Constructing the Authorities of Science: Framing the Chlorinated Disinfection Byproducts Issue As a Public Health Benefit and a Public Health Risk.* S. M. Driedger and J. D. Eyles, McMaster University
Chlorine disinfection of drinking water supplies has been hailed as providing the single largest benefit for public health. However, there have been some studies which have shown a positive association between exposure to chlorinated disinfection byproducts and cancer outcomes, though the evidence is still equivocal. While many would argue that exposure to these disinfection byproducts is a ‘voluntary’ risk (i.e. protecting the public from microbial pathogens being more important) others have framed the issue as an ‘involuntary’ risk (i.e. the public was never given the option as to what disinfection treatment plan should be followed). In Canada, an expert panel report, Health Risks of Drinking Water Chlorination Byproducts: Report of an Expert Working Group (1998), was published which has set the stage for the construction of the chlorinated disinfection byproducts debate. The purpose of this presentation is to examine the science-agenda regarding this debate in Canada by exploring on how the focus of science has changed since the publication of the Health Canada Expert Panel report. Scientists and professionals play a key role in shaping public policy debates, particularly in constructing the risk assessments upon which policy decisions are made. This presentation focuses on the social construction of scientific knowledge and evidence. We argue that by examining changes in scientific foci surrounding a research issue it is possible to identify critical shifts in the direction in which scientists and professionals move research and policy. Through in-depth key informant interviews with epidemiologists and toxicologists and an examination of the summary baseline of scientific evidence on the debate, we demonstrate that there is a distinction between the ‘public discourse’ or official position as represented in published documents compared to the ‘private discourse’ or personal positions of experts as expressed during interview conversations.
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation.
*Student Travel Award and Best Paper Semifinalist.
Go to . . .
2001 SRA Annual Meeting Table of Contents
2001 SRA Annual Meeting Author Index
Main Abstracts Menu Page
RiskWorld Home Page