makes clear, its goal is to provide ‘truths’ relevant to policy, rather than ‘truths’ of originality and significance which is formally the aim of research science. While scientific claims are essential to the legitimacy of many regulatory decisions, the true importance of science in informing those decisions is often ambiguous. This gap between the perceived (or ideal) role for science in public policy (‘speaking truth to power’), and actual experience has been the focus of much debate.