@article{4505c48c0b7841358aa9c64210172453,
title = "Regulatory science - Towards a sociological framework",
abstract = "The close relationship between scientific expertise and regulatory policy in certain controversial and public areas has prompted commentators to suggest the concept of 'regulatory science'. However, definition is generally constrained either to the concerns of regulatory science or to its context. This paper proposes an approach to regulatory science which is both empirically-based and allows a more theoretical treatment of the new conditions of scientific and regulatory activity. A particular case-study of the British agrochemicals sector is presented in terms of a five-way analytical framework for regulatory science. The paper concludes by considering the wider relevance of regulatory science for future sociological and policy research.",
author = "Alan Irwin and Henry Rothstein and Steven Yearley and Elaine McCarthy",
note = "Funding Information: Within agrochemicals, research in this category is primarily located within the academic sector and is likely to derive funding from research councils and other government sources but, significantly, may also be supported, directly or indirectly, by industrial funding. Some of the more sophisticated industrial laboratories, independent and private sector laboratories also claim to be increasingly undertaking basic research. With regard to agrochemicals, speculative research raises particular questions about industry-university cooperation-which many in the industry feel is less than sufficient. Instead, there would appear to be a lack of communication between speculative research funded by the private and public sectors. Basic research on hazard may simply be of relevance to pesticides or may have cross-sectoral implications for other chemical hazards. For example, whilst work on environmental fate may be directly concerned with agrochemicals, research on hormonal disrupters may apply across the chemical sector. In that sense then, this is likely to be the least {\textquoteleft}sector specific{\textquoteright} area within regulatory science. Closely linked to this is {\textquoteleft}blue sky{\textquoteright} basic research, which might lead to new products or processes. This may similarly be undertaken within academic or industrial research laboratories and have a variety of funding sources. Whilst a major part of the rationale for such research does relate to putative regulatory and innovatory developments, the research may well not have immediate applications but may be part of a longer-term industrial strategy of keeping a {\textquoteleft}watching brief{\textquoteright} on significant areas of change. Whilst speculative research on products may not be of immediate relevance to regulatory agencies, there is clearly a bureaucratic interest in this area. Without at least an understanding of scientific developments, governments will be disadvantaged in terms of responding to new technical understandings, regulatory pressures from outside Britain or industrial lobbying to remove {\textquoteleft}irrelevant{\textquoteright} tests. A similar point applies to industry-one large private sector association claims that 98% of such research is funded by industry. Thus, speculative research can appear to be removed from specific regulatory matters but is nevertheless an important domain for regulatory science.",
year = "1997",
month = feb,
doi = "10.1016/s0016-3287(96)00063-8",
language = "English",
volume = "29",
pages = "17--31",
journal = "Futures",
issn = "0016-3287",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "1",
}