Much of the genesis of the concern over that role results from situations that do not involve formal stakeholder processes. Such disputes involve general disagreements among stakeholders that arise partly due to differences in interpretations of the science that underlies particular actions and partly due to differences in how science is weighed against the many other factors that contribute to decisions about managing risks. A rigorous analysis of the social factors that contribute to differing interpretations of scientific information and how science weighs as a factor in decision-making is beyond the scope of this analysis and worthy of more focused research. Politics versus science . Some cynics argue that most risk management decisions are made on the basis of political expediency and that neither good science nor efforts at stakeholder collaboration have any real influence.
More rigorous study is needed to determine whether and to what extent that is indeed the case.
Interestingly , the thesis that participation increases credibility is also consistent with other cases, not discussed here, where community participation in scientific investigations improved the credibility of the results within an affected community, but not necessarily within the broader scientific community. For example, during the contentious debate that characterized the investigation and litigation associated with the Woburn, Massachusetts community s belief that trichloroethylene-contaminated drinking water was the cause of their leukemia cluster, the only scientific study that was credible to the community was The Harvard Study . It is possible, however, that if the Harvard Study had not supported the community s belief regarding a causal association between exposure and outcome, that it would not have retained its credibility with the community.