首页    期刊浏览 2024年10月06日 星期日
登录注册

文章基本信息

  • 标题:Inclusive development and prioritization of review questions in a highly controversial field of regulatory science
  • 本地全文:下载
  • 作者:Armin Spök ; Monica Racovita ; Sandra Karner
  • 期刊名称:Environmental Evidence
  • 印刷版ISSN:2047-2382
  • 电子版ISSN:2047-2382
  • 出版年度:2018
  • 卷号:7
  • 期号:1
  • 页码:1
  • DOI:10.1186/s13750-017-0113-z
  • 语种:English
  • 出版社:BioMed Central
  • 摘要:How to best assess potential health, environmental and other impacts of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and how to interpret the resulting evidence base have been long-standing controversial issues in the EU. As a response, transparency and inclusiveness became a major focus of regulatory science activities in the GMO impact area. Nevertheless, nearly three decades of controversies resulted in a heavily polarized policy environment, calling for further efforts. Against this backdrop the EU funded project GRACE explored the value of evidence synthesis approaches for GMO impact assessment and developed an evidence synthesis framework with a strong emphasis on openness, stakeholder engagement, transparency, and responsiveness to tackle regulatory science challenges. This framework was tested and implemented in the course of 14 systematic reviews or maps conducted on selected review questions spanning potential health, environmental, and socioeconomic impacts of GMOs. An inclusive development and prioritisation of review questions is of key importance in evidence synthesis as it helps to provide a better link between stakeholder demands and concerns and policy relevant outcomes. This paper, therefore, places a particular focus on the stakeholder involvement strategy developed and experiences gathered during this particular step in the course of the GRACE project. Based on this experience, possible lessons for future engagement exercises in highly controversial fields of regulatory science are discussed.
  • 关键词:Evidence synthesis ; Systematic reviews ; Transparency ; Inclusiveness ; Stakeholder involvement ; GMO impact assessment ; GMO risk assessment ; Prioritization of review questions
国家哲学社会科学文献中心版权所有