Food, Consumer Behaviour and Health Research Centre, Department of Psychology School of Human Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford GU1 7XH, United Kingdom.
Soc Sci Med. 2013 May;85:79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.032. Epub 2013 Feb 28.
Scientific advisory committees (SACs) are seen as "boundary organisations" working at the interface between science, policy and society. Although their narrowly defined remit of risk assessment is anchored in notions of rationality, objectivity, and reason, in reality, their sources for developing recommendations are not limited to scientific evidence. There is a growing expectation to involve non-scientific sources of information in the formation of knowledge, including the expectation of stakeholder consultation in forming recommendations. Such a move towards "democratisation" of scientific processes of decision-making within SACs has been described and often studied as "post-normal science" (PNS) (Funtowicz & Ravetz, 1993). In the current paper we examine the application of PNS in practice through a study of stakeholder consultations within the workings of the UK Scientific Advisory Committee for Nutrition (SACN). We use the theoretical insights from PNS-related studies to structure the analysis and examine the way in which PNS tenets resonate with the practices of SACN. We have selected a particular case of the SACN UK recommendations for salt as it is characterized by scientific controversy, uncertainty, vested interests and value conflict. We apply the tenets of PNS through documentary analysis of the SACN Salt Subgroup (SSG) consultation documents published in 2002/2003: the minutes of the 5 SACN SSG's meetings which included summary of the SACN SSG's stakeholder consultation and the SSG's responses to the consultation. The analysis suggests that the SACN consultation can be construed as a process of managing sources of risk to its organisation. Thus, rather than being an evidence of post-normal scientific practice, engagement became a mechanism for confirming the specific framing of science that is resonant with technocratic models of science holding authority over the facts. The implications for PNS theory are discussed.
科学顾问委员会（SAC）被视为“边界组织”，在科学、政策和社会之间发挥作用。尽管其风险评估的狭义职权范围基于理性、客观性和理性的概念，但实际上，他们提出建议的依据并不仅限于科学证据。人们越来越期望将非科学信息来源纳入知识的形成中，包括在提出建议时进行利益相关者咨询的期望。这种在 SAC 内部决策科学过程中向“民主化”迈进的做法被描述为，并且通常被研究为“后常态科学”（PNS）（Funtowicz 和 Ravetz，1993 年）。在本文中，我们通过研究英国营养科学咨询委员会（SACN）工作中的利益相关者咨询，考察了 PNS 在实践中的应用。我们使用与 PNS 相关研究的理论见解来构建分析，并研究 PNS 原则与 SACN 实践之间的共鸣方式。我们选择了 SACN 英国盐推荐的一个特定案例，因为它具有科学争议、不确定性、既得利益和价值冲突的特点。我们通过对 2002/2003 年公布的 SACN 盐小组（SSG）咨询文件的文献分析来应用 PNS 原则：SACN SSG 的 5 次会议记录，其中包括 SACN SSG 的利益相关者咨询摘要和 SSG 对咨询的回应。分析表明，SACN 的咨询可以被理解为管理其组织风险来源的过程。因此，参与并不是后常态科学实践的证据，而是成为一种机制，用于确认与技术官僚科学模式共鸣的科学特定框架，该模式对事实拥有权威。讨论了 PNS 理论的含义。
