Meghani, Z. And Kuzma, J. Re-Conceptualizing Objectivity

¶ … Meghani, Z. And Kuzma, J. Re-Conceptualizing Objectivity to Address the Regulatory Agency-Industry "Revolving Door" Problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.

Assessment of Model Article

What about this article do you wish to emulate?

In evaluating Mghani and Kuzma (2010), I wish to emulate their clear straightforward style and objective methodology. The article lays out an evidence base of how: a) the presence of former key industry personnel on review boards could adversely impact the public's confidence in regulatory decisions about new technology products, including agrifood biotechnologies; b) the "revolving door" may result in policy decisions about technologies that are biased in favor of industry interests; and c) the "revolving door" virtually guarantees industry a voice in the policy-making process, even though other stakeholders have no assurance that their concerns will be addressed by regulatory agencies. Furthermore the paper presents a plan of action based on regulatory entities rejecting the traditional notion of objectivity. That will ensure that a heterogeneous group of stakeholders is at the decision-making table. The fair representation of interests of different constituencies in the review process could do much to inspire warranted public confidence in regulatory protocols and decisions.

How do you see the structure of the article as a model?

Most social research originates from some general problem or question. Mghani and Kuzma (2010) can serve as a model for social research papers as its focus is broad enough that you could not hope to address it adequately in a single research study. Consequently, the question is narrowed down to a more specific research question that to be address. The research question is often stated in the context of some theory that has been advanced to address the problem. For instance, the theory that ongoing support services are needed to assure that the newly employed remain employed. The research question is the central issue being addressed in the study and is often phrased in the language of theory. For example in my own research examining the origins of the Revolving Door phenomenon in federal government, as well as how the Revolving Door has influenced federal government actions, the investigation was focused through a qualitative examination of primary documents in the form of archival reports from various government agencies and documents in the form of published reports from the media and watchdog organizations

Comment on what you find useful about how the argument is presented in this article.

I found Mghani and Kuzma's discussion of objectivity to be useful for my own research. They highlight how the current system of stakeholder elicitation and interviews to rate the performance of GEOs oversight in the U.S. suggests that there are numerous conflicts of interest in the system, transparency is low, public input in decision-making is minimal, and more stakeholder engagement is needed in the risk analysis process. One industry representative in this study called for "early and broad stakeholder engagement" and that "stakeholder should be defined very broadly meaning: public, NGOs, federal regulators, industry, academia, etc." A former government representative noted that the scientific community is wholly mistrusted and that the "science community should not decide how much regulation it should be subject to. Sooner or later you are going to have stakeholders involved, so it might as well be sooner. An academic interviewed noted that the "development of system should be more inclusive. Coordinated Framework [for GEOs oversight] was a closed door process. Need to involve public, not just industry." In short, they conducted valuable research and synthesis that will help me in writing my own paper.

Comment on what you find useful about how the literature is reviewed in this article.

I found it useful how they cite literature within the text of their own writing but with enough explanaition that a lay person who had not read the articles could still understand the articles being discussed.

Comment on what you find useful about how the methodology and evidence are presented.

The methodology of this paper allowed for an analysis of some of the background assumptions that mediate the relationship between hypotheses and evidence in light of normative commitments. Given that the relationship between hypotheses and data is mediated by background assumptions that might be normatively loaded, it should not be assumed that the theories of risk assessment that the FDA uses to make its policies. This methodology however allowed them to have more confidence in their policy suggestions.

Finally, briefly explain how you think this article and your article will be different.