‘We Have to Go Where the Money Is’—Dilemmas in the Role of Nutrition Scientists: An Interview Study
In Western societies scientists are increasingly expected to seek media exposure and cooperate with industry. Little attention has been given to the way such expectations affect the role of scientific experts in society. To investigate scientists’ own perspectives on these issues eight exploratory, in-depth interviews were conducted in Denmark with reputable nutrition scientists. Additionally, eight interviews were held with ‘key informants’ from the field of nutrition policy. It was found that nutrition scientists experience two dilemmas: first, between their aspiration to make a collective impact on public health and the powerful incentives of each to appear frequently in the media with new messages; second, between their need to cooperate with the food industry for financial reasons and their fear that this may compromise their independence and scientific integrity. It is argued that the dilemmas identified in this study should be dealt with openly by the relevant groups of scientists.
KeywordsIndependence Integrity Credibility Public role Nutrition experts Qualitative methodology
For stimulating discussions and valuable comments on earlier versions of the article we would like to thank: Morten Andreasen from BioCampus, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, Karsten Klint Jensen, from The Danish Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, University of Copenhagen, Denmark and Birgitte Wandall from the Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden. For help with editing the paper we want to thank Paul Robinson and Geir Tveit. Finally we are grateful to two anonymous referees for very useful comments on an early version of the paper.
- Collins, Harry M., and Robert Evans. 2006. The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. In The philosophy of expertise, ed. Evan Selinger, and Robert P. Crease, 39–110. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Crabtree, Benjamin F., and William L. Miller. 1999. Using codes and code manuals: A template organizing style of interpretation. In Doing qualitative research, ed. Benjamin F. Crabtree, and William L. Miller, 163–178. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Danmarks Statistik. 2008. Forskning og udviklingsarbejde i den offentlige sektor. Forskningsstatistik 2006. Danmarks Statistik. http://www.dst.dk/upload/rettet_11082008_forskning_og_udviklingsarbejde_2006__001.pdf. Accessed 27 Jan 2009.
- Gilchrist, Valerie J., and Robert L. Williams. 1999. Key informant interviews. In Doing qualitative research, ed. Benjamin F. Crabtree, and William L. Miller, 71–88. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
- Hilgartner, Stephen. 2000. Science on stage: Expert advice as public drama. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1998. Commentary improving public understanding: Guidelines for communicating emerging science on nutrition, food safety, and health. For journalists, scientists, and other communicators. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 90(3): 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- King, Nigel. 2004. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, ed. Catherine Cassell, and Gillian Symon, 256–270. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Kitcher, Philip. 2004. On the autonomy of the sciences. Philosophy Today 48(5): 51–57.Google Scholar
- Kvale, Steinar. 1996. Inter views. An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lupton, Deborah. 1996. Food, the body and the self. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. 2005. What’s new in scientific advice to politics? In Democratization of expertise? Exploring novel forms of scientific advice in political decision-making, ed. Sabine Maasen, Peter Weingart, and Peter Weingart, 1–19. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Merton, Robert K. 1973. The normative structure of science. In The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations, ed. Robert K. Merton, and Norman W. Storer, 267–278. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Miller, Gregory D., Nancy L. Cohen, Victor L. Fulgoni, Steven B. Heymsfield, and Nancy S. Wellman. 2006. From nutrition scientist to nutrition communicator: Why you should take the leap. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 83(6): 1272–1275.Google Scholar
- Morgen, Mandag. 2006. Jagten på det troværdige universitet. København: Huset Mandag Morgen A/S.Google Scholar
- Nestle, Marion. 2002. Food politics. How the food industry influences nutrition and health. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
- Schulz, Winfried. 1997. Changes of mass media and the public sphere. Javnost - The Public 4(2): 57–69.Google Scholar
- Selinger, Evan, and Robert P. Crease (eds.). 2006. The philosophy of expertise. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Turner, Stephen P. 2003. Liberal democracy 3.0. Civil society in an age of experts. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Wald, Andreas. 2007. Effects of “Mode 2”-related policy on the research process: The case of publicly funded German nanotechnology. Science Studies 20(1): 26–51.Google Scholar
- Young, Nathan, and Ralph Matthews. 2007. Experts’ understanding of the public: Knowledge control in a risk controversy. Public Understanding of Science 16(2): 123–144.Google Scholar