Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

SAGETRACK

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Social Studies of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mercer, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Scientific Method Discourses in the Construction of `EMF Science'

Interests, Resources and Rhetoric in Submissions to a Public Inquiry

David Mercer

Science, Technology and Society, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia; fax: +61 2 42 213179; david_mercer{at}uow.edu.au

Since the late 1970s, there has been considerable debate surrounding the question of whether or not exposures to non-ionizing radiation and electric and magnetic fields (EMF), produced by powerlines and electrical and telecommunications technologies, are harmful to health. Whilst there has been some recent evidence of regulatory fatigue, and attempts to enforce closure, the EMF debate nevertheless still continues. This paper will explore the rôle played by competing images of scientific method in the argumentative strategies used by two of the main protagonists in an Australian public inquiry (held in 1990-91) which investigated the EMF issue: `Inquiry into Community Needs and High Voltage (132kv and above) Transmission Line Development', the so-called Gibbs Inquiry. Apart from documenting some of the epistemologically intricate features of the EMF controversy, the following discussion will also consider the way scientific method discourses can contribute to enhancing the durability of knowledge claims in legal and regulatory settings.

Key Words: expert evidence • law and regulation • non-ionizing radiation • powerlines • risk • scientific controversy

Social Studies of Science, Vol. 32, No. 2, 205-233 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0306312702032002002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Social Studies of ScienceHome page
S. Sismondo
Ghosts in the machine: publication planning in the medical sciences.
Social Studies of Science, April 1, 2009; 39(2): 171 - 198.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Social Studies of ScienceHome page
A. Rip
Constructing Expertise: In a Third Wave of Science Studies?
Social Studies of Science, June 1, 2003; 33(3): 419 - 434.
[PDF]