Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium.
Environ Health. 2012 Jun 28;11 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S3. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-11-S1-S3.
The FP6 EU HENVINET project aimed at synthesizing the scientific information available on a number of topics of high relevance to policy makers in environment and health. The goal of the current paper is to reflect on the methodology that was used in the project, in view of exploring the usefulness of this and similar methodologies to the policy process. The topics investigated included health impacts of the brominated flame retardants decabrominated diphenylether (decaBDE) and hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), phthalates highlighting di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), the pesticide chlorpyrifos (CPF), nanoparticles, the impacts of climate change on asthma and other respiratory disorders, and the influence of environment health stressors on cancer induction.
Initially the focus was on identifying knowledge gaps in the state of the art in scientific knowledge. Literature reviews covered all elements that compose the causal chain of the different environmental health issues from emissions to exposures, to effects and to health impacts. Through expert elicitation, knowledge gaps were highlighted by assessing expert confidence using calibrated confidence scales. During this work a complementary focus to that on knowledge gaps was developed through interdisciplinary reflections. By extending the scope of the endeavour from only a scientific perspective, to also include the more problem solving oriented policy perspective, the question of which kind of policy action experts consider justifiable was addressed. This was addressed by means of a questionnaire. In an expert workshop the results of both questionnaires were discussed as a basis for policy briefs.
The expert elicitation, the application of the calibrated confidence levels and the problem solving approach were all experienced as being quite challenging for the experts involved, as these approaches did not easily relate to mainstream environment and health scientific practices. Even so, most experts were quite positive about it. In particular, the opportunity to widen one's own horizon and to interactively exchange knowledge and debate with a diversity of experts seemed to be well appreciated in this approach. Different parts of the approach also helped in focussing on specific relevant aspects of scientific knowledge, and as such can be considered of reflective value.
The approach developed by HENVINET was part of a practice of learning by doing and of interdisciplinary cooperation and negotiation. Ambitions were challenged by unforeseen complexities and difference of opinion and as no Holy Grail approach was at hand to copy or follow, it was quite an interesting but also complicated endeavour. Perfection, if this could be defined, seemed out of reach all the time. Nevertheless, many involved were quite positive about it. It seems that many felt that it fitted some important needs in current science when addressing the needs of policy making on such important issues, without anyone really having a clue on how to actually do this. Challenging questions remain on the quality of such approach and its product. Practice tells us that there probably is no best method and that the best we can do is dependent on contextual negotiation and learning from experiences that we think are relevant.
FP6 欧盟 HENVINET 项目旨在综合与环境和健康决策者高度相关的若干主题的现有科学信息。本文件的目的是反思项目中使用的方法，以探讨这种方法及其类似方法对政策过程的有用性。所调查的主题包括溴化阻燃剂十溴二苯醚（decaBDE）和六溴环十二烷（HBCD）、邻苯二甲酸酯突出二（2-乙基己基）邻苯二甲酸酯（DEHP）、杀虫剂毒死蜱（CPF）、纳米粒子、气候变化对哮喘和其他呼吸道疾病的影响，以及环境健康压力因素对癌症诱发的影响。
最初的重点是确定科学知识现状中的知识差距。文献综述涵盖了从排放到暴露、影响到健康影响的不同环境健康问题因果链的所有要素。通过专家 elicitation，通过使用校准置信度量表评估专家的置信度来突出知识差距。在此工作中，通过跨学科思考，开发了与知识差距互补的重点。通过将努力的范围从仅从科学角度扩展到还包括更面向解决问题的政策角度，解决了专家认为哪种政策行动是合理的问题。这是通过问卷调查来解决的。在专家研讨会上，讨论了两份问卷的结果，作为政策简报的基础。
专家 elicitation、校准置信度水平的应用和解决问题的方法都被参与的专家认为是相当具有挑战性的，因为这些方法不容易与主流的环境和健康科学实践相关。即便如此，大多数专家还是相当肯定的。特别是，扩大自己的视野、与不同领域的专家进行互动交流知识和辩论的机会，似乎在这种方法中得到了很好的评价。该方法的不同部分还有助于关注科学知识的特定相关方面，因此可以被认为具有反思价值。
HENVINET 开发的方法是通过实践学习和跨学科合作与谈判的一部分。雄心壮志受到意外复杂性和意见分歧的挑战，由于没有现成的圣杯方法可以复制或遵循，因此这是一项非常有趣但也很复杂的努力。如果可以定义的话，完美似乎总是遥不可及。尽管如此，许多参与者还是相当肯定的。似乎许多人认为，在解决如此重要问题的决策需求时，它符合当前科学的一些重要需求，而没有人真正知道如何实际做到这一点。关于这种方法及其产品的质量仍然存在一些具有挑战性的问题。实践告诉我们，可能没有最好的方法，我们能做的最好的取决于上下文的协商和从我们认为相关的经验中学习。
