Understanding conflicting views of endocrine disruptor experts: a pilot study using argumentation analysis

Abstract

To what extent do substances have the potential to cause adverse health effects through an endocrine mode of action? This question elicited intense debates between endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) experts. The pervasive nature of the underlying differences of opinion justifies a systematic analysis of the argumentation put forward by the experts involved. Two scientific publications pertaining to EDS science were analyzed using pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT). PDAT’s methodology allowed us to perform a maximally impartial and systematic analysis. Using PDAT, the structure of the argumentation put forward in both publications was reconstructed, main standpoints, and arguments were identified, underlying unexpressed premises were made explicit and major differences in starting points were uncovered. The five differences in starting points identified were subdivided into two categories: interpretative ambiguity about underlying scientific evidence and normative ambiguity about differences in broader norms and values. Accordingly, two differences in starting points were explored further using existing risk and expert role typologies. We emphasize that particularly the settlement of normative ambiguity, through the involvement of broader ethical, social or political values, inherently requires multi-stakeholder approaches. Extrapolation of our findings to the broader discussion on EDS science and further exploration of the roles of EDS experts in policy processes should follow from further research.