Comparing regulatory options: the role of epistemic policies and pragmatic consequences

Abstract

The controversies surrounding the regulation of technology depend, among other factors, on the diversity of the regulatory objectives prioritized by the distinct social actors. These differences may also lead to controversies in the realm of regulatory science: controversies between distinct epistemic policies. As controversies are partly the result of prioritizing different objectives, comparing alternative regulatory options is a seemingly impossible endeavour. In this paper, we offer a partial solution to this problem by proposing a means of comparing different regulatory options. This proposal makes it possible to analyse and assess the different options and facilitates the adoption of compromises between the various parties to the controversy, even if it is unable to eliminate the differences in the prioritization of objectives. The case study we have used to illustrate the main ideas of this paper is the controversy surrounding the regulation of health claims in the European Union.