ABSTRACT
Good policies are based on sound information, but more science does not necessarily lead to better solutions. In this study, I explore the health risk assessment disputes from a case example near the Sixth Naphtha Cracker Complex (SNCC) in Taiwan. In 2013, the National Health Research Institutes and Professor C. C. Chan of National Taiwan University jointly conducted an epidemiological study on the schoolchildren living near the SNCC and found significantly higher levels of TdGA in their bodies. The VCM plant of the SNCC was suspected as the cause and the government opted for temporary relocation. However, the parents challenged the scientific data and requested other researchers to conduct more investigations, but the environmental groups alleged conflicts of interest between these contracted researchers and the SNCC. When scientific knowledge is applied to policies, different research questions, assumptions, monitoring methods, and data applications may yield different political judgments. The research design, knowledge production sponsorship, and study outcome interpretation can also affect the scientific results in air management policy formulation. In this study, I analyzed the role of scientific research in political controversies and argued that science is not always able to clarify the facts or to verify a single causal relationship in an open environment. Instead, it may intensify the conflicts or even mire the entire policymaking process if we ignore the political nature of science in the risk controversies. To adequately incorporate science into policy formulation, we must carefully examine the question framing, methodologies, application intentions, and conflicts of interests from the scientific knowledge generated by different parties.
