Governance

CONSEQUENCES FOR REGULATORY GOVERNANCE

The main thrust of this paper was to address the role of science in regulation from a perspective that is not restricted to science as policy advice. Even though this perspective can be more than justified, it is less suitable to understand the role of scientific expertise during regulatory enforcement or implementation, in which there is less a transfer of scientific knowledge into policy-making than a fusion of both. Following the assumption that science-based risk regulation is not only expanding but also creates a distinct set of problems, regulatory science is suggested as an analytical concept. While the previous debate on the relationship between science and politics was assuming two separate spheres, regulatory sciences is not transferred from outside, as would be the case with scientific policy advice, but is already part of the regulatory process. Because policy relevant implications are present from the start, regulatory science has the capacity to serve public purposes better than the more distanced academic science. Most transfer and translation problems inherent to academic science are bypassed.

The flipside of the coin is no less relevant. Assuming that politicians and interest groups are inclined to exploit either scientific indeterminacy or disputes among scientists in critical cases, regulatory science is more exposed to interest-driven demands and interferences. In the science studies community such a conclusion would presumably be seen as meaningless, because science is biased from the outset. But from a political science perspective there are at least two aspects worth being investigated. The first is the duplicating the credibility dilemma. On top of the already well-known credible commitment problem, that politicians have to face when regulatory functions are delegated, the duplication emanates from science-inherent indeterminacy or controversies which can be seen as an additional source of conflict in...