Table 2 Summary of main characteristics of the four expert roles
From: Different roles of electromagnetic field experts when giving policy advice: an expert consultation
Role | Key characteristics | Statements most strongly agreed with (+3 and +4) and least strongly agreed with (−3 and −4) – see numbers and corresponding statements in Additional file1 | No. of respondents(expl. var.) | Summary of typical advice (based on 2nd open question) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Early warners | Disagreement with current policies. Transparency about methods, assumptions and personal preferences. More research. Precautionary measures. | (+) 18 21 25 26 34 (−) 2 11 22 24 29 | 13 (18%) | Precautionary measures. Develop new more stringent policy standards. |
Pro-science | Evidence-based policy. Monitor risks. Not humble about contribution of science to society. | (+) 13 14 15 29 32 (−) 12 23 24 28 35 | 10 (17%) | Evidence-based policy, ALARA and ICNIRP guidelines* |
Status quo | Agreement with current policies. No need for additional regulatory measures. Evidence-based policy. | (+) 13 14 20 22 26 (−) 5 6 16 23 28 | 6 (11%) | Evidence-based policy, ALARA and ICNIRP guidelines* |
Issue advocates | Interaction with policy makers and stakeholders. More sources than science. No need to explicate differences of opinion between experts. | (+) 2 9 10 14 26 (−) 4 11 12 15 37 | 3 (10%) | -(advice from 1 expert) |