This paper describes the scientific/advisory discourse about mobile phone risk that was prevalent in the late 1990s. It argues that advisory responses to public concern constituted a ‘discourse of compliance’, which was strengthened by implicit support from the mobile phone industry. This discourse used compliance with advisory guidelines as the endpoint for discussions with the public. Evidence from non-experts and concerns about the basis of the guidelines were rejected. This discourse acted as a barrier to expert engagement with the public and with the broader context of uncertainties about the safety of mobile phones. The paper explains how this style of scientific advice was exposed as fragile, despite its claims to represent only the best available science, which, it was claimed, was well-understood and consensual.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jack Stilgoe (2005) studied this question.