The EMF Case: How to Communicate about Risks if Scientific Knowledge Lacks? Lic. phil. Andrea T. Thalmann

Transkript

1 Programmgruppe Mensch Umwelt Technik The EMF Case: How to Communicate about Risks if Scientific Knowledge Lacks? Lic. phil. Andrea T. Thalmann

2 EMF-Case: Uncertainty in Scientific Knowledge We have still uncertainty in scientific knowledge regarding radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (EMF) and health risk below the limit values. Key Question What is the best way to effectively communicate different strengths of evidence to laypersons?

3 Examples of Risk Communication Tools in the Debate on EMF and Health Risks Recommendation of the Strahlenschutzkommission (2001), Germany Report of the Ecolog-Insitut (2000), Germany Report of Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landschaft (2003), Switzerland

4 Report of the Strahlenschutzkommission (SSK) Reaktionen bzw Gesundheitsbeeinträchtigungen. A 1 Interaktion mit Zellen und subzellulären Strukturen N V H Moleküle und Membran Kalzium A 2 Einfluss auf Menschen und Tiere Verhalten bei Tieren T T T three strengths of evidence EEG beim Menschen, Schlaf T endpoints of studies Kognitive Funktionen Blut-Hirn-Schranke bei Ratten Melatonin bei Tieren und bei Menschen T T Blutparameter und Immunsystem G Reproduktion und Entwicklung

5 Report of the Ecolog-Institut endpoints of studies Wirkung/Effekt Methode S (W/m 2 ) / SAR (W/kg) Klassifizierung Schwache Hinweise Hinweise starke Hinweise Konsistente Hinweise Nachweis Krebs Krebs, insgesamt Epidemiologie + Experiment, Tier 0,5/ + Leukämie Epidemiologie + Lymphdrüsenkrebs Epidemiologie + Experiment, Tier 3/0,01 + Gehirntumoren Epidemiologie + Experiment, Tier 0,01/ + Lungenkrebs Epidemiologie + Brustkrebs Epidemiologie, Frauen + Epidemiologie, Männer Experiment, Tier 10/0,3 + Augenkrebs Epidemiologie + Hodenkrebs Epidemiologie + Hautkrebs Experiment, Tier 10/1,2 + andere Krebsformen Epidemiologie + Experiment, Tier /0,5 + five strengths of evidence

6 Report of the Bundesamt für Umwelt, Wald und Landwirtschaft (BUWAL) type of effects Evidenz Wirkung Gravierend Einschränkung des Wohlbefindens unklare Gesundheitsrelevanz Gesichert (konsistente Befunde) Implantate Wahrscheinlich (mehrfache Hinweise auf Effekte) Reaktionszeit Schlafphasen five trengths of evidence Möglich (einzelne Hinweise auf Effekte) Unwahrscheinlich (mehrfache Hinweise auf Abwesenheit) Leukämie/Lymphone Hirmtumore Mortalität Weitere Tumore Schlafqualität Hypersensibilität Nicht beurteilbar (wenig Daten) Augentumore Psychisches Befinden Hormonsystem Immunsystem different endpoints

7 Research Questions How do laypersons perceive verbal labels describing different strengths of evidence? Do definitions improve laypersons understanding of verbal labels describing different strengths of evidence? Does the context in which evidence labels are embedded influence laypersons perceptions of different strengths of evidence?

8 Evidence Labels ECOLOG SSK BUWAL Proof Consistent Hint Strong Hint Hint Weak Hint Proof Suspicion Hint Confirmed Probable Possible Improbable

9 Context of the Evidence Labels Label Label with Definition Serious Effects Effects with Impact on Well-being Effects with Unclear Impact on Health

10 Design of the Experimental Studies Rating Scale 0 % 10% 20 % 30% 40% 50 % 60% 70% 80 % 90% 100% 0% strengths of evidence 100% strengths of evidence Samples Experiment 1: 103 young adults from Germany (average age=17 years) Experiment 2: 152 young adults from Austria (average age=20 years) Experiment 3: 250 young adults from Switzerland (average age=24 years)

11 Research Question 1 Perception of the Evidence Labels

12 Result 1: Laypersons Perception of the Five Ecolog-Labels = Median = Mean N = 99 Proof Consistent Hint Strong Hint Hint Weak Hint % Strenth of Evidence

13 Result 2: Laypersons Perception of the Three SSK-Labels = Median = Mean N = 152 Proof Suspicion Hint % Strength of Evidence

14 Research Question 2 Role of Definitions

15 Result 3: Laypersons Perception of the Five Ecolog-Definitions of the Evidence Labels = Median = Mean N = 100 Proof Consistent Hint Strong Hint Hint Weak Hint % Strenth of Evidence

16 Result 4: Laypersons Perception of the Three SSK-Definition of the Evidence Labels = Median = Mean N = 150 Proof Suspicion Hint % Strength of Evidence

17 Research Question 3 Role of the Context

18 Result 4: Laypersons Perception of the BUWAL Evidence Labels in different contexts Confirmed Effects Probable Effects Possible Effects Improbable Effects Contexts Only Evidence Labels Labels with Definitions Serious Effects Effects with Impact on Well-being effects with Unclear Impact on Health = Median % Strength of Evidence

19 Summary Communication tools - which are created by experts to communicate the strengths of evidence - were not properly understood by laypersons. The used verbal labels (e.g. suspicion or consistent hint) were not properly understood by laypersons. Definitions did not improve laypersons understandings of the labels. The context in which evidence labels are used have an impact on laypersons understanding of evidence labels.

20 Conclusion Lack of clarity Lack of transparency Lack of understanding Consequence for Risk Communication More emphasis must be placed on the description of different strength of evidence. Communication tools have to be evaluated with regard to the consumer-oriented perspective before being implemented in brochures.

21 Thank You for Your Interest! Lic. phil. Andrea T. Thalmann