Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Expertise, Regulatory Science and the Evaluation of Technology and Risk: Introduction to the Special Issue

  • Published:
Minerva Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Regulating technologies, innovations and risks is an activity that, as much as scientific research needs proofs and evidence. It is the site of development of a distinct kind of science, regulatory science. This special issue addresses the question of the standards of knowledge governing how we test, assess and monitor technologies and their effects. This topic is relevant and timely in the light of problematics of regulation of innovation, regulatory failure and capture. Given the enormous decisions and stakes regulatory science commends, it becomes crucial to ask where its standards come from and gain credibility, but also what valuations of technology and appreciations of their risks or benefits do they embed, and who controls them? This paper introduces the four contributions comprising the special issue, and outlines a perspective from which to question the construction of regulatory science or, in the terminology adopted here, the authorization and standardization of regulatory knowledge, particularly the role of networks of scientific experts therein.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I thank the participants in the workshop “Regulatory agencies as sites of regulatory knowledge” I organized in 2012 in Paris. I acknowledge the support of the Institut Francilien Recherche Innnovation Société (IFRIS) for funding the workshop and overall support. I benefited from the perceptive comments of Arthur Daemmrich, François Dedieu, Alex Faulkner, Pierre-Benoit Joly, Ashveen Peerbaye, Lee Vinsel and two anonymous reviewers to improve previous versions of this text. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  • Abraham, John, and Rachel Ballinger. 2012. The Neoliberal Regulatory State, Industry Interests, and the Ideological Penetration of Scientific Knowledge Deconstructing the Redefinition of Carcinogens in Pharmaceuticals. Science, Technology, & Human Values 37: 443–477. doi:10.1177/0162243911424914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, John, and Tim Reed. 2001. Trading risks for markets: The international harmonisation of pharmaceuticals regulation. Health, Risk & Society 3: 113–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abraham, John, and Tim Reed. 2002. Progress, Innovation and Regulatory Science in Drug Development The Politics of International Standard-setting. Social Studies of Science 32: 337–369. doi:10.1177/0306312702032003001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alm, Leslie. 1997. Scientists and the acid rain policy in Canada and the United States. Science, Technology, & Human Values 22: 349–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, Nicholas. 1984. Advisory committees in OSHA and EPA: Their use in regulatory decision-making. Science, Technology, & Human Values 9(1): 72–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, Eugene, and Robert Kagan. 1982. Going by the Book: The Problem of Regulatory Unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bensadon, Anne-Carole, Etienne Marie, and Aquilino Morelle. 2011. Rapport sur la pharmacovigilance et gouvernance de la chaine du médicament. RM2011–103P. Paris: Inspection Générale des Affaires Sociales.

  • Blackler, Frank. 1995. Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies 16: 1021–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodewitz, H., H. Buurma, and G. H. de Vries. 1987. Regulatory science and the social management of trust in medicine. In The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, eds. Wiebe Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes, and Trevor Pinch, 243–259. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

  • Borraz, Olivier, and David Demortain. 2015. Science réglementaire. In Dictionnaire critique de l’expertise. Santé, environnement, travail, eds. Emmanuel Henry, Claude Gilbert, Pascal Marichalar, and Jean-Noel Jouzel, 281–288. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.

  • Böschen, Stefan. 2013. Modes of Constructing Evidence: Sustainable Development as Social Experimentation—The Cases of Chemical Regulations and Climate Change Politics. Nature and Culture 8: 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boswell, Christina. 2009. The Political Uses of Expert Knowledge: Immigration Policy and Social Research. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Boullier, Henri. 2016. Autoriser pour interdire. La fabrique des savoirs sur les molécules et leurs risques dans le règlement européen REACH. Thèse pour le doctorat de sociologie, Université Paris-Est Marne-la-Vallée.

  • Busquet, Francois, and Thomas Hartung. 2017. The need for strategic development of safety sciences. Altex 34: 3–21. doi:10.14573/altex.1701031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cambrosio, Alberto, Camille Limoges, and Eric Hoffman. 1992. Expertise as a network: A case study of the controversies over the environmental release of genetically engineered organisms. In The Culture and Power of knowledge, ed. Nico Stehr and Richard Ericson, 341–361. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.

  • Cambrosio, Alberto, Peter Keating, Thomas Schlich, and George Weisz. 2009. Biomedical Conventions and Regulatory Objectivity A Few Introductory Remarks. Social Studies of Science 39: 651–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cambrosio, Alberto, Pascale Bourret, Peter Keating, and Nicole Nelson. 2017. Opening the Regulatory Black Box of Clinical Cancer Research: Transnational Expertise Networks and “Disruptive” Technologies. Minerva 55(2). doi:10.1007/s11024-017-9324-2.

  • Camic, Charles, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont (eds.). 2012. The Study of Social Knowledge Making. In Social Knowledge in the Making, ibid., 1–40. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Campbell, B.L. 1985. Uncertainty as symbolic action in disputes among experts. Social Studies of Science 15: 429–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Daniel. 2016. How Business Power Contests Conceptual Orders: The Political and Strategic Reimagination of the Phased Clinical Trial. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Carpenter, Daniel, and David Moss (eds.). 2014. Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence and how to limit it. Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Daniel P. 2001. The Forging of Bureaucratic Autonomy: Reputations, Networks, and Policy Innovation in Executive Agencies, 1862–1928. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, Daniel P. 2010. Reputation and Power: Organizational Image and Pharmaceutical Regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cloatre, Emilie, and Martyn Pickersgill (eds.). 2015. Knowledge, Technology, and Law. Abingdon, Oxon and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coglianese, C., and D. Lazer. 2003. Management Based Regulation: Prescribing Private Management to Achieve Public Goals. Law & Society Review 37: 691–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, David, and Jenny Douglas. 1984. Three models of policymaking: Expert advice in the control of environmental lead. Social Studies of Science 14: 343–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Harry M. 1993. The structure of knowledge. Social Research 60: 95–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Harry M. 1998. The Meaning of Data: Open and Closed Evidential Cultures in the Search for Gravitational Waves. American Journal of Sociology 104: 293–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daemmrich, Arthur. 2012. Vulnerable Subjects, Vulnerable Knowledge: Children’s Chemical Test Programs in the United States and European Union presented at the Workshop “Regulatory agencies as sites of regulatory knowledge,” Institut Francilien Recherche Innovation Société, Paris.

  • Dedieu, François, and Jean-Noël Jouzel. 2015. Comment ignorer ce que l’on sait ?: La domestication des savoirs inconfortables sur les intoxications des agriculteurs par les pesticides. Revue Française de Sociologie 56: 105. doi:10.3917/rfs.561.0105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demortain, David. 2008. Standardising through concepts: The power of scientific experts in international standard-setting. Science and Public Policy 35: 391–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demortain, David. 2011. Scientists and the Regulation of Risk: Standardising Control. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Demortain, David. 2013. Regulatory Toxicology in Controversy. Science, Technology, & Human Values 38: 727–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Demortain, David. 2015. Comment faire preuve en régime de controverse?, 122–128. La Revue: Retour sur l’évaluation des OGM. Hermès.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, Nicholas. 2012. Knowing markets: would less be more? Economy and Society 41: 316–334. doi:10.1080/03085147.2012.668032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downer, John. 2011. “737-Cabriolet”: The Limits of Knowledge and the Sociology of Inevitable Failure. American Journal of Sociology 117: 725–762. doi:10.1086/662383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downer, John. 2014. Disowning Fukushima: Managing the credibility of nuclear reliability assessment in the wake of disaster. Regulation & Governance 8: 287–309. doi:10.1111/rego.12029.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downer, John. 2017. The Aviation Paradox: Why we can ‘know’ Jetliners but not Reactors. Minerva 55(2). doi:10.1007/s11024-017-9322-4.

  • Epstein, Steven. 1996. Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyal, Gil. 2013. For a sociology of expertise: the social origins of the autism epidemic. American Journal of Sociology 118: 863–907.

  • Faulkner, Alex. 2012. Law’s performativities: Shaping the emergence of regenerative medicine through European Union legislation. Social Studies of Science 42: 753–774. doi:10.1177/0306312712446694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, Alex. 2017. Special Treatment? Flexibilities in the Politics of Regenerative Medicine’s Gatekeeping Regimes in the UK. Science as Culture. doi:10.1080/09505431.2017.1300641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner, Alex, and Lonnecke Poort. 2017. Stretching and Challenging the Boundaries of Law: Varieties of Knowledge in Biotechnologies Regulation. Minerva 55(2). doi:10.1007/s11024-017-9326-0.

  • FDA. 2011. Advancing Regulatory Science at FDA: A Strategic Plan. Washington D.C.: US Department of Health and Human Services, US Food and Drug Administration.

  • Fisher, Elizabeth, P. Pascual, and Wendy Wagner. 2010. Understanding environmental models in their legal and regulatory context. Journal of Environmental Law 22: 251–283. Scopus.

  • Freeman, Richard, and Steve Sturdy (eds.). 2015. Knowledge in Policy: Embodied, Inscribed, Enacted. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25: 739–755. doi:10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaudillière, Jean-Paul. 2009. New wine in old bottles? The biotechnology problem in the history of molecular biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 40: 20–28. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2008.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaudillière, Jean-Paul, and Volker Hess (eds.). 2012. Ways of Regulating Drugs in the 19th and 20th Centuries. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, Ted. 1984a. Knowledge and Discretion in Government Regulation. Praeger New York.

  • Greenwood, Ted. 1984b. The myth of scientific incompetence of regulatory agencies. Science, Technology, & Human Values 9: 83–96.

  • Groves, Christopher. 2013. Personal genomics: Standardization as making a space for innovation. Paper for the Standardization as space(s) for innovation workshop, IFRIS and INRA, December 2013, Champssur-Marne, France.

  • Grundmann, Reiner. 2017. The Problem of Expertise in Knowledge Societies. Minerva 55(1): 25–48. doi:10.1007/s11024-016-9308-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D.H. 2001. Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values 26: 399–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halffman, Willem. 1995. Science-policy boundaries: National styles? Science and Public Policy 32: 457–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamlin, C. 1986. Scientific method and expert witnessing: Victorian perspectives on a modern problem. Social Studies of Science 16: 485–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauray, Boris. 2017. From Regulatory Knowledge to Regulatory Decisions: The European Evaluation of Medicines. Minerva 55(2). doi:10.1007/s11024-017-9323-3.

  • Hood, Christopher, Henry Rothstein, and Robert Baldwin. 2001. The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, Alan. 1997. Law, Politics and the Social Sciences. In Sociology after postmodernism, ed. David Owen, 103–122. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, Jane, and Simon Shackley. 1999. Reconceiving science and policy: Academic, fiducial and bureaucratic knowledge. Minerva 37: 141–164. doi:10.1023/A:1004696104081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, Bridget. 1997. Compliance: Regulation and Environment. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, Alan, Henry Rothstein, Steven Yearley, and Elaine McCarthy. 1997. Regulatory science—Towards a sociological framework. Futures 29: 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1987. Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science. Social Studies of Science 17: 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1990. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 1995. Procedural choices in regulatory science. Technology in Society 17: 279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2004. States of Knowledge: The Co-Production of Science and Social Order. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, Sheila. 2012. The practices of objectivity in regulatory science. In Social Knowledge in the Making, eds. Charles Camic, Neil Gross, and Michèle Lamont, 307–338. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, Ron. 1984. Controlling Technology: An Issue for the Social Studies of Science. Social Studies of Science 14: 97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joly, Pierre-Benoît. 2016. Science réglementaire: une internationalisation divergente? Regulatory science: A divergent form of internationalisation? The evaluation of biotechnology in the United States and Europe. Revue Française de Sociologie 57: 443–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karkkainen, Bradley C. 2000. Information as Environmental Regulation: TRI and Performance Benchmarking, Precursor to a New Paradigm. Georgetown Law Journal 89: 257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kastenhofer, Karen. 2011. Risk Assessment of Emerging Technologies and Post-Normal Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 36: 307–333. doi:10.1177/0162243910385787.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleindorfer, Paul R., and Eric W. Orts. 1998. Informational Regulation of Environmental Risks. Risk Analysis 18: 155–170. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1998.tb00927.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwak, James. 2014. Cultural capture and the financial crisis. In Preventing regulatory capture: Special interest influence and how to limit it, eds. Daniel P. Carpenter, and David A. Moss, 71–98. Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laurent, Brice. 2017. Democratic Experiments. Problematizing Nanotechnology and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.

  • Levi, Ron, and Mariana Valverde. 2001. Knowledge on tap: Police science and common knowledge in the legal regulation of drunkenness. Law & Social Inquiry 26: 819–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, Les, and Joseph Murphy. 2003. Reframing regulatory science: Trans-Atlantic conflicts over GM crops. Cahiers d’économie et sociologie rurales 68: 47–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levidow, Les, Joseph Murphy, and Susan Carr. 2007. Recasting “Substantial equivalence”—Transatlantic governance of GM food. Science, Technology, & Human Values 32: 26–64. doi:10.1177/0162243906293885.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lezaun, J. 2006. Creating a New Object of Government: Making Genetically Modified Organisms Traceable. Social Studies of Science 36: 499–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, Charles Edward, and David K. Cohen. 1979. Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving, vol. 21. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, Donald. 2011. The Credit Crisis as a Problem in the Sociology of Knowledge. American Journal of Sociology 116: 1778–1841. doi:10.1086/659639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, Donald. 2014. Evaluation Cultures? On Invoking “Culture” in the Analysis of Behaviour in Financial Markets. Unpublished manuscript, University of Edinburgh, URL<http://www.sps.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/64564/EvalCults11.pdf>, last accessed July 3 2015.

  • Majone, G. 1997. The new European agencies: Regulation by information. Journal of European Public Policy 4: 262–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, Giandomenico. 1984. Science and trans-science in standard setting. Science, Technology, & Human Values 9: 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, Harry M. 1997. The Progress of Experiment: Science and Therapeutic Reform in the United States, 1900–1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGarity, Thomas O., and Wendy Elizabeth Wagner. 2008. Bending science: How special interests corrupt public health research. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoey, Linsey. 2016. An Introduction to the Sociology of Ignorance: Essays on the Limits of Knowing. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, David (ed.). 2008. Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaels, David, and Wendy Wagner. 2003. Disclosure in regulatory science. Science. 2073–2073.

  • Moghissi, A. Alan, Sorin R. Straja, Betty R. Love, Dennis K. Bride, and Roger R. Stough. 2014. Innovation in regulatory science: Evolution of a new scientific discipline. Technology & Innovation 16: 155–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, John Peterson, Frederick S. vom Saal, Benson T. Akingbemi, Koji Arizono, Scott Belcher, Theo Colborn, Ibrahim Chahoud, et al. 2009a. Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: the case of bisphenol A. Environmental Health Perspectives 117(3): 309–315.

  • Myers, John Peterson, R. Thomas Zoeller, and Frederick S. vom Saal. 2009b. A clash of old and new scientific concepts in toxicity, with important implications for public health. Environmental Health Perspectives 117: 1033–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NAS. 2016. Advancing the Discipline of Regulatory Science for Medical Product Development: An Update on Progress and a Forward-Looking Agenda. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NTP. 2002. Current directions and evolving strategies. Washington, D.C.: National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, Mary. 2000. Making better environmental decisions: An alternative to risk assessment. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickstone, John V. 1993. Ways of Knowing: Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology and Medicine. The British Journal for the History of Science 26: 433–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, Michael. 2005. The invention of operational risk. Review of International Political Economy 12: 577–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regens, James L., Thomas M. Dietz, and Robert W. Rycroft. 1983. Risk assessment in the policy-making process: Environmental health and safety protection. Public Administration Review 43: 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushefsky, Mark E. 1986. Making cancer policy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salter, Liora. 1988. Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmandt, Jurgen. 1984. Regulation and science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 9: 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schrefler, Lorna. 2010. The usage of scientific knowledge by independent regulatory agencies. Governance 23: 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, Philip. 1985. Focusing Organizational Research on Regulation. In Regulatory Policy and the Social Sciences, ed. Roger Noll, 363–367. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shackley, Steven, and Brian Wynne. 1995. Global climate change: The mutual construction of an emergent science-policy domain. Science and Public Policy 22: 218–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein, Cass R. 1999. Informational Regulation and Informational Standing: Akins and beyond. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 147: 613–675. doi:10.2307/3312719.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suryanarayanan, Sainath, and Daniel Lee Kleinman. 2013. Be(e)coming experts: The controversy over insecticides in the honey bee colony collapse disorder. Social Studies of Science 43: 215–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesh, Sylvia Noble. 2000. Uncertain hazards: Environmental activists and scientific proof. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vatin, François. 2013. Valuation as evaluating and valorizing. Valuation Studies 1: 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, Sarah A. 2013. Is it safe? BPA and the struggle to define the safety of chemicals. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, Wendy E. 1995. The Science Charade in Toxic Risk Regulation. Columbia Law Review 95: 1613–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg, Alvin M. 1972. Science and trans-science. Minerva 10: 209–222. doi:10.1007/BF01682418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, Peter. 1999. Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy 26: 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, Carol H. 1979. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 39: 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wengle, Susanne. 2016. When experimentalist governance meets science-based regulations: The case of food safety regulations. Regulation & Governance 10: 262–283. doi:10.1111/rego.12067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winickoff, David E. 2015. Epistemic jurisdictions. Science and courts in regulatory (de)centralisation. In Knowledge, Technology and Law, eds. E. Cloatre, and M. Pickersgill, 173–188. London: Routledge.

  • Winickoff, David E., and D. M. Bushey. 2010. Science and power in global food regulation: The rise of the codex alimentarius. Science, Technology, & Human Values 35: 356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winickoff, David, and Matthieu Mondou. 2017. The problem of epistemic jurisdiction in global governance: The case of sustainability standards for biofuels. Social Studies of Science 47: 7–32. doi:10.1177/0306312716667855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, Brian. 1984. “Mandated Science”: A Workshop and Project Report Vancouver, Canada, April 1984. 4S Review 2: 3–4.

  • Wynne, Brian. 1989. Establishing the Rules of Laws: Constructing Expert Authority. In Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law, eds. R. Smith and Brian Wynne, 23–55. London: Routledge.

  • Wynne, Brian. 2002. Risk and environment as legitimatory discourses of technology: Reflexivity inside out? Current Sociology 50: 459–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INRA, UMR 1326 Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Sciences Innovations Sociétés (LISIS), 77454, Marne-La-Vallée, France

    David Demortain

Authors
  1. David Demortain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Demortain.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Demortain, D. Expertise, Regulatory Science and the Evaluation of Technology and Risk: Introduction to the Special Issue. Minerva 55, 139–159 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9325-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-017-9325-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation