Scientific method discourses in the construction of 'EMF science': Interests, resources and rhetoric in submissions to a public inquiry

Social Studies of Science

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 205-233

  Mercer, David ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WOLLONGONG   (Australia)

Author keywords

Expert evidence; Law and regulation; Non ionizing radiation; Powerlines; Risk; Scientific controversy

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; AUSTRALIA; BEHAVIOR; HISTORY; PUBLIC HEALTH; RADIATION RESPONSE;

AUSTRALIA; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; HISTORY, 21ST CENTURY; POWER (PSYCHOLOGY); PUBLIC HEALTH; RADIATION EFFECTS;

EID: 0036528548     PISSN: 03063127     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0306312702032002002     Document Type: Review

References (187)

1. For a more detailed background discussion of the history of the debate over EMF and the effects of low-level non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (NIEMR), see David Mercer, The NIEMR/EMF Controversy: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge and Science Policy in the Gibbs Powerline Inquiry 1990/1991 (Wollongong, NSW: unpublished PhD thesis, Science and Technology Studies Department, University of Wollongong, 1993).
2. The Rt Hon. Sir Harry Gibbs, Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage Transmission Line Development (Sydney, NSW: NSW Government Printer, 1991). I will also quote below from the official Transcript of Inquiry.
3. Michael Dolan, 'The Importance of Stakeholders in the Risk Communication Process', in Rüdiger Matthes, Jürgen H. Bernhardt and Michael H. Repacholi (eds), Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure (Vienna, Austria, 22-23 October 1997) (Geneva: World Health Organization, ICNRP, 1998), 127-46; Tom McManus, 'Elements of a Prudent Avoidance Policy' and Michael Dolan, Kev Nuttall, Paul Flanagan and Garry Melik, 'The Application of Prudent Avoidance in EMF Risk Management', in M.H. Repacholi and A. Muc (eds), EMF Risk Perception and Communication, Proceedings of an International Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and Communication (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 31 August-1 September 1998) (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999), 263-80, 281-308. Gibbs's conclusions did have some impact on the rhetoric of powerline planning, by ushering into official regulatory discourse in Australia the notion of 'Prudent Avoidance'. See Guidelines for the Development of Electricity Systems; Community and Environmental Considerations (Electricity Council of NSW & Department of Planning, April 1992). For one of the foundational discussions of the idea of Prudent Avoidance as a policy strategy for addressing EMF concerns, see M. Granger Morgan and Indira Nair, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Background Paper (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, US GPO, May 1989).
4. Michael Dolan, 'The Importance of Stakeholders in the Risk Communication Process', in Rüdiger Matthes, Jürgen H. Bernhardt and Michael H. Repacholi (eds), Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure (Vienna, Austria, 22-23 October 1997) (Geneva: World Health Organization, ICNRP, 1998), 127-46; Tom McManus, 'Elements of a Prudent Avoidance Policy' and Michael Dolan, Kev Nuttall, Paul Flanagan and Garry Melik, 'The Application of Prudent Avoidance in EMF Risk Management', in M.H. Repacholi and A. Muc (eds), EMF Risk Perception and Communication, Proceedings of an International Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and Communication (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 31 August-1 September 1998) (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999), 263-80, 281-308. Gibbs's conclusions did have some impact on the rhetoric of powerline planning, by ushering into official regulatory discourse in Australia the notion of 'Prudent Avoidance'. See Guidelines for the Development of Electricity Systems; Community and Environmental Considerations (Electricity Council of NSW & Department of Planning, April 1992). For one of the foundational discussions of the idea of Prudent Avoidance as a policy strategy for addressing EMF concerns, see M. Granger Morgan and Indira Nair, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Background Paper (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, US GPO, May 1989).
5. Michael Dolan, 'The Importance of Stakeholders in the Risk Communication Process', in Rüdiger Matthes, Jürgen H. Bernhardt and Michael H. Repacholi (eds), Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure (Vienna, Austria, 22-23 October 1997) (Geneva: World Health Organization, ICNRP, 1998), 127-46; Tom McManus, 'Elements of a Prudent Avoidance Policy' and Michael Dolan, Kev Nuttall, Paul Flanagan and Garry Melik, 'The Application of Prudent Avoidance in EMF Risk Management', in M.H. Repacholi and A. Muc (eds), EMF Risk Perception and Communication, Proceedings of an International Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and Communication (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 31 August-1 September 1998) (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999), 263-80, 281-308. Gibbs's conclusions did have some impact on the rhetoric of powerline planning, by ushering into official regulatory discourse in Australia the notion of 'Prudent Avoidance'. See Guidelines for the Development of Electricity Systems; Community and Environmental Considerations (Electricity Council of NSW & Department of Planning, April 1992). For one of the foundational discussions of the idea of Prudent Avoidance as a policy strategy for addressing EMF concerns, see M. Granger Morgan and Indira Nair, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Background Paper (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, US GPO, May 1989).
6. Michael Dolan, 'The Importance of Stakeholders in the Risk Communication Process', in Rüdiger Matthes, Jürgen H. Bernhardt and Michael H. Repacholi (eds), Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure (Vienna, Austria, 22-23 October 1997) (Geneva: World Health Organization, ICNRP, 1998), 127-46; Tom McManus, 'Elements of a Prudent Avoidance Policy' and Michael Dolan, Kev Nuttall, Paul Flanagan and Garry Melik, 'The Application of Prudent Avoidance in EMF Risk Management', in M.H. Repacholi and A. Muc (eds), EMF Risk Perception and Communication, Proceedings of an International Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and Communication (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 31 August-1 September 1998) (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999), 263-80, 281-308. Gibbs's conclusions did have some impact on the rhetoric of powerline planning, by ushering into official regulatory discourse in Australia the notion of 'Prudent Avoidance'. See Guidelines for the Development of Electricity Systems; Community and Environmental Considerations (Electricity Council of NSW & Department of Planning, April 1992). For one of the foundational discussions of the idea of Prudent Avoidance as a policy strategy for addressing EMF concerns, see M. Granger Morgan and Indira Nair, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Background Paper (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, US GPO, May 1989).
7. Michael Dolan, 'The Importance of Stakeholders in the Risk Communication Process', in Rüdiger Matthes, Jürgen H. Bernhardt and Michael H. Repacholi (eds), Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure, Proceedings of the International Seminar on Risk Perception, Risk Communication and its Application to EMF Exposure (Vienna, Austria, 22-23 October 1997) (Geneva: World Health Organization, ICNRP, 1998), 127-46; Tom McManus, 'Elements of a Prudent Avoidance Policy' and Michael Dolan, Kev Nuttall, Paul Flanagan and Garry Melik, 'The Application of Prudent Avoidance in EMF Risk Management', in M.H. Repacholi and A. Muc (eds), EMF Risk Perception and Communication, Proceedings of an International Seminar on EMF Risk Perception and Communication (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 31 August-1 September 1998) (Geneva: World Health Organization, 1999), 263-80, 281-308. Gibbs's conclusions did have some impact on the rhetoric of powerline planning, by ushering into official regulatory discourse in Australia the notion of 'Prudent Avoidance'. See Guidelines for the Development of Electricity Systems; Community and Environmental Considerations (Electricity Council of NSW & Department of Planning, April 1992). For one of the foundational discussions of the idea of Prudent Avoidance as a policy strategy for addressing EMF concerns, see M. Granger Morgan and Indira Nair, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric and Magnetic Fields: Background Paper (Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, United States Congress, US GPO, May 1989).
8. Gibbs, op. cit. note 2, 'Conclusions' 5.11.1, 57.
9. In Brian Wynne's seminal study of rituals of 'legalism' and 'scientism' that underwrote the UK Windscale Nuclear Power Inquiry during the 1970s, the way broad technocratic discourses endemic to legal processes helped disenfranchise many objectors is clearly illustrated: see B. Wynne, Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decision in Britain, BSHS Monograph 3 (Chalfont St Giles, UK: British Society for the History of Science, 1982). But it may be that the Windscale Inquiry, because of its overt links with the broader public debate surrounding the viability of nuclear power, may not constitute a model applicable to all public inquiries or legal proceedings: the overarching rhetorics of 'legalism' and 'scientism' may not always play such significant rôles. For a clear analysis of the ad hoc tendencies of public inquiries in an Australian context, see Scott Prasser, 'Public Inquiries in Australia: An Overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 44, No. 1 (March 1985), 1-15; see also K. Guild Nichols, Technology on Trial: Public Participation in Decision-Making Related to Science and Technology (Paris: OECD, 1979), 63-76. For a discussion of the rôle of technocratic framing of science policy issues so as to exclude public input, see John Abraham and Julie Sheppard, 'Democracy, Technocracy, and the Secret State of Medicines Control: Expert and Nonexpert Perspectives', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring 1997), 139-67.
10. In Brian Wynne's seminal study of rituals of 'legalism' and 'scientism' that underwrote the UK Windscale Nuclear Power Inquiry during the 1970s, the way broad technocratic discourses endemic to legal processes helped disenfranchise many objectors is clearly illustrated: see B. Wynne, Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decision in Britain, BSHS Monograph 3 (Chalfont St Giles, UK: British Society for the History of Science, 1982). But it may be that the Windscale Inquiry, because of its overt links with the broader public debate surrounding the viability of nuclear power, may not constitute a model applicable to all public inquiries or legal proceedings: the overarching rhetorics of 'legalism' and 'scientism' may not always play such significant rôles. For a clear analysis of the ad hoc tendencies of public inquiries in an Australian context, see Scott Prasser, 'Public Inquiries in Australia: An Overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 44, No. 1 (March 1985), 1-15; see also K. Guild Nichols, Technology on Trial: Public Participation in Decision-Making Related to Science and Technology (Paris: OECD, 1979), 63-76. For a discussion of the rôle of technocratic framing of science policy issues so as to exclude public input, see John Abraham and Julie Sheppard, 'Democracy, Technocracy, and the Secret State of Medicines Control: Expert and Nonexpert Perspectives', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring 1997), 139-67.
11. In Brian Wynne's seminal study of rituals of 'legalism' and 'scientism' that underwrote the UK Windscale Nuclear Power Inquiry during the 1970s, the way broad technocratic discourses endemic to legal processes helped disenfranchise many objectors is clearly illustrated: see B. Wynne, Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decision in Britain, BSHS Monograph 3 (Chalfont St Giles, UK: British Society for the History of Science, 1982). But it may be that the Windscale Inquiry, because of its overt links with the broader public debate surrounding the viability of nuclear power, may not constitute a model applicable to all public inquiries or legal proceedings: the overarching rhetorics of 'legalism' and 'scientism' may not always play such significant rôles. For a clear analysis of the ad hoc tendencies of public inquiries in an Australian context, see Scott Prasser, 'Public Inquiries in Australia: An Overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 44, No. 1 (March 1985), 1-15; see also K. Guild Nichols, Technology on Trial: Public Participation in Decision-Making Related to Science and Technology (Paris: OECD, 1979), 63-76. For a discussion of the rôle of technocratic framing of science policy issues so as to exclude public input, see John Abraham and Julie Sheppard, 'Democracy, Technocracy, and the Secret State of Medicines Control: Expert and Nonexpert Perspectives', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring 1997), 139-67.
12. In Brian Wynne's seminal study of rituals of 'legalism' and 'scientism' that underwrote the UK Windscale Nuclear Power Inquiry during the 1970s, the way broad technocratic discourses endemic to legal processes helped disenfranchise many objectors is clearly illustrated: see B. Wynne, Rationality and Ritual: The Windscale Inquiry and Nuclear Decision in Britain, BSHS Monograph 3 (Chalfont St Giles, UK: British Society for the History of Science, 1982). But it may be that the Windscale Inquiry, because of its overt links with the broader public debate surrounding the viability of nuclear power, may not constitute a model applicable to all public inquiries or legal proceedings: the overarching rhetorics of 'legalism' and 'scientism' may not always play such significant rôles. For a clear analysis of the ad hoc tendencies of public inquiries in an Australian context, see Scott Prasser, 'Public Inquiries in Australia: An Overview', Australian Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 44, No. 1 (March 1985), 1-15; see also K. Guild Nichols, Technology on Trial: Public Participation in Decision-Making Related to Science and Technology (Paris: OECD, 1979), 63-76. For a discussion of the rôle of technocratic framing of science policy issues so as to exclude public input, see John Abraham and Julie Sheppard, 'Democracy, Technocracy, and the Secret State of Medicines Control: Expert and Nonexpert Perspectives', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Spring 1997), 139-67.
13. Recent debate has continued with important government agencies such as the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), classifying Extra Low Frequency (ELF) EMFs as 'possible human carcinogens': for an overview of this report and a sample of various government and scientific responses, see Microwave News (July/August 2001) and (September/October 2001). (For details of Microwave News, see note 64, below.)
14. Some examples of EMF Reports and Public Inquiries include: World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35, Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1984); American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Report (Madison: State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1985); H.B. Graves, A Review of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria Transmission Line and Station Design Practices in Relation to the Health and Safety of People (Melbourne: Victorian Government Minister of Health, March 1986); Bonneville Power Administration, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, 1989); A Review of High Voltage ELF Transmission Line Fields and Human Health Effects: A Report to the WA Environment Protection Authority (Perth, Western Australia: Scott & Furphy Engineering Pty Ltd, June 1987); World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 69, Magnetic Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1987); New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, Biological Effects of Power Line Fields: Final Report (Albany, NY: Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research, 1987); Morgan & Nair, op. cit. note 3. The scientific submissions presented to the Gibbs Inquiry drew from many of the reports noted above.
15. Some examples of EMF Reports and Public Inquiries include: World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35, Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1984); American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Report (Madison: State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1985); H.B. Graves, A Review of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria Transmission Line and Station Design Practices in Relation to the Health and Safety of People (Melbourne: Victorian Government Minister of Health, March 1986); Bonneville Power Administration, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, 1989); A Review of High Voltage ELF Transmission Line Fields and Human Health Effects: A Report to the WA Environment Protection Authority (Perth, Western Australia: Scott & Furphy Engineering Pty Ltd, June 1987); World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 69, Magnetic Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1987); New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, Biological Effects of Power Line Fields: Final Report (Albany, NY: Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research, 1987); Morgan & Nair, op. cit. note 3. The scientific submissions presented to the Gibbs Inquiry drew from many of the reports noted above.
16. Some examples of EMF Reports and Public Inquiries include: World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35, Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1984); American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Report (Madison: State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1985); H.B. Graves, A Review of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria Transmission Line and Station Design Practices in Relation to the Health and Safety of People (Melbourne: Victorian Government Minister of Health, March 1986); Bonneville Power Administration, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, 1989); A Review of High Voltage ELF Transmission Line Fields and Human Health Effects: A Report to the WA Environment Protection Authority (Perth, Western Australia: Scott & Furphy Engineering Pty Ltd, June 1987); World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 69, Magnetic Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1987); New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, Biological Effects of Power Line Fields: Final Report (Albany, NY: Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research, 1987); Morgan & Nair, op. cit. note 3. The scientific submissions presented to the Gibbs Inquiry drew from many of the reports noted above.
17. Some examples of EMF Reports and Public Inquiries include: World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35, Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1984); American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Report (Madison: State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1985); H.B. Graves, A Review of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria Transmission Line and Station Design Practices in Relation to the Health and Safety of People (Melbourne: Victorian Government Minister of Health, March 1986); Bonneville Power Administration, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, 1989); A Review of High Voltage ELF Transmission Line Fields and Human Health Effects: A Report to the WA Environment Protection Authority (Perth, Western Australia: Scott & Furphy Engineering Pty Ltd, June 1987); World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 69, Magnetic Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1987); New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, Biological Effects of Power Line Fields: Final Report (Albany, NY: Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research, 1987); Morgan & Nair, op. cit. note 3. The scientific submissions presented to the Gibbs Inquiry drew from many of the reports noted above.
18. Some examples of EMF Reports and Public Inquiries include: World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35, Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1984); American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Report (Madison: State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1985); H.B. Graves, A Review of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria Transmission Line and Station Design Practices in Relation to the Health and Safety of People (Melbourne: Victorian Government Minister of Health, March 1986); Bonneville Power Administration, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, 1989); A Review of High Voltage ELF Transmission Line Fields and Human Health Effects: A Report to the WA Environment Protection Authority (Perth, Western Australia: Scott & Furphy Engineering Pty Ltd, June 1987); World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 69, Magnetic Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1987); New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, Biological Effects of Power Line Fields: Final Report (Albany, NY: Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research, 1987); Morgan & Nair, op. cit. note 3. The scientific submissions presented to the Gibbs Inquiry drew from many of the reports noted above.
19. Some examples of EMF Reports and Public Inquiries include: World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35, Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1984); American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Report (Madison: State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1985); H.B. Graves, A Review of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria Transmission Line and Station Design Practices in Relation to the Health and Safety of People (Melbourne: Victorian Government Minister of Health, March 1986); Bonneville Power Administration, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, 1989); A Review of High Voltage ELF Transmission Line Fields and Human Health Effects: A Report to the WA Environment Protection Authority (Perth, Western Australia: Scott & Furphy Engineering Pty Ltd, June 1987); World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 69, Magnetic Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1987); New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, Biological Effects of Power Line Fields: Final Report (Albany, NY: Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research, 1987); Morgan & Nair, op. cit. note 3. The scientific submissions presented to the Gibbs Inquiry drew from many of the reports noted above.
20. Some examples of EMF Reports and Public Inquiries include: World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35, Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1984); American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Report (Madison: State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1985); H.B. Graves, A Review of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria Transmission Line and Station Design Practices in Relation to the Health and Safety of People (Melbourne: Victorian Government Minister of Health, March 1986); Bonneville Power Administration, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, 1989); A Review of High Voltage ELF Transmission Line Fields and Human Health Effects: A Report to the WA Environment Protection Authority (Perth, Western Australia: Scott & Furphy Engineering Pty Ltd, June 1987); World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 69, Magnetic Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1987); New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, Biological Effects of Power Line Fields: Final Report (Albany, NY: Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research, 1987); Morgan & Nair, op. cit. note 3. The scientific submissions presented to the Gibbs Inquiry drew from many of the reports noted above.
21. Some examples of EMF Reports and Public Inquiries include: World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 35, Extremely Low Frequency Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1984); American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) Report (Madison: State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1985); H.B. Graves, A Review of the State Electricity Commission of Victoria Transmission Line and Station Design Practices in Relation to the Health and Safety of People (Melbourne: Victorian Government Minister of Health, March 1986); Bonneville Power Administration, Electrical and Biological Effects of Transmission Lines: A Review (Portland, OR: US Department of Energy, 1989); A Review of High Voltage ELF Transmission Line Fields and Human Health Effects: A Report to the WA Environment Protection Authority (Perth, Western Australia: Scott & Furphy Engineering Pty Ltd, June 1987); World Health Organization Environmental Health Criteria, No. 69, Magnetic Fields (Geneva: United Nations Environmental Program, IRPA, 1987); New York State Power Lines Project Scientific Advisory Panel, Biological Effects of Power Line Fields: Final Report (Albany, NY: Wadsworth Center for Laboratories & Research, 1987); Morgan & Nair, op. cit. note 3. The scientific submissions presented to the Gibbs Inquiry drew from many of the reports noted above.
22. It was also unclear how much the main scientific submissions submitted to the Inquiry influenced Gibbs's conclusions. During the early public hearing phase of the Inquiry, Gibbs indicated that he would embark on his own international fact-finding mission, and that he would discourage scientific evidence being discussed at length during the public hearing phases of the Inquiry: he preferred to consult with his own panel of experts. He also stipulated that these experts should as far as possible not have previously appeared in EMF litigation: Transcript of Inquiry, 36-37. Whilst Gibbs provided a brief list of the experts he consulted with, and the names of his expert panel, his ultimate assessment of the specific findings of these experts was ultimately brief and rather indecisive (see, for example, Gibbs, op. cit. note 2, 5.5.6, 49), and his review of the scientific arguments submitted by the main parties to the Inquiry rather cursory.
23. It was also unclear how much the main scientific submissions submitted to the Inquiry influenced Gibbs's conclusions. During the early public hearing phase of the Inquiry, Gibbs indicated that he would embark on his own international fact-finding mission, and that he would discourage scientific evidence being discussed at length during the public hearing phases of the Inquiry: he preferred to consult with his own panel of experts. He also stipulated that these experts should as far as possible not have previously appeared in EMF litigation: Transcript of Inquiry, 36-37. Whilst Gibbs provided a brief list of the experts he consulted with, and the names of his expert panel, his ultimate assessment of the specific findings of these experts was ultimately brief and rather indecisive (see, for example, Gibbs, op. cit. note 2, 5.5.6, 49), and his review of the scientific arguments submitted by the main parties to the Inquiry rather cursory.
24. There has been some debate about how valid it is to work from the boundaries actors themselves use in distinguishing between science and policy. But as Brian Wynne has noted, faced with the 'awesome integration' and 'grounding' of modern technoscientific empires, '... some of this sheer complexity and potential instability can be reduced, sometimes usefully by adopting the first order approximation that actors can be ascribed interests which are relatively stable within certain boundaries of time and social space. This could be viewed as a pragmatic convention - useful in its place, obstructive in others': B. Wynne, 'Representing Policy Constructions and Interests in SSK', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 3 (August 1992), 575-80, at 579. Wynne is here commenting on a previous debate: see Alberto Cambrosio, Camille Limoges and Denyse Pronovost, 'Representing Biotechnology; An Ethnography of Quebec Science Policy', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May 1990), 195-227; Daniel Lee Kleinman, 'Conceptualizing the Politics of Science: A Response to Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost', ibid., Vol. 21, No. 4 (November 1991), 769-74; A. Cambrosio, C. Limoges and D. Pronovost, 'Analyzing Science Policy-Making: Political Ontology or Ethnography?: A Reply to Kleinman', ibid., 775-81.
25. There has been some debate about how valid it is to work from the boundaries actors themselves use in distinguishing between science and policy. But as Brian Wynne has noted, faced with the 'awesome integration' and 'grounding' of modern technoscientific empires, '... some of this sheer complexity and potential instability can be reduced, sometimes usefully by adopting the first order approximation that actors can be ascribed interests which are relatively stable within certain boundaries of time and social space. This could be viewed as a pragmatic convention - useful in its place, obstructive in others': B. Wynne, 'Representing Policy Constructions and Interests in SSK', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 3 (August 1992), 575-80, at 579. Wynne is here commenting on a previous debate: see Alberto Cambrosio, Camille Limoges and Denyse Pronovost, 'Representing Biotechnology; An Ethnography of Quebec Science Policy', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May 1990), 195-227; Daniel Lee Kleinman, 'Conceptualizing the Politics of Science: A Response to Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost', ibid., Vol. 21, No. 4 (November 1991), 769-74; A. Cambrosio, C. Limoges and D. Pronovost, 'Analyzing Science Policy-Making: Political Ontology or Ethnography?: A Reply to Kleinman', ibid., 775-81.
26. There has been some debate about how valid it is to work from the boundaries actors themselves use in distinguishing between science and policy. But as Brian Wynne has noted, faced with the 'awesome integration' and 'grounding' of modern technoscientific empires, '... some of this sheer complexity and potential instability can be reduced, sometimes usefully by adopting the first order approximation that actors can be ascribed interests which are relatively stable within certain boundaries of time and social space. This could be viewed as a pragmatic convention - useful in its place, obstructive in others': B. Wynne, 'Representing Policy Constructions and Interests in SSK', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 3 (August 1992), 575-80, at 579. Wynne is here commenting on a previous debate: see Alberto Cambrosio, Camille Limoges and Denyse Pronovost, 'Representing Biotechnology; An Ethnography of Quebec Science Policy', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May 1990), 195-227; Daniel Lee Kleinman, 'Conceptualizing the Politics of Science: A Response to Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost', ibid., Vol. 21, No. 4 (November 1991), 769-74; A. Cambrosio, C. Limoges and D. Pronovost, 'Analyzing Science Policy-Making: Political Ontology or Ethnography?: A Reply to Kleinman', ibid., 775-81.
27. There has been some debate about how valid it is to work from the boundaries actors themselves use in distinguishing between science and policy. But as Brian Wynne has noted, faced with the 'awesome integration' and 'grounding' of modern technoscientific empires, '... some of this sheer complexity and potential instability can be reduced, sometimes usefully by adopting the first order approximation that actors can be ascribed interests which are relatively stable within certain boundaries of time and social space. This could be viewed as a pragmatic convention - useful in its place, obstructive in others': B. Wynne, 'Representing Policy Constructions and Interests in SSK', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 22, No. 3 (August 1992), 575-80, at 579. Wynne is here commenting on a previous debate: see Alberto Cambrosio, Camille Limoges and Denyse Pronovost, 'Representing Biotechnology; An Ethnography of Quebec Science Policy', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 2 (May 1990), 195-227; Daniel Lee Kleinman, 'Conceptualizing the Politics of Science: A Response to Cambrosio, Limoges and Pronovost', ibid., Vol. 21, No. 4 (November 1991), 769-74; A. Cambrosio, C. Limoges and D. Pronovost, 'Analyzing Science Policy-Making: Political Ontology or Ethnography?: A Reply to Kleinman', ibid., 775-81.
28. For a discussion of the rôle of framing questions as science versus policy, and the political dimensions of such negotiations, see: Sheila Jasanoff, 'Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 17, No. 2 (May 1987), 195-230; S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).
29. For a discussion of the rôle of framing questions as science versus policy, and the political dimensions of such negotiations, see: Sheila Jasanoff, 'Contested Boundaries in Policy-Relevant Science', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 17, No. 2 (May 1987), 195-230; S. Jasanoff, The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990).
30. The identity of EMF scientific facts and the processes through which their meanings were generated changed in different contexts. In settings such as the Gibbs Inquiry, actors may have different aims operating, simultaneously: settling immediate concerns such as whether a specific powerline should be built; sorting out Australian regulatory policy; publicizing a scientific controversy; hoping to contribute to setting informal precedent to be used in broader future debates about EMF; and so on. It should not be surprising that different types of argumentative styles might co-exist, depending on what the actors in these multiple overlapping contexts hoped to achieve. For discussion of the multiple meanings and strategies involved in the exposition of science, see articles in the collection edited by Terry Shinn and Richard Whitley, Expository Science: Forms and Functions of Popularisation, Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook No. 9 (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985).
31. William Leiss and Christine Chociolko, Risk and Responsibility (Quebec, Ontario: McGill-Queens University Press, 1994).
32. For a sample of popular overviews of the EMF debate, see: Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Les Dalton, Radiation Exposures (Newham, Victoria: Scribe Publications, 1991); Cyril Smith and Simon Best, Electromagnetic Man (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1989); Robert Becker and Andrew Marino, Electromagnetism and Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982); Robert Becker and Gary Seldon, The Body Electric (NewYork: William Morrow, 1984); Andrew Marino (ed.), Modern Bioelectricity (New York: Marcell Decker, 1988); Andrew Marino, The Electric Wilderness (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1986); Nicholas Hildyard, Cover Up (London: New English Library, 1981).
33. For a sample of popular overviews of the EMF debate, see: Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Les Dalton, Radiation Exposures (Newham, Victoria: Scribe Publications, 1991); Cyril Smith and Simon Best, Electromagnetic Man (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1989); Robert Becker and Andrew Marino, Electromagnetism and Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982); Robert Becker and Gary Seldon, The Body Electric (NewYork: William Morrow, 1984); Andrew Marino (ed.), Modern Bioelectricity (New York: Marcell Decker, 1988); Andrew Marino, The Electric Wilderness (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1986); Nicholas Hildyard, Cover Up (London: New English Library, 1981).
34. For a sample of popular overviews of the EMF debate, see: Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Les Dalton, Radiation Exposures (Newham, Victoria: Scribe Publications, 1991); Cyril Smith and Simon Best, Electromagnetic Man (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1989); Robert Becker and Andrew Marino, Electromagnetism and Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982); Robert Becker and Gary Seldon, The Body Electric (NewYork: William Morrow, 1984); Andrew Marino (ed.), Modern Bioelectricity (New York: Marcell Decker, 1988); Andrew Marino, The Electric Wilderness (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1986); Nicholas Hildyard, Cover Up (London: New English Library, 1981).
35. For a sample of popular overviews of the EMF debate, see: Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Les Dalton, Radiation Exposures (Newham, Victoria: Scribe Publications, 1991); Cyril Smith and Simon Best, Electromagnetic Man (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1989); Robert Becker and Andrew Marino, Electromagnetism and Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982); Robert Becker and Gary Seldon, The Body Electric (NewYork: William Morrow, 1984); Andrew Marino (ed.), Modern Bioelectricity (New York: Marcell Decker, 1988); Andrew Marino, The Electric Wilderness (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1986); Nicholas Hildyard, Cover Up (London: New English Library, 1981).
36. For a sample of popular overviews of the EMF debate, see: Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Les Dalton, Radiation Exposures (Newham, Victoria: Scribe Publications, 1991); Cyril Smith and Simon Best, Electromagnetic Man (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1989); Robert Becker and Andrew Marino, Electromagnetism and Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982); Robert Becker and Gary Seldon, The Body Electric (NewYork: William Morrow, 1984); Andrew Marino (ed.), Modern Bioelectricity (New York: Marcell Decker, 1988); Andrew Marino, The Electric Wilderness (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1986); Nicholas Hildyard, Cover Up (London: New English Library, 1981).
37. For a sample of popular overviews of the EMF debate, see: Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Les Dalton, Radiation Exposures (Newham, Victoria: Scribe Publications, 1991); Cyril Smith and Simon Best, Electromagnetic Man (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1989); Robert Becker and Andrew Marino, Electromagnetism and Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982); Robert Becker and Gary Seldon, The Body Electric (NewYork: William Morrow, 1984); Andrew Marino (ed.), Modern Bioelectricity (New York: Marcell Decker, 1988); Andrew Marino, The Electric Wilderness (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1986); Nicholas Hildyard, Cover Up (London: New English Library, 1981).
38. For a sample of popular overviews of the EMF debate, see: Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Les Dalton, Radiation Exposures (Newham, Victoria: Scribe Publications, 1991); Cyril Smith and Simon Best, Electromagnetic Man (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1989); Robert Becker and Andrew Marino, Electromagnetism and Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982); Robert Becker and Gary Seldon, The Body Electric (NewYork: William Morrow, 1984); Andrew Marino (ed.), Modern Bioelectricity (New York: Marcell Decker, 1988); Andrew Marino, The Electric Wilderness (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1986); Nicholas Hildyard, Cover Up (London: New English Library, 1981).
39. For a sample of popular overviews of the EMF debate, see: Paul Brodeur, Currents of Death (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989); Les Dalton, Radiation Exposures (Newham, Victoria: Scribe Publications, 1991); Cyril Smith and Simon Best, Electromagnetic Man (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1989); Robert Becker and Andrew Marino, Electromagnetism and Life (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982); Robert Becker and Gary Seldon, The Body Electric (NewYork: William Morrow, 1984); Andrew Marino (ed.), Modern Bioelectricity (New York: Marcell Decker, 1988); Andrew Marino, The Electric Wilderness (San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Press, 1986); Nicholas Hildyard, Cover Up (London: New English Library, 1981).
40. P. Barlow, 'Power to the People', The Bulletin (Sydney, 4 December 1990), 65; Gibbs, op. cit. note 2, 3 and 33.
41. P. Barlow, 'Power to the People', The Bulletin (Sydney, 4 December 1990), 65; Gibbs, op. cit. note 2, 3 and 33.
42. Warren vs Electricity Commissions of NSW, Judgement No. 40308/89 NSW Land and Environment Court (31 October 1990, Justice Cripps). For further background, see Stephen Skinner, 'Power Battle', The Sun Herald (7 January 1990), 18; Adam Fulton, 'Farmers Group Loses Court Battle Against New Powerline', Sydney Morning Herald (1 November 1990).
43. Warren vs Electricity Commissions of NSW, Judgement No. 40308/89 NSW Land and Environment Court (31 October 1990, Justice Cripps). For further background, see Stephen Skinner, 'Power Battle', The Sun Herald (7 January 1990), 18; Adam Fulton, 'Farmers Group Loses Court Battle Against New Powerline', Sydney Morning Herald (1 November 1990).
44. Warren vs Electricity Commissions of NSW, Judgement No. 40308/89 NSW Land and Environment Court (31 October 1990, Justice Cripps). For further background, see Stephen Skinner, 'Power Battle', The Sun Herald (7 January 1990), 18; Adam Fulton, 'Farmers Group Loses Court Battle Against New Powerline', Sydney Morning Herald (1 November 1990).
45. I also attended the Gibbs Inquiry and the prior Warren vs Electricity Commissions of NSW proceedings.
46. Electricity Commission of NSW (ELCOM), 'Terms of Reference No. 4, Part C, Electric and Magnetic Fields', Submission to Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage Transmission Line Development, Vol.II (ELCOM, August 1990); Further Submission to Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage Transmission Line Development (ELCOM, October 1990).
47. Electricity Commission of NSW (ELCOM), 'Terms of Reference No. 4, Part C, Electric and Magnetic Fields', Submission to Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage Transmission Line Development, Vol.II (ELCOM, August 1990); Further Submission to Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage Transmission Line Development (ELCOM, October 1990).
48. See '$66.5 Million Marcy-South Power Line Trial Underway', Microwave News (September/October 1988); see also 'NY Judge Rejects Power Line "Cancerphobia Argument'", ibid. (September/October 1989). For a brief sample of reviews of EMF litigation in an American context, see: C. Michelle Depew, 'Challenging the Fields: The Case For Electromagnetic Field Injury Tort Remedies Against Utilities', University Of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 56 (1994), 441-82; Edward Gerjuoy, 'Electromagnetic Fields; Physics, Biology and Law', Jurimetrics: Journal of Law, Society and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Fall 1994), 55-75; William J. Walsh, Richard Wilson and Martin S. Kaufman, 'Electromagnetic Fields: Policy, Science, and Litigation', Briefly: Perspectives on Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation, No. 8 (Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, April 1997).
49. See '$66.5 Million Marcy-South Power Line Trial Underway', Microwave News (September/October 1988); see also 'NY Judge Rejects Power Line "Cancerphobia Argument'", ibid. (September/October 1989). For a brief sample of reviews of EMF litigation in an American context, see: C. Michelle Depew, 'Challenging the Fields: The Case For Electromagnetic Field Injury Tort Remedies Against Utilities', University Of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 56 (1994), 441-82; Edward Gerjuoy, 'Electromagnetic Fields; Physics, Biology and Law', Jurimetrics: Journal of Law, Society and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Fall 1994), 55-75; William J. Walsh, Richard Wilson and Martin S. Kaufman, 'Electromagnetic Fields: Policy, Science, and Litigation', Briefly: Perspectives on Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation, No. 8 (Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, April 1997).
50. See '$66.5 Million Marcy-South Power Line Trial Underway', Microwave News (September/October 1988); see also 'NY Judge Rejects Power Line "Cancerphobia Argument'", ibid. (September/October 1989). For a brief sample of reviews of EMF litigation in an American context, see: C. Michelle Depew, 'Challenging the Fields: The Case For Electromagnetic Field Injury Tort Remedies Against Utilities', University Of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 56 (1994), 441-82; Edward Gerjuoy, 'Electromagnetic Fields; Physics, Biology and Law', Jurimetrics: Journal of Law, Society and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Fall 1994), 55-75; William J. Walsh, Richard Wilson and Martin S. Kaufman, 'Electromagnetic Fields: Policy, Science, and Litigation', Briefly: Perspectives on Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation, No. 8 (Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, April 1997).
51. See '$66.5 Million Marcy-South Power Line Trial Underway', Microwave News (September/October 1988); see also 'NY Judge Rejects Power Line "Cancerphobia Argument'", ibid. (September/October 1989). For a brief sample of reviews of EMF litigation in an American context, see: C. Michelle Depew, 'Challenging the Fields: The Case For Electromagnetic Field Injury Tort Remedies Against Utilities', University Of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 56 (1994), 441-82; Edward Gerjuoy, 'Electromagnetic Fields; Physics, Biology and Law', Jurimetrics: Journal of Law, Society and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Fall 1994), 55-75; William J. Walsh, Richard Wilson and Martin S. Kaufman, 'Electromagnetic Fields: Policy, Science, and Litigation', Briefly: Perspectives on Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation, No. 8 (Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, April 1997).
52. See '$66.5 Million Marcy-South Power Line Trial Underway', Microwave News (September/October 1988); see also 'NY Judge Rejects Power Line "Cancerphobia Argument'", ibid. (September/October 1989). For a brief sample of reviews of EMF litigation in an American context, see: C. Michelle Depew, 'Challenging the Fields: The Case For Electromagnetic Field Injury Tort Remedies Against Utilities', University Of Pittsburgh Law Review, Vol. 56 (1994), 441-82; Edward Gerjuoy, 'Electromagnetic Fields; Physics, Biology and Law', Jurimetrics: Journal of Law, Society and Technology, Vol. 35, No. 1 (Fall 1994), 55-75; William J. Walsh, Richard Wilson and Martin S. Kaufman, 'Electromagnetic Fields: Policy, Science, and Litigation', Briefly: Perspectives on Legislation, Regulation, and Litigation, No. 8 (Washington, DC: National Legal Center for the Public Interest, April 1997).
53. There were also a number of affidavits submitted from the OPIC versus ELCOM proceedings.
54. Ian Macmillan, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health (Victoria: Collingwood Community Health Centre, 1987); I. Macmillan (1990a), The 0.5 Milligauss Guideline: A Healthy Alternative to Technocratic Legitimation (Victoria: Powerline Action Group, August 1990); I. Macmillan (1990b), Voices from the Field: Corporatism, Risk Communication and Powerline Radiation Exposures (Melbourne: unpublished thesis, Bachelor of Social Science in Socio-Environmental Assessment and Policy, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [RMIT], 14 November 1990); see also I. Macmillan, 'Electric Smog: A New Health Hazard', in Rosaleen Love (ed.), If Atoms Could Talk (Melbourne: Greenhouse Publications, 1987), 162-64.
55. Ian Macmillan, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health (Victoria: Collingwood Community Health Centre, 1987); I. Macmillan (1990a), The 0.5 Milligauss Guideline: A Healthy Alternative to Technocratic Legitimation (Victoria: Powerline Action Group, August 1990); I. Macmillan (1990b), Voices from the Field: Corporatism, Risk Communication and Powerline Radiation Exposures (Melbourne: unpublished thesis, Bachelor of Social Science in Socio-Environmental Assessment and Policy, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [RMIT], 14 November 1990); see also I. Macmillan, 'Electric Smog: A New Health Hazard', in Rosaleen Love (ed.), If Atoms Could Talk (Melbourne: Greenhouse Publications, 1987), 162-64.
56. Ian Macmillan, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health (Victoria: Collingwood Community Health Centre, 1987); I. Macmillan (1990a), The 0.5 Milligauss Guideline: A Healthy Alternative to Technocratic Legitimation (Victoria: Powerline Action Group, August 1990); I. Macmillan (1990b), Voices from the Field: Corporatism, Risk Communication and Powerline Radiation Exposures (Melbourne: unpublished thesis, Bachelor of Social Science in Socio-Environmental Assessment and Policy, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [RMIT], 14 November 1990); see also I. Macmillan, 'Electric Smog: A New Health Hazard', in Rosaleen Love (ed.), If Atoms Could Talk (Melbourne: Greenhouse Publications, 1987), 162-64.
57. Ian Macmillan, Electromagnetic Fields and Public Health (Victoria: Collingwood Community Health Centre, 1987); I. Macmillan (1990a), The 0.5 Milligauss Guideline: A Healthy Alternative to Technocratic Legitimation (Victoria: Powerline Action Group, August 1990); I. Macmillan (1990b), Voices from the Field: Corporatism, Risk Communication and Powerline Radiation Exposures (Melbourne: unpublished thesis, Bachelor of Social Science in Socio-Environmental Assessment and Policy, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology [RMIT], 14 November 1990); see also I. Macmillan, 'Electric Smog: A New Health Hazard', in Rosaleen Love (ed.), If Atoms Could Talk (Melbourne: Greenhouse Publications, 1987), 162-64.
58. Graves, op. cit. note 7; David Scott, Mary Crooks and Andrew Funston, Information, Options and Outlooks: A Consultant's Resource (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, October 1988); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Draft Recommendations (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, February 1989); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Final Report to the Victorian Government Powerline Review Panel (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, July 1989). For some context for the Victorian disputes, see Trevor Blake, A Critical Examination of the Brunswick to Richmond Powerline Dispute, 1968-1987: Final Report to the Victorian Powerline Review Panel (Victoria: Monash University, Graduate School of Environmental Science, October 1988).
59. Graves, op. cit. note 7; David Scott, Mary Crooks and Andrew Funston, Information, Options and Outlooks: A Consultant's Resource (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, October 1988); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Draft Recommendations (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, February 1989); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Final Report to the Victorian Government Powerline Review Panel (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, July 1989). For some context for the Victorian disputes, see Trevor Blake, A Critical Examination of the Brunswick to Richmond Powerline Dispute, 1968-1987: Final Report to the Victorian Powerline Review Panel (Victoria: Monash University, Graduate School of Environmental Science, October 1988).
60. Graves, op. cit. note 7; David Scott, Mary Crooks and Andrew Funston, Information, Options and Outlooks: A Consultant's Resource (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, October 1988); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Draft Recommendations (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, February 1989); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Final Report to the Victorian Government Powerline Review Panel (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, July 1989). For some context for the Victorian disputes, see Trevor Blake, A Critical Examination of the Brunswick to Richmond Powerline Dispute, 1968-1987: Final Report to the Victorian Powerline Review Panel (Victoria: Monash University, Graduate School of Environmental Science, October 1988).
61. Graves, op. cit. note 7; David Scott, Mary Crooks and Andrew Funston, Information, Options and Outlooks: A Consultant's Resource (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, October 1988); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Draft Recommendations (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, February 1989); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Final Report to the Victorian Government Powerline Review Panel (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, July 1989). For some context for the Victorian disputes, see Trevor Blake, A Critical Examination of the Brunswick to Richmond Powerline Dispute, 1968-1987: Final Report to the Victorian Powerline Review Panel (Victoria: Monash University, Graduate School of Environmental Science, October 1988).
62. Graves, op. cit. note 7; David Scott, Mary Crooks and Andrew Funston, Information, Options and Outlooks: A Consultant's Resource (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, October 1988); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Draft Recommendations (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, February 1989); D. Scott, M. Crooks and A. Funston, Final Report to the Victorian Government Powerline Review Panel (Melbourne: Powerline Review Panel, Government of Victoria, July 1989). For some context for the Victorian disputes, see Trevor Blake, A Critical Examination of the Brunswick to Richmond Powerline Dispute, 1968-1987: Final Report to the Victorian Powerline Review Panel (Victoria: Monash University, Graduate School of Environmental Science, October 1988).
63. See, more generally, Michael Mulkay, Jonathan Potter and Steven Yearley, 'Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse is Needed', in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (London: Sage, 1983), 171-203; Jonathan Potter, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction (London: Sage, 1996); Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Routledge, 1988); S. Woolgar, 'What Is the Analysis of Scientific Rhetoric For? A Comment on the Possible Convergence Between Rhetorical Analysis and Social Studies of Science', Science, Technology,
64. See, more generally, Michael Mulkay, Jonathan Potter and Steven Yearley, 'Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse is Needed', in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (London: Sage, 1983), 171-203; Jonathan Potter, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction (London: Sage, 1996); Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Routledge, 1988); S. Woolgar, 'What Is the Analysis of Scientific Rhetoric For? A Comment on the Possible Convergence Between Rhetorical Analysis and Social Studies of Science', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1989), 47-49; Greg Myers, 'Essay Review: Writing, Readings and the History of Science', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 20 (1989), 271-84; Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), Chapter 1, 'Literature', 21-62.
65. See, more generally, Michael Mulkay, Jonathan Potter and Steven Yearley, 'Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse is Needed', in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (London: Sage, 1983), 171-203; Jonathan Potter, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction (London: Sage, 1996); Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Routledge, 1988); S. Woolgar, 'What Is the Analysis of Scientific Rhetoric For? A Comment on the Possible Convergence Between Rhetorical Analysis and Social Studies of Science', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1989), 47-49; Greg Myers, 'Essay Review: Writing, Readings and the History of Science', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 20 (1989), 271-84; Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), Chapter 1, 'Literature', 21-62.
66. See, more generally, Michael Mulkay, Jonathan Potter and Steven Yearley, 'Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse is Needed', in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (London: Sage, 1983), 171-203; Jonathan Potter, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction (London: Sage, 1996); Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Routledge, 1988); S. Woolgar, 'What Is the Analysis of Scientific Rhetoric For? A Comment on the Possible Convergence Between Rhetorical Analysis and Social Studies of Science', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1989), 47-49; Greg Myers, 'Essay Review: Writing, Readings and the History of Science', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 20 (1989), 271-84; Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), Chapter 1, 'Literature', 21-62.
67. See, more generally, Michael Mulkay, Jonathan Potter and Steven Yearley, 'Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse is Needed', in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (London: Sage, 1983), 171-203; Jonathan Potter, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction (London: Sage, 1996); Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Routledge, 1988); S. Woolgar, 'What Is the Analysis of Scientific Rhetoric For? A Comment on the Possible Convergence Between Rhetorical Analysis and Social Studies of Science', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1989), 47-49; Greg Myers, 'Essay Review: Writing, Readings and the History of Science', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 20 (1989), 271-84; Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), Chapter 1, 'Literature', 21-62.
68. See, more generally, Michael Mulkay, Jonathan Potter and Steven Yearley, 'Why an Analysis of Scientific Discourse is Needed', in Karin D. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds), Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science (London: Sage, 1983), 171-203; Jonathan Potter, Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction (London: Sage, 1996); Steve Woolgar, Science: The Very Idea (London: Routledge, 1988); S. Woolgar, 'What Is the Analysis of Scientific Rhetoric For? A Comment on the Possible Convergence Between Rhetorical Analysis and Social Studies of Science', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 14, No. 1 (Winter 1989), 47-49; Greg Myers, 'Essay Review: Writing, Readings and the History of Science', Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Vol. 20 (1989), 271-84; Bruno Latour, Science in Action: How To Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), Chapter 1, 'Literature', 21-62.
69. Stephen Hilgartner, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2000), 9.
70. John Schuster and Richard Yeo, The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986), 'Introduction', xxvi.
71. Evelleen Richards, Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics? (London: Macmillan, 1991), 190. In many ways the approach in this paper augments the tradition of studies of scientific controversy exemplified in work such as H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Trevor Pinch, Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986); Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards, 'Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision Making', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995), 506-26; David Mercer, 'Understanding Scientific and Technical Controversy' (Wollongong, NSW; Wollongong University Science & Technology Policy Research Group, Occasional Paper No. 1, 1996).
72. Evelleen Richards, Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics? (London: Macmillan, 1991), 190. In many ways the approach in this paper augments the tradition of studies of scientific controversy exemplified in work such as H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Trevor Pinch, Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986); Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards, 'Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision Making', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995), 506-26; David Mercer, 'Understanding Scientific and Technical Controversy' (Wollongong, NSW; Wollongong University Science & Technology Policy Research Group, Occasional Paper No. 1, 1996).
73. Evelleen Richards, Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics? (London: Macmillan, 1991), 190. In many ways the approach in this paper augments the tradition of studies of scientific controversy exemplified in work such as H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Trevor Pinch, Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986); Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards, 'Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision Making', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995), 506-26; David Mercer, 'Understanding Scientific and Technical Controversy' (Wollongong, NSW; Wollongong University Science & Technology Policy Research Group, Occasional Paper No. 1, 1996).
74. Evelleen Richards, Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics? (London: Macmillan, 1991), 190. In many ways the approach in this paper augments the tradition of studies of scientific controversy exemplified in work such as H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Trevor Pinch, Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986); Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards, 'Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision Making', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995), 506-26; David Mercer, 'Understanding Scientific and Technical Controversy' (Wollongong, NSW; Wollongong University Science & Technology Policy Research Group, Occasional Paper No. 1, 1996).
75. Evelleen Richards, Vitamin C and Cancer: Medicine or Politics? (London: Macmillan, 1991), 190. In many ways the approach in this paper augments the tradition of studies of scientific controversy exemplified in work such as H.M. Collins, Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice (London: Sage, 1985); Trevor Pinch, Confronting Nature: The Sociology of Solar-Neutrino Detection (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986); Brian Martin and Evelleen Richards, 'Scientific Knowledge, Controversy and Public Decision Making', in Sheila Jasanoff, Gerald E. Markle, James C. Petersen and Trevor Pinch (eds), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (Thousand Oaks, CA, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1995), 506-26; David Mercer, 'Understanding Scientific and Technical Controversy' (Wollongong, NSW; Wollongong University Science & Technology Policy Research Group, Occasional Paper No. 1, 1996).
76. Pierre Bourdieu, 'The Specificity of the Scientific Field and the Social Conditions of the Progress of Reason', Social Science Information, Vol. 14 (1975), 19-47, at 24.
77. A similar point was made a number of years ago by Alan Mazur, in The Dynamics of Technical Controversies (Washington, DC: Communication Press, 1981). Mazur documents the marked similarities that develop over time in the rhetoric used in different scientific controversies. The approach which I will develop investigates these similarities at a more formal level, and without Mazur's positivist conclusions concerning the identification of the sources of controversies in social movements and 'distortion' of science.
78. Mike Michael, 'Lay Discourses of Science; Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular, and Self', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Summer 1992), 313-33. Michael provides a valuable discussion, highlighting the need to differentiate discussion of science in general as a symbolic resource and the more specific ways science, in particular, is understood often through more direct day-to-day experience. These representations and ideals in certain respects could also be described as 'boundary objects' or 'boundary ordering devices'; such devices must be sufficiently malleable and reproducible to be meaningful for different actors with different social interests, but still provide opportunities to be interpreted differently by these actors: see discussion in Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, No. 3 (August 1987), 391-427; S.L. Star and James R. Griesemer, 'Institutional Ecology, "Translations" and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39', ibid., Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 387-420; Joan H. Fujimura, 'Constructing "Do-able" Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment', ibid., Vol. 17, No. 2 (May 1987), 257-93.
79. Mike Michael, 'Lay Discourses of Science; Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular, and Self', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Summer 1992), 313-33. Michael provides a valuable discussion, highlighting the need to differentiate discussion of science in general as a symbolic resource and the more specific ways science, in particular, is understood often through more direct day-to-day experience. These representations and ideals in certain respects could also be described as 'boundary objects' or 'boundary ordering devices'; such devices must be sufficiently malleable and reproducible to be meaningful for different actors with different social interests, but still provide opportunities to be interpreted differently by these actors: see discussion in Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, No. 3 (August 1987), 391-427; S.L. Star and James R. Griesemer, 'Institutional Ecology, "Translations" and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39', ibid., Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 387-420; Joan H. Fujimura, 'Constructing "Do-able" Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment', ibid., Vol. 17, No. 2 (May 1987), 257-93.
80. Mike Michael, 'Lay Discourses of Science; Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular, and Self', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Summer 1992), 313-33. Michael provides a valuable discussion, highlighting the need to differentiate discussion of science in general as a symbolic resource and the more specific ways science, in particular, is understood often through more direct day-to-day experience. These representations and ideals in certain respects could also be described as 'boundary objects' or 'boundary ordering devices'; such devices must be sufficiently malleable and reproducible to be meaningful for different actors with different social interests, but still provide opportunities to be interpreted differently by these actors: see discussion in Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, No. 3 (August 1987), 391-427; S.L. Star and James R. Griesemer, 'Institutional Ecology, "Translations" and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39', ibid., Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 387-420; Joan H. Fujimura, 'Constructing "Do-able" Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment', ibid., Vol. 17, No. 2 (May 1987), 257-93.
81. Mike Michael, 'Lay Discourses of Science; Science-in-General, Science-in-Particular, and Self', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Summer 1992), 313-33. Michael provides a valuable discussion, highlighting the need to differentiate discussion of science in general as a symbolic resource and the more specific ways science, in particular, is understood often through more direct day-to-day experience. These representations and ideals in certain respects could also be described as 'boundary objects' or 'boundary ordering devices'; such devices must be sufficiently malleable and reproducible to be meaningful for different actors with different social interests, but still provide opportunities to be interpreted differently by these actors: see discussion in Susan Leigh Star, 'Scientific Work and Uncertainty', Social Studies of Science, Vol.15, No. 3 (August 1987), 391-427; S.L. Star and James R. Griesemer, 'Institutional Ecology, "Translations" and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39', ibid., Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 387-420; Joan H. Fujimura, 'Constructing "Do-able" Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment', ibid., Vol. 17, No. 2 (May 1987), 257-93.
82. Brian Wynne and Alan Irwin (eds), Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); B. Wynne, 'Public Understanding of Science', in Jasanoff et al. (eds), op. cit. note 25, 361-88; Stephen Hilgartner, 'The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 3 (August 1990), 519-39. For a detailed study of the politics involved in incorporating policy and lay understandings of science in controversial settings, see Steven Epstein, Impure Science: Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley & London: University of California Press, 1996).
83. Brian Wynne and Alan Irwin (eds), Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); B. Wynne, 'Public Understanding of Science', in Jasanoff et al. (eds), op. cit. note 25, 361-88; Stephen Hilgartner, 'The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 3 (August 1990), 519-39. For a detailed study of the politics involved in incorporating policy and lay understandings of science in controversial settings, see Steven Epstein, Impure Science: Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley & London: University of California Press, 1996).
84. Brian Wynne and Alan Irwin (eds), Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); B. Wynne, 'Public Understanding of Science', in Jasanoff et al. (eds), op. cit. note 25, 361-88; Stephen Hilgartner, 'The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 3 (August 1990), 519-39. For a detailed study of the politics involved in incorporating policy and lay understandings of science in controversial settings, see Steven Epstein, Impure Science: Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley & London: University of California Press, 1996).
85. Brian Wynne and Alan Irwin (eds), Misunderstanding Science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996); B. Wynne, 'Public Understanding of Science', in Jasanoff et al. (eds), op. cit. note 25, 361-88; Stephen Hilgartner, 'The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 20, No. 3 (August 1990), 519-39. For a detailed study of the politics involved in incorporating policy and lay understandings of science in controversial settings, see Steven Epstein, Impure Science: Aids, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge (Berkeley & London: University of California Press, 1996).
86. ELCOM Submission (August 1990), op. cit. note 17, 4C 2 (4.12).
87. Ibid., 4C 10 (4.13.5). This quote was drawn from Graves, op. cit. note 7.
88. Ibid., 4C 10 (4.13.5). This quote was drawn from Graves, op. cit. note 7.
89. Jane Gregory and Steve Miller, Science in Public: Communication and Credibility (New York: Plenum Trade, 1998).
90. ELCOM Submission (August 1990), op. cit. note 17, 4C 3 (4.13.1).
91. Ibid., 4C 3 (4.13.3).
92. Les Levidow, 'Three Mile Island: The Ideology of Safe Level as a Material Force', Radical Science Journal, No. 9 (1979), 82-92.
93. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 2/20.
94. Lisa M. Mitchell and Alberto Cambrosio, 'The Invisible Topography of Power: Electromagnetic Fields, Bodies and the Environment', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 1997), 221-71; L. Furby, Paul Slovik, Baruch Fischoff and R. Gregory, 'Public Perceptions of Electrical Power Transmission Lines', Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 8 (1988), 19-43; Steve Rayner and Loutillie W. Rickert, 'Perception of Risk: The Social Context of Public Concern Over Non-Ionizing Radiation', in Michael H. Repacholi (ed.), Non-Ionizing Radiations: Physical Characteristics, Biological Effects and Health Hazard Assessment (Yallambie, Victoria: IRPA/INIRC/EC/Australian Radiation Laboratories, 1988), 39-48; David Mercer, 'The Hazards of Decontextualised Accounts of Public Perceptions of Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Risk', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 22, (1998), 291-94.
95. Lisa M. Mitchell and Alberto Cambrosio, 'The Invisible Topography of Power: Electromagnetic Fields, Bodies and the Environment', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 1997), 221-71; L. Furby, Paul Slovik, Baruch Fischoff and R. Gregory, 'Public Perceptions of Electrical Power Transmission Lines', Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 8 (1988), 19-43; Steve Rayner and Loutillie W. Rickert, 'Perception of Risk: The Social Context of Public Concern Over Non-Ionizing Radiation', in Michael H. Repacholi (ed.), Non-Ionizing Radiations: Physical Characteristics, Biological Effects and Health Hazard Assessment (Yallambie, Victoria: IRPA/INIRC/EC/Australian Radiation Laboratories, 1988), 39-48; David Mercer, 'The Hazards of Decontextualised Accounts of Public Perceptions of Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Risk', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 22, (1998), 291-94.
96. Lisa M. Mitchell and Alberto Cambrosio, 'The Invisible Topography of Power: Electromagnetic Fields, Bodies and the Environment', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 1997), 221-71; L. Furby, Paul Slovik, Baruch Fischoff and R. Gregory, 'Public Perceptions of Electrical Power Transmission Lines', Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 8 (1988), 19-43; Steve Rayner and Loutillie W. Rickert, 'Perception of Risk: The Social Context of Public Concern Over Non-Ionizing Radiation', in Michael H. Repacholi (ed.), Non-Ionizing Radiations: Physical Characteristics, Biological Effects and Health Hazard Assessment (Yallambie, Victoria: IRPA/INIRC/EC/Australian Radiation Laboratories, 1988), 39-48; David Mercer, 'The Hazards of Decontextualised Accounts of Public Perceptions of Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Risk', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 22, (1998), 291-94.
97. Lisa M. Mitchell and Alberto Cambrosio, 'The Invisible Topography of Power: Electromagnetic Fields, Bodies and the Environment', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 1997), 221-71; L. Furby, Paul Slovik, Baruch Fischoff and R. Gregory, 'Public Perceptions of Electrical Power Transmission Lines', Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 8 (1988), 19-43; Steve Rayner and Loutillie W. Rickert, 'Perception of Risk: The Social Context of Public Concern Over Non-Ionizing Radiation', in Michael H. Repacholi (ed.), Non-Ionizing Radiations: Physical Characteristics, Biological Effects and Health Hazard Assessment (Yallambie, Victoria: IRPA/INIRC/EC/Australian Radiation Laboratories, 1988), 39-48; David Mercer, 'The Hazards of Decontextualised Accounts of Public Perceptions of Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Risk', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, Vol. 22, (1998), 291-94.
98. G. Nigel Gilbert and Michael Mulkay, Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 52.
99. It is also worth noting that the relatively formal nature of the submissions, especially for ELCOM, meant there was a tendency for their narratives to be drawn from the so-called 'empiricist repertoire', ahead of the so-called 'contingent repertoire'. Gilbert and Mulkay observed that the 'empiricist repertoire' was predominant in the formal research literature of scientists; in these contexts, they identified 'recurrent, stylistic, grammatical and lexical features which appear coherently related' (ibid., 52). The author's involvements, commitments, social ties, judgements and actions are mentioned as little as possible; routines and procedures are portrayed as universal, and laboratory work described in a conventionalized manner: '[B]y adopting these kinds of linguistic features, authors construct texts in which the physical world seems regularly to speak, and sometimes to act for itself. Empiricist discourse is organised in a manner which denies its character as an interpretive product and which denies that its author's actions are relevant to its content' (56). A further feature of this repertoire was that opposing work '... tend[ed] to be either ignored or depicted in a way which emphasize[d] ... [its] inadequacy, when measured against the "purely factual" character of the author's results' (47). In contrast to this repertoire, Gilbert and Mulkay observed that in informal settings scientists often used the 'contingent repertoire'. In this repertoire, scientists regularly presented '... their actions and beliefs as heavily dependent on speculative insights, prior intellectual commitments, personal characteristics, indescribable skills, social ties and group membership' (56). In informal settings there was also a tendency for there to be an asymmetric process of 'accounting for error': that is, scientists juxtaposed their own work with scientific work with which they disagreed, by describing their own work using the empiricist repertoire but opposing work in terms of the contingent repertoire (68-69). Whilst the Inquiry submissions tended to rely on the empiricist repertoire more than the contingent repertoire, it is useful to recognize that because of their public/adversarial orientation, more attention was devoted to challenging the viewpoints of opponents than in the more formalized genre of reporting found in the scientific research papers studied by Gilbert and Mulkay. It is also of interest that the submissions assembled by the protest groups more frequently engaged in the asymmetric 'accounting for error', than did the submissions of ELCOM. It is possible that this might have resulted from the fact that protest groups were 'underdogs' in the setting of the Inquiry. This meant that attempting to undermine 'establishment' views required the use of much broader cultural resources than ELCOM, who held the option of merely restating the authority of their position and ignoring many of the arguments raised by protest groups.
100. For discussions of the symbolic dimensions of trust in controversial scientific settings, see: Steven Shapin, The Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994); Brian Wynne, 'Technology, Risk, and Participation: The Social Treatment of Uncertainty', in Jobst Conrad (ed.), Society, Technology and Risk Assessment (London & New York: Academic Press, 1980), 83-107.
101. For discussions of the symbolic dimensions of trust in controversial scientific settings, see: Steven Shapin, The Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1994); Brian Wynne, 'Technology, Risk, and Participation: The Social Treatment of Uncertainty', in Jobst Conrad (ed.), Society, Technology and Risk Assessment (London & New York: Academic Press, 1980), 83-107.
102. ELCOM Submission (August 1990), op. cit. note 17, 4C 11 (4.15.1).
103. For discussion of the flexibility involved in interpreting experimental replication, see Collins, op. cit. note 25; and, more generally, for discussion of the interpretive flexibility of experimentation and technological testing, respectively, see Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1998), and The Golem at Large: What Everyone Should Know About Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). For a detailed study of the knowledge politics entering into systems of classification, see Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).
104. For discussion of the flexibility involved in interpreting experimental replication, see Collins, op. cit. note 25; and, more generally, for discussion of the interpretive flexibility of experimentation and technological testing, respectively, see Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1998), and The Golem at Large: What Everyone Should Know About Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). For a detailed study of the knowledge politics entering into systems of classification, see Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).
105. For discussion of the flexibility involved in interpreting experimental replication, see Collins, op. cit. note 25; and, more generally, for discussion of the interpretive flexibility of experimentation and technological testing, respectively, see Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1998), and The Golem at Large: What Everyone Should Know About Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). For a detailed study of the knowledge politics entering into systems of classification, see Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).
106. For discussion of the flexibility involved in interpreting experimental replication, see Collins, op. cit. note 25; and, more generally, for discussion of the interpretive flexibility of experimentation and technological testing, respectively, see Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, The Golem: What Everyone Should Know About Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edn, 1998), and The Golem at Large: What Everyone Should Know About Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). For a detailed study of the knowledge politics entering into systems of classification, see Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000).
107. ELCOM Submission (August 1990), op. cit. note 17, 4C 13, 4C 14, Exhibit 4.13 (see Figure 1).
108. Ibid., 4C 13, 4C 15 Exhibit 4.14 (see Figure 2).
109. Ibid., 4C 14 (4.16.2).
110. Ibid., 4C 13.
111. Ibid., 4C 17 (14.16.3).
112. For the classic discussion on the politics and symbolic value of images of the 'ideology' of science, see Michael Mulkay, 'Norms and Ideology in Science', Social Science Information, Vol. 15 (1976), 637-56.
113. Epidemiology's ability to satisfy canons of scientific and legal causation would appear to be highly variable, depending on the politics and specific contingencies of any particular case or set of cases/disputes: see discussion in Gary Edmond and David Mercer, 'Litigation Life: Law-Science Knowledge Construction in (Bendectin) Mass Toxic Tort Litigation', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 30, No. 2 (April 2000), 265-316.
114. ELCOM Submission (August 1990), op. cit. note 17, 4C 11 (4.15.2).
115. Ibid., 4C 12 (4.15.4).
116. Difficulty in conducting in vivo studies for childhood leukaemia, for instance.
117. Ibid., 4C 11 - 4C 12 (4.15.1 - 4.15.4).
118. Theodore M. Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 202-09, provides a brief historical background to Austin Bradford Hill and the origins of attempts to provide objective measurable criteria in medical contexts; see also Richards, op. cit. note 25. For some broader discussion of the politics of differing perceptions of epidemiological significance and standards in relation to EMF, see Daniel Wartenberg, 'How Dangerous is it Really? Some Approaches for Inferring Risk', in Repacholi & Muc (eds), op. cit. note 3, 213-27, and D. Wartenberg and Michael Greenberg, 'Epidemiology, the Press and the EMF Controversy', Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 4 (October 1992), 383-94.
119. Theodore M. Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 202-09, provides a brief historical background to Austin Bradford Hill and the origins of attempts to provide objective measurable criteria in medical contexts; see also Richards, op. cit. note 25. For some broader discussion of the politics of differing perceptions of epidemiological significance and standards in relation to EMF, see Daniel Wartenberg, 'How Dangerous is it Really? Some Approaches for Inferring Risk', in Repacholi & Muc (eds), op. cit. note 3, 213-27, and D. Wartenberg and Michael Greenberg, 'Epidemiology, the Press and the EMF Controversy', Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 4 (October 1992), 383-94.
120. Theodore M. Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 202-09, provides a brief historical background to Austin Bradford Hill and the origins of attempts to provide objective measurable criteria in medical contexts; see also Richards, op. cit. note 25. For some broader discussion of the politics of differing perceptions of epidemiological significance and standards in relation to EMF, see Daniel Wartenberg, 'How Dangerous is it Really? Some Approaches for Inferring Risk', in Repacholi & Muc (eds), op. cit. note 3, 213-27, and D. Wartenberg and Michael Greenberg, 'Epidemiology, the Press and the EMF Controversy', Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 4 (October 1992), 383-94.
121. Theodore M. Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 202-09, provides a brief historical background to Austin Bradford Hill and the origins of attempts to provide objective measurable criteria in medical contexts; see also Richards, op. cit. note 25. For some broader discussion of the politics of differing perceptions of epidemiological significance and standards in relation to EMF, see Daniel Wartenberg, 'How Dangerous is it Really? Some Approaches for Inferring Risk', in Repacholi & Muc (eds), op. cit. note 3, 213-27, and D. Wartenberg and Michael Greenberg, 'Epidemiology, the Press and the EMF Controversy', Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 4 (October 1992), 383-94.
122. ELCOM Submission (August 1990), op. cit. note 17, 4C 11 - 4C 12 (4.15.2).
123. It should be noted that, using this check list, it was still possible to make some claims for epidemiology suggesting EMF harm. This was done but with significant modifications, including a scoring system proposed by Vincent Delpizzo in 'An Evaluation of the Existing Evidence on the Carcinogenic Potential of Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields', Australian Physical and Engineering Sciences in Medicine, Vol.12 (1989), 56-67.
124. Politicized disagreements over uncertainties and standards of what should count as scientific proof appear in many scientific controversies: for an important discussion, see Paul Edwards, 'Global Climate Science, Uncertainty and Polities', Science as Culture, Vol. 8 (1999), 437-72.
125. ELCOM Submission (August 1990), op. cit. note 17, 4C 12 (4.15.3).
126. Ibid., 4C 12 (4.15.4).
127. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/1.iv.
128. See, for example, Becker & Marino, op. cit. note 13; Becker & Seldon, op. cit. note 13.
129. See, for example, Becker & Marino, op. cit. note 13; Becker & Seldon, op. cit. note 13.
130. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/33. Also see the discussion in Robert Proctor, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 1995).
131. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/33. Also see the discussion in Robert Proctor, Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don't Know About Cancer (New York: Basic Books, 1995).
132. Macmillan (1987), op. cit., note 20, 3/30. For a sample of Becker's work, see Robert O. Becker, Cross Currents: The Promise of Electromedicine, the Perils of Electropollution (Los Angeles, CA & New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/St Martin's Press, 1990); Becker & Marino, op. cit. note 13; Becker & Seldon, op. cit. note 13.
133. Macmillan (1987), op. cit., note 20, 3/30. For a sample of Becker's work, see Robert O. Becker, Cross Currents: The Promise of Electromedicine, the Perils of Electropollution (Los Angeles, CA & New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/St Martin's Press, 1990); Becker & Marino, op. cit. note 13; Becker & Seldon, op. cit. note 13.
134. Macmillan (1987), op. cit., note 20, 3/30. For a sample of Becker's work, see Robert O. Becker, Cross Currents: The Promise of Electromedicine, the Perils of Electropollution (Los Angeles, CA & New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/St Martin's Press, 1990); Becker & Marino, op. cit. note 13; Becker & Seldon, op. cit. note 13.
135. Macmillan (1987), op. cit., note 20, 3/30. For a sample of Becker's work, see Robert O. Becker, Cross Currents: The Promise of Electromedicine, the Perils of Electropollution (Los Angeles, CA & New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/St Martin's Press, 1990); Becker & Marino, op. cit. note 13; Becker & Seldon, op. cit. note 13.
136. Macmillan quoted quite liberally from an industry newsletter edited by Louis Slesin, Microwave News. This newsletter has played an important rôle in persistently reporting on new EMF studies and Government Policy debate. For discussion of its rôle in the EMF debate, see P. Elmer De Wirt, 'Hidden Perils of the Airways: An Obscure Newsletter Uncovers the Perils of the Information Age', Time Magazine (30 July 1990), 51.
137. Macmillan quoted quite liberally from an industry newsletter edited by Louis Slesin, Microwave News. This newsletter has played an important rôle in persistently reporting on new EMF studies and Government Policy debate. For discussion of its rôle in the EMF debate, see P. Elmer De Wirt, 'Hidden Perils of the Airways: An Obscure Newsletter Uncovers the Perils of the Information Age', Time Magazine (30 July 1990), 51.
138. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/30. It is worth noting that explicit reference to Kuhn and the idea of 'paradigms' has become a relatively common feature in popular accounts of the EMF debate. It is also notable that the concept is used in a variety of flexible and, at times, inconsistent ways. In particular, it is worth noting that 'paradigm' is used as a 'prescriptive device', a guide to how good science should progress, and has, progressed, rather than a descriptive tool. The intrinsic sociological/historical orientation of Kuhn's work is brushed over. The situation is not dissimilar to that noted by Michael Mulkay, but in relation to the flexible application of 'Popper's "scientific method"' in scientists' justificatory rhetoric: see Michael Mulkay and G. Nigel Gilbert, 'Putting Philosophy to Work' (1981), in Michael Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, UK & Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, 1991), 109-30. For some examples of the use of 'paradigm' in relation to new EMF science and Bioelectromagnetics, see M. Granger Morgan's review of Brodeur's Currents of Death (op. cit. note 13), 'Exposé Treatment Confounds Understanding of Serious Public Health Issue', Scientific American (April 1990), 92-95. Granger Morgan favours 'little paradigms', in the sense of the development of a new discipline with new ways of evaluating and generating evidence. For application of 'paradigm' to cover literally the notion that EMF research and Bioelectromagnetics inaugurate a new medical world view, see Becker, op. cit. note 63.
139. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/30. It is worth noting that explicit reference to Kuhn and the idea of 'paradigms' has become a relatively common feature in popular accounts of the EMF debate. It is also notable that the concept is used in a variety of flexible and, at times, inconsistent ways. In particular, it is worth noting that 'paradigm' is used as a 'prescriptive device', a guide to how good science should progress, and has, progressed, rather than a descriptive tool. The intrinsic sociological/historical orientation of Kuhn's work is brushed over. The situation is not dissimilar to that noted by Michael Mulkay, but in relation to the flexible application of 'Popper's "scientific method"' in scientists' justificatory rhetoric: see Michael Mulkay and G. Nigel Gilbert, 'Putting Philosophy to Work' (1981), in Michael Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, UK & Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, 1991), 109-30. For some examples of the use of 'paradigm' in relation to new EMF science and Bioelectromagnetics, see M. Granger Morgan's review of Brodeur's Currents of Death (op. cit. note 13), 'Exposé Treatment Confounds Understanding of Serious Public Health Issue', Scientific American (April 1990), 92-95. Granger Morgan favours 'little paradigms', in the sense of the development of a new discipline with new ways of evaluating and generating evidence. For application of 'paradigm' to cover literally the notion that EMF research and Bioelectromagnetics inaugurate a new medical world view, see Becker, op. cit. note 63.
140. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/30. It is worth noting that explicit reference to Kuhn and the idea of 'paradigms' has become a relatively common feature in popular accounts of the EMF debate. It is also notable that the concept is used in a variety of flexible and, at times, inconsistent ways. In particular, it is worth noting that 'paradigm' is used as a 'prescriptive device', a guide to how good science should progress, and has, progressed, rather than a descriptive tool. The intrinsic sociological/historical orientation of Kuhn's work is brushed over. The situation is not dissimilar to that noted by Michael Mulkay, but in relation to the flexible application of 'Popper's "scientific method"' in scientists' justificatory rhetoric: see Michael Mulkay and G. Nigel Gilbert, 'Putting Philosophy to Work' (1981), in Michael Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, UK & Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, 1991), 109-30. For some examples of the use of 'paradigm' in relation to new EMF science and Bioelectromagnetics, see M. Granger Morgan's review of Brodeur's Currents of Death (op. cit. note 13), 'Exposé Treatment Confounds Understanding of Serious Public Health Issue', Scientific American (April 1990), 92-95. Granger Morgan favours 'little paradigms', in the sense of the development of a new discipline with new ways of evaluating and generating evidence. For application of 'paradigm' to cover literally the notion that EMF research and Bioelectromagnetics inaugurate a new medical world view, see Becker, op. cit. note 63.
141. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/30. It is worth noting that explicit reference to Kuhn and the idea of 'paradigms' has become a relatively common feature in popular accounts of the EMF debate. It is also notable that the concept is used in a variety of flexible and, at times, inconsistent ways. In particular, it is worth noting that 'paradigm' is used as a 'prescriptive device', a guide to how good science should progress, and has, progressed, rather than a descriptive tool. The intrinsic sociological/historical orientation of Kuhn's work is brushed over. The situation is not dissimilar to that noted by Michael Mulkay, but in relation to the flexible application of 'Popper's "scientific method"' in scientists' justificatory rhetoric: see Michael Mulkay and G. Nigel Gilbert, 'Putting Philosophy to Work' (1981), in Michael Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, UK & Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, 1991), 109-30. For some examples of the use of 'paradigm' in relation to new EMF science and Bioelectromagnetics, see M. Granger Morgan's review of Brodeur's Currents of Death (op. cit. note 13), 'Exposé Treatment Confounds Understanding of Serious Public Health Issue', Scientific American (April 1990), 92-95. Granger Morgan favours 'little paradigms', in the sense of the development of a new discipline with new ways of evaluating and generating evidence. For application of 'paradigm' to cover literally the notion that EMF research and Bioelectromagnetics inaugurate a new medical world view, see Becker, op. cit. note 63.
142. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/30. It is worth noting that explicit reference to Kuhn and the idea of 'paradigms' has become a relatively common feature in popular accounts of the EMF debate. It is also notable that the concept is used in a variety of flexible and, at times, inconsistent ways. In particular, it is worth noting that 'paradigm' is used as a 'prescriptive device', a guide to how good science should progress, and has, progressed, rather than a descriptive tool. The intrinsic sociological/historical orientation of Kuhn's work is brushed over. The situation is not dissimilar to that noted by Michael Mulkay, but in relation to the flexible application of 'Popper's "scientific method"' in scientists' justificatory rhetoric: see Michael Mulkay and G. Nigel Gilbert, 'Putting Philosophy to Work' (1981), in Michael Mulkay, Sociology of Science: A Sociological Pilgrimage (Milton Keynes, UK & Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press, 1991), 109-30. For some examples of the use of 'paradigm' in relation to new EMF science and Bioelectromagnetics, see M. Granger Morgan's review of Brodeur's Currents of Death (op. cit. note 13), 'Exposé Treatment Confounds Understanding of Serious Public Health Issue', Scientific American (April 1990), 92-95. Granger Morgan favours 'little paradigms', in the sense of the development of a new discipline with new ways of evaluating and generating evidence. For application of 'paradigm' to cover literally the notion that EMF research and Bioelectromagnetics inaugurate a new medical world view, see Becker, op. cit. note 63.
143. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 3/32.
144. Ibid., 3/34.
145. Ibid., 3/36-3/37.
146. Ibid., 3/39.
147. Ibid., 3/39-3/40.
148. Macmillan (1990a), op. cit. note 20, 19.
149. Ibid., 23.
150. I b i d.
151. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 4/2.
152. Ibid., 3/44-3/45.
153. See, for instance, discussion by Macmillan in Gibbs Inquiry proceedings, especially in relation to the needs for the latter two factors of biological plausibility and the existence of experimental evidence: Transcript of Inquiry, 390-91.
154. Macmillan (1990a), op. cit. note 20, xiii.
155. Ibid., xiv.
156. Ibid., xiii-xiv.
157. Ibid., 4/4.
158. Ibid., iv.
159. Macmillan (1987), op. cit. note 20, 4/15.
160. Ibid., 4/16.
161. Ibid., 4/17-4/18.
162. Randall Albury, The Politics of Objectivity (Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1983); see also discussion in Mulkay, op. cit. note 48.
163. Randall Albury, The Politics of Objectivity (Victoria: Deakin University Press, 1983); see also discussion in Mulkay, op. cit. note 48.
164. See the papers in Barry Barnes and Steven Shapin (eds), Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (London: Sage, 1979), especially the three (by MacKenzie & Barnes, Dean, and Harwood) in Part Three, 'The Social Basis of Scientific Controversy', 191-251, and the Editors' Introduction to that section, 187-89. Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky explore these types of linkages at a rather speculative and macro level in their Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley & London: University of California Press, 1982).
165. See the papers in Barry Barnes and Steven Shapin (eds), Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (London: Sage, 1979), especially the three (by MacKenzie & Barnes, Dean, and Harwood) in Part Three, 'The Social Basis of Scientific Controversy', 191-251, and the Editors' Introduction to that section, 187-89. Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky explore these types of linkages at a rather speculative and macro level in their Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley & London: University of California Press, 1982).
166. See the papers in Barry Barnes and Steven Shapin (eds), Natural Order: Historical Studies of Scientific Culture (London: Sage, 1979), especially the three (by MacKenzie & Barnes, Dean, and Harwood) in Part Three, 'The Social Basis of Scientific Controversy', 191-251, and the Editors' Introduction to that section, 187-89. Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky explore these types of linkages at a rather speculative and macro level in their Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley & London: University of California Press, 1982).
167. For studies investigating the social construction of science in legal/regulatory settings, see: Roger Smith and Brian Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (London: Routledge, 1989); Sheila Jasanoff, Science at The Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Steven Yearley, 'Bog Standards: Science and Conservation at a Public Inquiry', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 421-37; Michael Lynch and Sheila Jasanoff (eds), Special Issue on 'Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, Nos 5-6 (October-December 1998), 675-868; Alberto Cambrosio, Peter Keating and Michael Mackenzie, 'Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biochemical Patent Dispute', Social Problems, Vol. 37 (1990), 275-93; Gary Edmond, 'Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence', Modern Law Review, Vol. 63 (2000), 216-51; Edmond & Mercer, op. cit. note 49.
168. For studies investigating the social construction of science in legal/regulatory settings, see: Roger Smith and Brian Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (London: Routledge, 1989); Sheila Jasanoff, Science at The Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Steven Yearley, 'Bog Standards: Science and Conservation at a Public Inquiry', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 421-37; Michael Lynch and Sheila Jasanoff (eds), Special Issue on 'Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, Nos 5-6 (October-December 1998), 675-868; Alberto Cambrosio, Peter Keating and Michael Mackenzie, 'Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biochemical Patent Dispute', Social Problems, Vol. 37 (1990), 275-93; Gary Edmond, 'Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence', Modern Law Review, Vol. 63 (2000), 216-51; Edmond & Mercer, op. cit. note 49.
169. For studies investigating the social construction of science in legal/regulatory settings, see: Roger Smith and Brian Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (London: Routledge, 1989); Sheila Jasanoff, Science at The Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Steven Yearley, 'Bog Standards: Science and Conservation at a Public Inquiry', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 421-37; Michael Lynch and Sheila Jasanoff (eds), Special Issue on 'Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, Nos 5-6 (October-December 1998), 675-868; Alberto Cambrosio, Peter Keating and Michael Mackenzie, 'Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biochemical Patent Dispute', Social Problems, Vol. 37 (1990), 275-93; Gary Edmond, 'Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence', Modern Law Review, Vol. 63 (2000), 216-51; Edmond & Mercer, op. cit. note 49.
170. For studies investigating the social construction of science in legal/regulatory settings, see: Roger Smith and Brian Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (London: Routledge, 1989); Sheila Jasanoff, Science at The Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Steven Yearley, 'Bog Standards: Science and Conservation at a Public Inquiry', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 421-37; Michael Lynch and Sheila Jasanoff (eds), Special Issue on 'Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, Nos 5-6 (October-December 1998), 675-868; Alberto Cambrosio, Peter Keating and Michael Mackenzie, 'Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biochemical Patent Dispute', Social Problems, Vol. 37 (1990), 275-93; Gary Edmond, 'Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence', Modern Law Review, Vol. 63 (2000), 216-51; Edmond & Mercer, op. cit. note 49.
171. For studies investigating the social construction of science in legal/regulatory settings, see: Roger Smith and Brian Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (London: Routledge, 1989); Sheila Jasanoff, Science at The Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Steven Yearley, 'Bog Standards: Science and Conservation at a Public Inquiry', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 421-37; Michael Lynch and Sheila Jasanoff (eds), Special Issue on 'Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, Nos 5-6 (October-December 1998), 675-868; Alberto Cambrosio, Peter Keating and Michael Mackenzie, 'Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biochemical Patent Dispute', Social Problems, Vol. 37 (1990), 275-93; Gary Edmond, 'Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence', Modern Law Review, Vol. 63 (2000), 216-51; Edmond & Mercer, op. cit. note 49.
172. For studies investigating the social construction of science in legal/regulatory settings, see: Roger Smith and Brian Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (London: Routledge, 1989); Sheila Jasanoff, Science at The Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America
173. For studies investigating the social construction of science in legal/regulatory settings, see: Roger Smith and Brian Wynne (eds), Expert Evidence: Interpreting Science in the Law (London: Routledge, 1989); Sheila Jasanoff, Science at The Bar: Law, Science, and Technology in America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995); Steven Yearley, 'Bog Standards: Science and Conservation at a Public Inquiry', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19, No. 3 (August 1989), 421-37; Michael Lynch and Sheila Jasanoff (eds), Special Issue on 'Contested Identities: Science, Law and Forensic Practice', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 28, Nos 5-6 (October-December 1998), 675-868; Alberto Cambrosio, Peter Keating and Michael Mackenzie, 'Scientific Practice in the Courtroom: The Construction of Sociotechnical Identities in a Biochemical Patent Dispute', Social Problems, Vol. 37 (1990), 275-93; Gary Edmond, 'Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence', Modern Law Review, Vol. 63 (2000), 216-51; Edmond & Mercer, op. cit. note 49.
174. Gary Edmond and David Mercer, 'Trashing Junk Science', Stanford Technology Law Review, Vol. 3 (1998) 〈 http://stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/Index.htm 〉; G. Edmond and D. Mercer, 'Juggling Science: From Polemic to Pastiche', Social Epistemology, Vol. 13 (1999), 215-33.
175. Gary Edmond and David Mercer, 'Trashing Junk Science', Stanford Technology Law Review, Vol. 3 (1998) 〈 http://stanford.edu/STLR/Articles/Index.htm 〉; G. Edmond and D. Mercer, 'Juggling Science: From Polemic to Pastiche', Social Epistemology, Vol. 13 (1999), 215-33.
176. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113, S.Ct. 2786 (1993).
177. Gary Edmond and David Mercer, 'Recognising Daubert: What Judges Should Know about Falsificationism', Expert Evidence, Vol. 5-6 (1996-97), 29-42; Shana M. Solomon and Edward J. Hackett, 'Setting Boundaries between Science and Law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spring 1996), 131-56.
178. Gary Edmond and David Mercer, 'Recognising Daubert: What Judges Should Know about Falsificationism', Expert Evidence, Vol. 5-6 (1996-97), 29-42; Shana M. Solomon and Edward J. Hackett, 'Setting Boundaries between Science and Law: Lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.', Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Spring 1996), 131-56.
179. David Rier, 'The Versatile Caveat Section of an Epidemiology Paper: Managing Public and Private Risk', Science Communication, Vol. 21 (1999), 3-37.
180. Jasanoff (1995), op. cit. note 87.
181. Jasanoff (1990), op. cit. note 10.
182. Smith & Wynne (eds), op. cit. note 87; Hilgartner (2000), op. cit. note 23.
183. Smith & Wynne (eds), op. cit. note 87; Hilgartner (2000), op. cit. note 23.
184. For some parallels to the preoccupations found in the submissions with entering into forms of de facto SSK deconstruction of opposing arguments, see: Michael Lynch, 'The Discursive Production of Uncertainty: The OJ Simpson "Dream Team" and the Sociology of Knowledge Machine', in Lynch & Jasanoff (eds), op. cit. note 87, 829-68. See also Stephan Fuchs and Steven Ward, 'What is Deconstruction, and Where and When Does it Take Place? Making Facts in Science, Building Cases in Law', American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (August 1994), 481-500.
185. For some parallels to the preoccupations found in the submissions with entering into forms of de facto SSK deconstruction of opposing arguments, see: Michael Lynch, 'The Discursive Production of Uncertainty: The OJ Simpson "Dream Team" and the Sociology of Knowledge Machine', in Lynch & Jasanoff (eds), op. cit. note 87, 829-68. See also Stephan Fuchs and Steven Ward, 'What is Deconstruction, and Where and When Does it Take Place? Making Facts in Science, Building Cases in Law', American Sociological Review, Vol. 59, No. 4 (August 1994), 481-500.
186. For commentaries on the limits of uncritical views of legal deconstruction of science, see: Gary Edmond and David Mercer, 'Manifest Destiny: Law and Science in America', Metascience, Vol. 10, (1996), 40-58; G. Edmond, 'Science in Court; Negotiating the Meaning of a "Scientific" Experiment During a Murder Trial, and Some Limits to Legal Deconstruction for the Public Understanding of Law and Science', Sydney Law Review, Vol. 20 (1998), 361-406.
187. For commentaries on the limits of uncritical views of legal deconstruction of science, see: Gary Edmond and David Mercer, 'Manifest Destiny: Law and Science in America', Metascience, Vol. 10, (1996), 40-58; G. Edmond, 'Science in Court; Negotiating the Meaning of a "Scientific" Experiment During a Murder Trial, and Some Limits to Legal Deconstruction for the Public Understanding of Law and Science', Sydney Law Review, Vol. 20 (1998), 361-406.