Society critically depends on scientific expertise to inform and justify action on many complex issues. Scientific debates drive science, but the processes of informing policy are commonly designed with the assumption of scientific consensus, for example about the nature of chemical risk. We are concerned that this design may result in the manufacturing of consensus through the exclusion of potentially valuable epistemic perspectives. This paper studies the scientific controversy around a group of chemicals (endocrine disruptors, EDs) as a case of science-for-policy dispute in complex fields with large scientific uncertainties. We conducted two focus groups with scientists from either side of the dispute and analyzed the dominant narratives about ED research and regulation that emerged from the conversation in each group. We found starkly contrasting narratives, which, to the best of our understanding, are both based on valid and epistemically sound concerns: one story was about the insurmountable complexity of environmental endocrine impacts, and concerns about normatively inappropriate industry influence on regulation; the other about barriers to efficient and effective science for policy processes. Archetypes from each group’s narrative were used as tools to discredit the epistemic authority of the disputing side and present their own side as the sole authority to inform regulation, thus striving to manufacture consensus to gain epistemic authority. Our study suggests that the expectation of consensus in areas with large uncertainties incentivizes scientists to use questionable methods to gain epistemic authority, else they themselves risk being closed out of the decision space. We conclude that there is a need to redesign processes where science advises policy so as to improve their capacity to draw on a plurality of scientific expertise, while safeguarding against the influence of normatively inappropriate forces and epistemically flawed approaches.

社会严重依赖科学专业知识来为许多复杂问题提供信息并为之辩护。科学辩论推动科学发展，但通常在科学共识的假设下设计告知政策的流程，例如有关化学风险的性质。我们担心，这种设计可能会通过排除潜在有价值的认知观点而导致达成共识。本文研究了一组化学物质（内分泌干扰物，EDs）周围的科学争议，以作为在科学领域不确定性很大的复杂领域中的科学政策冲突的案例。我们与争端双方的科学家进行了两个焦点小组讨论，并分析了在每个小组的对话中出现的有关ED研究和法规的主要叙述。我们发现了截然不同的叙述，据我们所知，这些叙述都是基于有效和认识论上的合理关切：一个故事是关于环境内分泌影响的不可克服的复杂性，以及有关行业对法规的规范性不当影响的关注；另一类是关于有效而有效的政策流程科学的障碍。每个小组的叙述中的原型都被用作tools毁争议一方的认知权威的工具，并将自己的一方作为唯一的权威来告知法规，从而努力达成共识以获取认知权威。我们的研究表明，对于不确定性较大的地区达成共识的期望，会激励科学家使用可疑的方法来获得认知权威，否则他们自己就有可能被排除在决策空间之外。我们得出的结论是，有必要重新设计科学为政策提供建议的流程，以提高其利用多种科学专业知识的能力，同时还要避免受到规范上不合适的力量和认识论上有缺陷的方法的影响。