LAUSR

Despite over half a century of scientific research into the safety of Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs: from static to 300GHz), safety levels and advice to policy makers have not changed substantially. However, public concern over lack of adequate recognition of “low level” effects persists, with “expert groups” apparently divided [Sage, 2012] and the methods of collation, analysis, and comparison of evidence criticized. The form of scientific review has been challenged in this journal [Sage et al., 2016] and defended [Leitgeb, 2016]. However, EMF is not alone in receiving this type of criticism. Many issues, including climate change, genetically-modified crops, airborne pollutants, etc. also face controversy. Having been involved in reviews of EMF-related scientific studies both in Australia and as part of international panels, the author is aware of the difficulties in producing balanced, and at the same time, insightful reviews. In relation to this, the work of Funtowicz and Ravetz [1993] on the concept of “Post-Normal Science” is useful. The concept has been applied to a range of environmental issues, such as synthetic biology, antimicrobial resistance, nanotechnology, climate change, airborne pollutants, as well as electromagnetic fields [Kastenhofer, 2011; Spruijt et al., 2014]. However, there is more to be added, particularly in light of more recent discussions on the notion of science in crisis [Saltelli and Funtowicz, 2017]. This has direct application to the question of how improvements could be made in conducting scientific investigations and reviews and how these should interface with policy-making. Additionally, the question of whether bioelectromagnetic controversies are somehow “special” (requiring a customized approach) will be examined. Why Is the Concept of Post-Normal Science Useful?