↓ Skip to main content

Models of science–policy interaction: Exploring approaches to Bisphenol A management in the EU

Overview of attention for article published in Science of the Total Environment, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Models of science–policy interaction: Exploring approaches to Bisphenol A management in the EU
Published in
Science of the Total Environment, July 2014
DOI 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.03.046
Pubmed ID
Authors

O. Udovyk

Abstract

This study investigated science-policy interaction models and their limitations under conditions of uncertainty. In detail, it looked at the management of the suspected endocrine-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA). Despite growing evidence that BPA is hazardous to human and environmental health, the level of scientific uncertainty is still high and, as a result, there is significant disagreement on the actual extent and type of risk. Analysis of decision-making processes at different regulatory levels (EU, Sweden, and the Swedish municipality of Gothenburg) exposed chemicals risk management and associated science-policy interaction under uncertainty. The results of the study show that chemicals management and associated science-policy interaction follow the modern model of science-policy interaction, where science is assumed to 'speak truth to policy' and highlights existing limitations of this model under conditions of uncertainty. The study not only explores alternative models (precautionary, consensus, science-policy demarcation. and extended participation) but also shows their limitations. The study concludes that all models come with their particular underlying assumptions, strengths, and limitations. At the same time, by exposing serious limitations of the modern model, the study calls for a rethinking of the relationship between science, policy, and management.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Unknown 30 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 23%
Researcher 7 23%
Professor 4 13%
Unspecified 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 10 32%
Social Sciences 8 26%
Unspecified 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 10%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Other 5 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 May 2014.
All research outputs
#9,631,937
of 12,040,225 outputs
Outputs from Science of the Total Environment
#6,163
of 8,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#129,260
of 192,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science of the Total Environment
#72
of 109 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,040,225 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,071 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 192,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 109 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.