Analysis of argumentation in the scientific debate on endocrine disrupting substances risk assessment and management using pragma-dialectical theory: a pilot study

Endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) include a wide variety of chemical substances that may negatively affect the hormonal system of humans and wildlife and subsequently cause adverse health effects. Examples of confirmed EDS... [ view full abstract ]

Endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) include a wide variety of chemical substances that may negatively affect the hormonal system of humans and wildlife and subsequently cause adverse health effects. Examples of confirmed EDS and substances suspected of having ED properties are certain pesticides, flame retardants, plasticizers and Bisphenol A. Due to the ubiquitous nature of these substances, an accompanying societal discussion on how to deal with the potential EDS risks is inevitable. Ideally, this discussion should be supported by maximally unequivocal and high quality scientific knowledge and transparent weight-of-evidence reasoning.

However, the scientific debate on the potential risks of EDS has become highly polarized, with experts contesting the technical and normative interpretations of ‘opposing’ experts. There is, for example, disagreement about the role of potency in characterizing a substance as an EDS and the nature of scientific evidence necessary to establish causality between EDS exposure and adverse health effects.

To study the factors that enhance or hinder the quality of the scientific debate on EDS, we applied insights from pragma-dialectical argumentation theory. Two high-profile scientific papers on EDS with opposing standpoint have been analyzed. The argumentation structure, argumentation scheme and unexpressed premises in both papers were reconstructed and used to reflect on the four stages of an ideal discussion and ten rules for a reasonable discussion proposed by pragma-dialectical theory. This enables a reflection on the technical and normative content, reasonableness and, consequently, the quality of the argumentation and the argumentative exchange as a whole.

Preliminary results show that fundamental disagreement about the starting points of the discussion - both technical and normative – as well as arguments that may be interpreted as fallacies impede a reasonable solution to the various differences of opinion held by EDS experts.