POLITICS VERSUS SCIENCE: APPORTIONING ... - Buffalo State

to live in fear from the dangers posed by harmless products, and questioning the
ability of science to cast light on such issues. A broader climate of fear is being
created which in turn will lead many to an even more misguided assessment of
risk and greater inflexibility towards innovation and change.
Science and politics differ not only in their approach to risk assessment and
management, but also in the extent to which risk assessment, communication, and
management intersect. Figure 1 illustrates the scientist’s perspective of interconnectivity.
This view can be contrasted with that of the politician, exemplified by David
Byrne, Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, who commented, "Science is
for scientists and policy-makers are for the law” (CNN 2000).
Harrison and Hoberg (1994, 6) summarize this quandry nicely when they write
“although scientific uncertainty underlies virtually all regulatory science debates, political
conflict often exacerbates and sustains disagreement about scientific questions.”
On the most basic level, the electorate holds policymakers responsible for policy
failure, dissuading all but the most restless and courageous to innovate. Scientists, on the
other hand, must innovate (or at a minimum, discover), if they expect to succeed in their
profession. Our examination of Europe’s evolving regulatory regime for food is
informed by this enduring conflict between science and politics.
FROM DGXI TO EFSA
To what extent might institutional and policy reforms either enhance or diminish
the effectiveness and legitimacy of food safety regulation? Does the answer to this
question depend upon one's perspective as either a scientist or a politician?
9