Postscript: Notes on the Workshop as an Experiment

  • Willem Halffman
  • Roland Bal


This workshop had two goals. The first was to understand the patterns of integration between science and policy making in the area of chemical hazard regulation, in the light of the relation between European and national regulatory agencies. The second was to create a dialogue between social scientists who study these regulatory systems and natural scientists, administrators and representatives from interest groups, usually also with a background in the natural sciences, who are involved in regulation. We have presented our conclusions with respect to the first goal in the previous chapter, where we have tried to summarise and integrate the various views and processes signalled by the participants of this workshop in the form of scenarios: different courses that the European regulation of chemical hazards could take and the typical dynamics that could be expected in each of them. In this chapter we focus on the process rather than the product: on the goal of creating communication between social and natural scientists. We find it important to make available our experiences in this respect, since we find them at least as valuable as the substantive results. We hope these experiences can be used by others who seek to organise similar projects. In this respect, the things we did not plan and foresee are probably the most interesting and we will try to scrutinise these here.


Risk Assessment Risk Regulation Regulatory Scientist Chemical Regulation Health Council 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Becker, H.A. (1994) Werken met scenario’s: Minigids voor strategic learning, Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Brickman, R., S. Jasanoff and T. Ilgen (1985) Controlling Chemicals: The Politics of Regulating Chemicals in Europe and the United States, Ithaca: Cornell UP.Google Scholar
  3. Cairns, John Jr. (1986) ‘What is Meant by Validation of Predictions Based on Laboratory Toxicity Tests?’, Hydrobiologia 137: 271–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gillespie, B., D. Eva & R. Johnston (1982) ‘Carcinogenic Risk Assessment in the USA and UK: the case of Aldrin/Dieldrin’, in: B. Barnes & D. Edge (eds.) Science in Context: Readings in the Sociology of Science, Milton Keynes: Open University Press; 303–335.Google Scholar
  5. Haigh, R. (1992) ‘The European Community Programme on Health and Hygiene at Work’, Annals of Occupational Hygiene 36: 675–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Health Council of The Netherlands, Committee on Risk measures and risk assessment (1995), Not All Risks are Equal, Den Haag: Health Council of the Netherlands, publication no. 1995/6.Google Scholar
  7. Hischemöller, M. & R. Hoppe (1996) ‘Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis’, Knowledge and Policy 8: 40–60.Google Scholar
  8. Hood, C.C., D.K.C. Jones, N.F. Pidgeon, B.A. Turner, R. Gibson (1992) ‘Risk Management’, in: Royal Society, Risk: Assessment, Perception, and Management, London: Royal Society; 135–92.Google Scholar
  9. Jasanoff, S. (1987) ‘Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science’, Social Studies of Science 17: 195–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jasanoff, S. (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policy Makers, Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.Google Scholar
  11. Jasanoff, S. (1993) ‘Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis’, Risk Analysis 13: 123–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Levidow, L. (1994) ‘De-Reifying Risk’, Science As Culture 4: 440–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCutcheon, P. (1994) ‘Implications of Council Regulation 793/93 on the Evaluation and Control of existing Substances’, Annali dell’Instituto Superiore de la Sanita 30: 367–72.Google Scholar
  14. Nilsson, R., M. Tasheva & B. Jaeger (1993) ‘Why Different Regulatory Decisions When the Scientific Information Base is Similar? — Human Risk Assessment’, Regulatory Toxicology & Pharmacology 17: 292–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Royal Society (1992) Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management, London: Royal Society.Google Scholar
  16. Soares, A.M.V.M. & P. Calow (1993) ‘Seeking Standardization in Ecotoxicology’, in: J. Cairns Jr. (ed.) Progress in Standardization of Aquatic Toxicity Tests, Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers/CRC; 1–6.Google Scholar
  17. Wynne, B. & S. Mayer (1993) ‘How Science Fails the Environment’, New Scientist 138, June 5: 33–35.Google Scholar
  18. Zielhuis, R.L., P.C. Noordam, C.L. Maas, J.J. Kolk & H.P.A. Illing (1991) ‘Harmonization of Criteria Documents for Standard Setting in Occupational Health: A Report of a Workshop’, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 13: 241–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Willem Halffman
  • Roland Bal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations