¹ See F. Cafaggi & A. Renda, ‘Public and Private Regulation: Mapping the Labyrinth’, CEPS Working Document, No. 370/Oct. 2012, available at: http://aei.pitt.edu/36811.

² See, e.g., Montreal Protocol Assessment Panels, available at: http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/assessment_panels_main.php, and the work of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice of the Convention on Biological Diversity, available at: http://www.cbd.int/sbstta.

³ See, e.g., ICNIRP, ‘Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields’ (1998) 74(4) Health Physics, pp. 494–522Google Scholar. ISO and IEC jointly work on the production of standards related to health, safety and environmental aspects of nanotechnologies: see ‘Nanotechnology Standardization for Electrical and Electronic Products and Systems’, IEC/TC 113, 20 Apr. 2011, available at: http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/getfile.pl/sbp_113.pdf?dir=sbp&format=pdf&type=&;file=113.pdf.

⁴ For a more detailed survey, see Haas, P.M. & Stevens, C., ‘Organized Science, Usable Knowledge and Multilateral Environmental Governance’, in Lidskog, R. & Sundqvist, G. (eds.), Governing the Air: The Dynamics of Science, Policy, and Citizen Interaction (MIT Press, 2011), pp. 125–61Google Scholar; and Meyer, T., ‘Epistemic Institutions and Epistemic Cooperation in International Environmental Governance’ (2013) 2(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 15–44.Google Scholar

⁵ See Bernstein, S. & Hannah, E., ‘Non-State Global Standard Setting and the WTO: Legitimacy and the Need for Regulatory Space’ (2008) 11(3) Journal of International Economic Law, pp. 575–608.Google Scholar

⁶ See, e.g., International Council for Science (ICSU), available at: http://www.icsu.org; International Astronomical Union (IAU), available at: http://www.iau.org; or Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS), available at: http://www.interacademies.net.

⁷ Kornfeld, W.A. & Hewitt, C.E., ‘The Scientific Community Metaphor’ (1981) 11(1) IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, pp. 24–33, at 25.Google Scholar

⁸ See Trenberth, K.E., ‘Attribution of Climate Variations and Trends to Human Influences and Natural Variability’ (2011) 2(6) Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, pp. 925–30.Google Scholar

⁹ Hulme, M., ‘IPCC: Cherish It, Tweak It or Scrap It’ (2010) 463(7282) Nature, pp. 730–2.Google Scholar

¹⁰ ICNIRP, ‘General Approach to Protection Against Non-Ionizing Radiation: ICNIRP Statement’ (2002) 82(4) Health Physics, pp. 540–8.Google Scholar

¹¹ ICN, Factsheet and Key Messages, Apr. 2009, available at: http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc608.pdf (emphasis added).

¹² For the increasing importance of CBA in contemporary regulation see, e.g., Shapiro, S.A. & Schroeder, C.H., ‘Beyond Conflict-Benefit Analysis: A Pragmatic Reorientation’ (2009) 32 Harvard Environmental Law Review, pp. 433–502Google Scholar. The reference document for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) indicates several research questions that will require socio-economic analysis. See IPCC, ‘Agreed Reference Material for the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (Working Group II, Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability)’, Approved by IPCC-31, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5-outline-compilation.pdf.

¹³ In Kumho Tire Co., Ltd v. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Court held that the Daubert ‘gatekeeping’ factors apply not only to scientific testimony but to all expert testimony, which was later interpreted to include also economic analysis. On the application of Kumho Tire to economic analysis, see Coastal Fuels, Inc. v. Caribbean Petroleum Corp., 175 F.3d 18, 34 n.12 (1st Cir. 1999) and Page, W. & Lopatka, J., ‘Economic Authority and the Limits of Expertise in Antitrust Cases’ (2005) 90(3) Cornell Law Review, pp. 617–703.Google Scholar

¹⁴ New York, NY (US), 9 May 1992, in force 21 Mar. 1994, available at: http://unfccc.int.

¹⁵ See Hulme, M. & Mahony, M., ‘Climate Change: What Do We Know About the IPCC?’ (2010) 34(5) Progress in Physical Geography, pp. 705–18Google Scholar, at 712. For the influence of the IPCC on domestic regulatory processes, see Wagner, W., Fisher, E. & Pascual, P., ‘Misunderstanding Models in Environmental and Public Health Regulation’ (2010) 18(2) New York University Environmental Law Journal, pp. 293–356Google Scholar, at 293, 302–3, 314, noting especially the reliance of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on the findings of the IPCC in its ‘Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act, 74 Fed. Reg. No. 239, 66496, 66497’, 15 Dec. 2009, available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Federal_Register-EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171-Dec.15-09.pdf.

¹⁶ Indeed, the IPCC’s grim projections have not been translated to policy prescriptions. See T. Skodvin & K.H. Alfsen, ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Outline of an Assessment’ CICERO Policy Note 2010:01, Jan. 2010, at pp. 9–10, available at: http://www.cicero.uio.no/media/8026.pdf.

¹⁷ See Israel, M., Ivanova, M. & Zaryabova, V., ‘Criticism of the Philosophy for Development of Standards for Non-Ionizing Radiation’ (2011) 31(2) The Environmentalist, pp. 121–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Repacholi, M., ‘Science and Precautionary Measures in EMF Policy’ (2010) 10(1) IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Djelic notes that the ICN had to revise is ultimate objectives, moving from an attempt to generate global harmonization of competition rules to ‘informed divergence’, which reflects the reality that best practices will always have to be tailored to national circumstances: see Djelic, M., ‘International Competition Network’, in Hale, T. & Held, D. (eds.), The Handbook of Transnational Governance: Institutions and Innovations (Polity, 2011), at p. 86.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Memorandum of Understanding between the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/docs/MOU_between_UNEP_and_WMO_on_IPCC-1989.pdf.

²⁰ Author Principles Governing IPCC Work, Approved at the 14^th Session (Vienna (Austria), 1–3 Oct. 1998) on 1 Oct. 1998, amended at the 21^st Session (Vienna (Austria), 3 and 6–7 Nov. 2003) and at the 25^th Session (Mauritius, 26–28 Apr. 2006), available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf.

²¹ These reports have to be approved by the IPCC plenary by consensus. IPCC Governing Principles, Art. 4 states: ‘Major decisions of the IPCC will be taken by the Panel in plenary meetings.’ Art. 10 states that ‘in taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus’. While Art. 10 allows for some exceptions, the principle of consensus has been a key feature of the IPCC institutional culture: see Yohe, G. & Oppenheimer, M., ‘Evaluation, Characterization, and Communication of Uncertainty by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: An Introductory Essay’ (2011) 108(4) Climatic Change, pp. 629–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²² These political-regulatory bodies include Conferences of the Parties (COPs) of the UNFCCC, the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) established under Art. 9 of the UNFCCC; Skodvin & Alfsen, n. 16 above, at p. 4.

²³ These bodies include the Working Groups (WGs) and the IPCC plenaries. Two examples could illustrate this point. Firstly, it is customary that any changes to the summaries of the reports (the summary for policy-makers and executive summary) in WG plenary may not take place without consent from the lead authors of the chapter in question. Secondly, according to the IPCC rules of procedure, the WG plenary may not amend a report that has been approved by the WG plenary (it has to accept or reject it en bloc). These two principles guarantee that scientists have significant control over the decision-making process despite the fact that the WG and IPCC plenaries are dominated by government officials: see Skodvin & Alfsen, n. 16 above, at pp. 6–7. For a different view on this question, see Haas & Stevens, n. 4 above, at p. 144.

²⁴ See ICNIRP, ‘Aim & Roots’, available at: http://www.icnirp.de/aim.htm.

²⁵ ICNIRP Charter, adopted by the General Assembly of IRPA, Montreal (Canada), 20 May 1992. In addition to the Charter, ICNIRP is also bound by the Statutes of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP Statutes) which were approved at the Commission Meeting, 23–26 Apr. 2003 in Rome (Italy).

²⁶ See ICNIRP Statutes, ibid., para. 10.

²⁷ See, e.g., P. Vecchia et al., ‘Exposure to High Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Biological Effects and Health Consequences (100 kHz–300 GHz): Review of the Scientific Evidence and Health Consequences’, ICNIRP, 2009, available at: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/RFReview.pdf; Swerdlow, A.J. et al. ., ‘Mobile Phones, Brain Tumors, and the Interphone Study: Where Are We Now?’ (2011) 119(11) Environmental Health Perspectives, pp. 1534–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

²⁸ The WHO is quite open about its reliance on ICNIRP: ‘WHO encourages the establishment of exposure limits and other control measures that provide the same or similar level of health protection for all people. It endorses the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and encourages Member States to adopt these international guidelines’: World Health Organization, ‘Framework for Developing Health-Based EMF Standards’, 2006, available at: http://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/EMF_standards_framework[1].pdf.

²⁹ See ICNIRP Statutes, n. 25 above, para. 6.

³⁰ Fox, E.M., ‘Linked-In: Antitrust and the Virtues of a Virtual Network’ (2009) 43 International Lawyer, pp. 151–74.Google Scholar

³¹ See Arts. 1(i) and 3.2 of the ICN Operational Framework, adopted by ICN members 13 Feb. 2012 (ICN Operational Framework), available at: http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc784.pdf.

³² Excerpt from ‘The ICN’s Vision for its Second Decade’ (presented at the 10^th Annual Conference of the ICN in the Hague (the Netherlands), 17 May 2011) (ICN Vision), available at: http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc755.pdf.

³³ See, e.g., Souty, F., ‘From the Halls of Geneva to the Shores of the Low Countries: The Origins of the International Competition Network’, in Lugard, P. (ed.), The ICN at Ten (Intersentia, 2011), pp. 39–49.Google Scholar

³⁴ Sokol, D., ‘Monopolists without Borders: The Institutional Challenge of International Antitrust in a Global Gilded Age’ (2007) 4 Berkeley Business Law Journal, pp. 37–122, at 106–7.Google Scholar

³⁵ Although some of the work of the IPCC draws also on the social sciences and thus raises similar problems.

³⁶ See, e.g., Kornfeld & Hewitt, n. 7 above.

³⁷ Ibid., at p. 25; A. Birukou, ‘State of the Art in Scientific Knowledge Creation, Dissemination, Evaluation and Maintenance’, Departmental Technical Report, DISI-09-067, Department of Information Engineering and Computer Science, University of Trento (Italy), Dec. 2009, at p. 6, available at: http://www.academia.edu/1074672/State_of_the_Art_in_Scientific_Knowledge_Creation_Dissemination_Evaluation_and_Maintenance.

³⁸ Kornfeld & Hewitt, ibid., at p. 25.

³⁹ See further Birukou, n. 37 above, at p. 6.

⁴⁰ Popper, K., The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath (Princeton University Press, 1971), at p. 218.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid.

⁴² Thornton, S., ‘Karl Popper’, in Zalta, E.N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford University, 2011)Google Scholar, available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/popper.

⁴³ Hessels, L.K. & van Lente, H., ‘Re-thinking New Knowledge Production: A Literature Review and a Research Agenda’ (2008) 37(4) Research Policy, pp. 740–60Google Scholar, at 742; Funtowicz, S.O. & Ravetz, J.R., ‘Science for the Post-Normal Age’ (1993) 25(7) Futures, pp. 739–55Google Scholar; Gibbons, M., ‘Science’s New Social Contract with Society’ (1999) 402(6761 Suppl) Nature, pp. 81–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ravetz, J., ‘The Post-Normal Science of Precaution’ (2004) 36(3) Futures, pp. 347–57, at 356–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁵ Gibbons, n. 43 above, at C84. On this point see also Snir, R., ‘Governance by Disclosure: Transnational Convergence in the Field of Nanotechnology’, (2013) 2(1) Transnational Environmental Law, pp. 69–94.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ This problematique is also discussed in Snir, ibid, at pp. 71, 76–7, 86–8.

⁴⁷ See Trenberth, n. 8 above; ICNIRP, n. 10 above, at p. 541, and Wagner et al., n. 15 above, at p. 309.

⁴⁸ Edenhofer, O., ‘Different Views Ensure IPCC Balance’ (2011) 1(5) Nature Climate Change, pp. 229–30.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ On policy-driven modelling, see Wagner et al, n. 15 above, at p. 309.

⁵⁰ See Bourdieu, P., ‘The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field’ (1986–87) 38 Hastings Law Journal, pp. 805–53Google Scholar; Scalia, A., ‘The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules’ (1989) 56 University of Chicago Law Review, pp. 1175–88Google Scholar; Gardner, J., ‘Legal Positivism: 5½ Myths’ (2001) 46 American Journal of Jurisprudence, pp. 199–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵¹ See Bourdieu, ibid., at p. 838.

⁵² Haas & Stevens, n. 4 above, at p. 148; Haas, P.M., ‘When Does Power Listen to Truth? A Constructivist Approach to the Policy Process’ (2004) 11(4) Journal of European Public Policy, pp. 569–92, at 569.Google Scholar

⁵³ Compare Carayannis, E.G., Pirzadeh, A. & Popescu, D., ‘Epistemic Communities, Knowledge Transfer, and Institutional Learning’ (2012) 13 Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management, pp. 123–50Google Scholar, and Hulme & Mahony, n. 15 above, in which the distinction is blurred, with Mamudu, H.M., Gonzalez, M.E. & Glantz, S., ‘The Nature, Scope, and Development of the Global Tobacco Control Epistemic Community’ (2011) 101(11) American Journal of Public Health, pp. 2044–54Google Scholar; Dunlop, C.A., ‘Policy Transfer as Learning: Capturing Variation in what Decision-Makers Learn from Epistemic Communities’ (2009) 30(3) Policy Studies, pp. 289–311Google Scholar, which are more sensitive to this distinction.

⁵⁴ Raz, J., ‘The Problem of Authority: Revisiting the Service Conception’ (2006) 90 Minnesota Law Review, pp. 1003–44Google Scholar; Edmundson, W.A., ‘Political Authority, Moral Powers and the Intrinsic Value of Obedience’ (2010) 30(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 179–91Google Scholar. The concept of boundary organizations, which was invoked by scholars such as David Guston to describe the work of RSIs, misses this tension between truth and validity, focusing solely on the way in which these bodies operate at the intersection of science and politics. We argue that the tension we point to emerges directly from the effort to hierarchically institutionalize scientific decision-making. See Guston, D.H., ‘Boundary Organizations in Environmental Policy and Science: An Introduction’ (2001) 26(4) Science, Technology & Human Values, pp. 399–408, at 400–1.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ O. Perez, ‘Open Government, Technological Innovation and the Politics of Democratic Disillusionment: (E-)Democracy from Socrates to Obama’ (2013) I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society (forthcoming).

⁵⁶ ICNIRP, ‘Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (up to 300 GHz)’ (1998) (74) Health Physics, pp. 494–522Google Scholar; Norris, D.G., ‘Playing It Too Safe?’ (2006) 2 Nature Physics, pp. 358–60.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Directive 2004/40/EC on Minimum Health and Safety Requirements regarding the Exposure of Workers to the Risks Arising from Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) [2004] OJ L 159/1.

⁵⁸ Hill, D.L., McLeish, K. & Keevil, S.F., ‘Impact of Electromagnetic Field Exposure Limits in Europe: Is the Future of Interventional MRI Safe?’ 2005 (12) Academic Radiology, pp. 1135–42.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Directive 2008/46/EC amending Directive 2004/40/EC on Minimum Health and Safety Requirements regarding the Exposure of Workers to the Risks Arising from Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) [2008] OJ L 114/99.

⁶⁰ Directive 2012/11/EU amending Directive 2004/40/EC on Minimum Health and Safety Requirements regarding the Exposure of Workers to the Risks Arising from Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) (18^th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) [2012] OJ L 110/1.

⁶¹ ICNIRP, ‘Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Static Magnetic Fields’ (2009) 96 Health Physics, pp. 504–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶² The notion of ‘usable knowledge’ comes closer to capturing the dual nature of the products of RSIs. Haas & Stevens define ‘usable knowledge’ as ‘accurate information that is of use to politicians and policy-makers. It must be accurate and politically tractable for its users’: Haas & Stevens, n. 4 above, at p. 128.

⁶³ See, in particular, Norris, n. 56 above.

⁶⁴ See D. Carrington, ‘Q&A: “Climategate”’, The Guardian, 22 Nov. 2011, available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/climate-emails-question-answer.

⁶⁵ Ibid., and O. Heffernan, ‘“Climategate” Scientist Speaks Out’, Nature, 15 Feb. 2010, available at: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html; A. Leiserowitz, E.W. Maibach, C. Roser-Renouf, N. Smith & E. Dawson, ‘Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust’, 2 July 2010, available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1633932.

⁶⁶ See, e.g. Leiserowitz et al., ibid.; Nerlich, B., ‘“Climategate”: Paradoxical Metaphors and Political Paralysis’ (2010) 19(4) Environmental Values, pp. 419–42Google Scholar; Allen, M., ‘In Defense of the Traditional Null Hypothesis: Remarks on the Trenberth and Curry WIREs Opinion Articles’ (2011) 2(6) Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, pp. 931–4Google Scholar; Trenberth, n. 8 above; Curry, J., ‘Nullifying the Climate Null Hypothesis’ (2011) 2(6) Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, pp. 919–24.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See InterAcademy Council (IAC), ‘Climate Change Assessments: Review of the Processes and Procedures of the IPCC’ (2010). Other reviews were conducted by British bodies. See Trenberth, n. 8 above, at p. 23.

⁶⁸ Bagla, P., ‘Climate Science Leader Rajendra Pachauri Confronts the Critics (extended interview)’ (2010) 327(5965) Science, pp. 510–11.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Smith, R., ‘Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals’ (2006) 99(4) Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, pp. 178–82Google Scholar, at 178. For the importance of peer review for the epistemic credibility of the IPCC work, see further US Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change Division, ‘Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(A) of the Clean Air Act’, Technical Support Document, 7 Dec. 2009, pp. 4–5, available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/endangerment/Endangerment_TSD.pdf.

⁷⁰ IAC, n. 67 above, at p. 16.

⁷¹ For a critique of the peer-review system and a discussion of alternatives, see Birukou, A. et al. ., ‘Alternatives to Peer Review: Novel Approaches for Research Evaluation’ (2011) 5(56) Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience, pp. 1–12Google Scholar; Smith, n. 69 above, at pp. 179–90.

⁷² IAC, n. 67 above, at p. 17.

⁷³ IPCC, Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ S. Teske et al., ‘Energy [R]evolution 2010: A Sustainable World Energy Outlook’ (2010) doi:10.1007/s12053-010-9098-y. The report was later published under the same title in a scientific journal: S. Teske et al. (2011) 4 Energy Efficiency, pp. 409–33.

⁷⁵ See Edenhofer, n. 48 above, at p. 1. For a critique, see Lynas, M., ‘Conflicted Roles over Renewables’ (2011) 1(5) Nature Climate Change, pp. 228–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Lynas, ibid.

⁷⁷ IAC, n. 67 above, at p. 15.

⁷⁸ Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work, para. 4.3.2, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles-appendix-a-final.pdf.

⁷⁹ IPCC Conflict of Interest Policy, available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-conflict-of-interest.pdf. This view also appears in statements by leading IPCC scientists: ‘Science has to be used for decision-making. IPCC’s work is supposed to be very clearly policy-relevant. How can I establish policy relevance if I shut myself in an ivory tower and say I will not say anything about climate change?’: see Bagla, n. 68 above.

⁸⁰ See Edenhofer, n. 48 above, at p. 1.

⁸¹ IAC report, n. 67 above, at pp. 19–21.

⁸² Despite the extensive critique against the peer review system it is still considered the gold standard of scientific quality: Smith, n. 69 above.

⁸³ IAC, n. 67 above, at p. 20.

⁸⁴ Ibid., at p. 18.

⁸⁵ For the IAC view on these issues, see ibid., at pp. 18–19.

⁸⁶ ICNIRP Charter and Statutes, n. 25 above.

⁸⁷ Ibid.

⁸⁸ ICNIRP, ‘Declaration of Personal Interests’, available at: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/DoI.pdf. Individual ICNIRP Commission members cannot be employed by industry, see: http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm. Per the policy requirement, the declarations are posted on ICNIRP’s website, available at: http://www.icnirp.de/cv.htm.

⁸⁹ ICNIRP, ‘Publications’, available at: http://www.icnirp.de/publications.htm.

⁹⁰ ICNIRP states only that ‘all comments received are considered by ICNIRP in producing final publications’: see ICNIRP, ibid. Further, this commitment was not incorporated in the ICNIRP Statutes and only appears on its website.

⁹¹ Osepchuk, J.M., ‘Excessive Safety Factor in 1998 ICNIRP Guidelines Reflects Lack of Participation of All Stakeholders in the ICNIRP Process’ (1999) 76(5) Health Physics, pp. 567–9Google ScholarPubMed. Osepchuk’s critique focused on the lack of consultation with voluntary standards bodies such as IEEE and ANSI and not with the civic society as a whole.

⁹² Matthes, R., ‘Response to Osepchuk’ (1999) 76(5) Health Physics, pp. 567–9.Google Scholar

⁹³ Rescher, N., Epistemology: An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge (State University of New York Press, 2003), at p. xv.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ See ICN Factsheet, n. 11 above, at p. 3. Thus, e.g., by the end of 2012, the ICN Steering Committee, which includes 15 members, included only one academic scholar.

⁹⁵ This effort focused primarily on enhancing the engagement of smaller countries in the ICN network and developing ties with NGAs. Even if successful, these engagement efforts remain confined to the ICN professional community. See E. Pérez Motta, ‘My Roadmap as ICN Chair’, Apr. 2012, available at: http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc792.pdf; ICN, ‘NGA Toolkit’, available at: http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc789.pdf.

⁹⁶ Pérez Motta, ibid.

⁹⁷ See: http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/current/advocacy.aspx. See also ICN Advocacy Toolkit : Part I: Advocacy Process and Tools (ICN, May 2011).

⁹⁸ E.g., by joining a fair-trade network: see, e.g., http://www.fairtraderesource.org/link-up/membership-in-fair-trade-society.

⁹⁹ Jellinek, S.D., ‘On the Inevitability of Being Wrong’ (1981) 363 Annals of New York Academy of Science, pp. 43–7Google Scholar; Faigman, D.L., ‘Mapping the Labyrinth of Scientific Evidence’ (1994) 46 Hastings Law Journal, pp. 555–80, at 566.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Faigman, ibid.

¹⁰¹ See Rial, J.A. et al. ., ‘Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds within the Earth’s Climate System’ (2004) 65(1) Climatic Change, pp. 11–38.Google Scholar

¹⁰² See, e.g., Saracci, R. & Samet, J., ‘Commentary: Call Me on My Mobile Phone… Or Better Not? A Look at the Interphone Study Results’ (2010) 39(3) International Journal of Epidemiology, pp. 695–8Google Scholar; Hardell, L., Carlberg, M. & Mild, K.H., ‘Re-analysis of Risk for Glioma in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: Comparison with the Results of the Interphone International Case Control Study’ (2011) 40(4) International Journal of Epidemiology, pp. 1126–8Google Scholar; Swerdlow, A.J., et al. & ICNIRP Standing Committee on Epidemiology, ‘Mobile Phones, Brain Tumors, and the Interphone Study: Where Are We Now?’ (2011) 119(11) Environmental Health Perspectives, pp. 1534–8.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ See, e.g., Teece, D.J., ‘Competition, Cooperation, and Innovation: Organizational Arrangements for Regimes of Rapid Technological Progress’ (1992) 18 Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ See ‘Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties (IPCC Cross-Working Group Meeting on Consistent Treatment of Uncertainties, Jasper Ridge, CA (US), 6–7 July 2010), available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf.

¹⁰⁵ For further discussion, see Yohe & Oppenheimer, n. 21 above, and the special issue of Climatic Change on Communicating Uncertainty (2011), available at: http://talkingclimate.org/guides/communicating-ipcc-uncertainty.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., at p. 1.

¹⁰⁷ See ICNIRP, n. 10 above, at p. 540.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., at p. 544 (emphasis added). ICNIRP reiterates its position in the concluding section of the article, noting that ‘[t]he ICNIRP approach to providing advice on limiting exposure to NIR necessarily requires well-based scientific data related to established health effects’: ibid., at p. 546.

¹⁰⁹ Thus, e.g., they not only emphasize the importance of peer-reviewed materials (ibid., at p. 544) but also emphasize that certain types of data, such as epidemiological studies, cannot support ‘established’ assertions on causality: ibid., at p. 543.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., at p. 547. These approaches, it is argued, ‘generally center on reducing needless exposure to the suspected agent’: ibid.

¹¹¹ ICNIRP, ‘Response to Questions and Comments on ICNIRP Guidelines’ (1998) 75 Health Physics, pp. 438–9.Google Scholar

¹¹² Thus, regarding the question of the carcinogenic potential of ELF magnetic fields, ICNIRP emphasized the lack of proof regarding causal relationships, and referred to the WHO for ‘risk management advice, including considerations on precautionary measures’: ICNIRP, ‘Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz)’ (2010) 99(6) Health Physics, pp. 818–36.Google Scholar

¹¹³ See ‘IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans’, IARC Press Release, No. 208, 31 May 2011, available at: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf. See, further, Baan, R. et al. ., ‘Carcinogenicity of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields’ (2011) 12(7) The Lancet Oncology, pp. 624–6.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ See ‘BioInitiative 2012: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation’, Dec. 2012, available at: http://www.bioinitiative.org; Levis, A.G. et al. ., ‘Mobile Phones and Head Tumours. The Discrepancies in Cause-Effect Relationships in the Epidemiological Studies – How Do They Arise?’ (2011) 10(1) Environmental Health, pp. 1–15Google Scholar; Hardell, L. & Sage, C., ‘Biological Effects from Electromagnetic Field Exposure and Public Exposure Standards’ (2008) 62(2) Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, pp. 104–9Google Scholar. On the other hand, the WHO sided with ICNIRP on this issue: see, e.g., http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html.

¹¹⁵ See, e.g., Colander, D. et al. ., ‘The Financial Crisis and the Systemic Failure of the Economic Profession’ (2009) 21(2–3) Critical Review, pp. 249–67Google Scholar; Lawson, T., ‘The Current Economic Crisis: Its Nature and the Course of Academic Economics’ (2009) 33(4) Cambridge Journal of Economics, pp. 759–77Google Scholar. In a recent statement to the ICN community, the ICN Chair, Eduardo Pérez Motta notes that ‘[t]he recent global financial crisis showcased (not always in a positive way) the importance of embedding competition principles in the broader policy debate at the national and international level’: Motta, above n. 95. This statement disregards the scepticism of the capacity of classic economic prescriptions to prevent financial failures.

¹¹⁶ See, ICN, Unilateral Conduct Workbook (2011), Ch 3.

¹¹⁷ See Hrudey, S.E. & Leiss, W., ‘Risk Management and Precaution: Insights on the Cautious Use of Evidence’ (2003) 111(13) Environmental Health Perspectives, pp. 1577–81, at 1580.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

¹¹⁸ See Tol, R.S.J., ‘Regulating Knowledge Monopolies: The Case of the IPCC’ (2011) 108(4) Climatic Change, pp. 827–39.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Hulme, n. 9 above (Mike Hulme served as a lead author in AR3).

¹²⁰ Mike Hulme argues that the IPCC should be dissolved after the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) in 2014 and its work should be split into three types of assessment undertaken by three new groups. The first would be a Global Science Panel (GSP). The second group would be made up of Regional Evaluation Panels (REPs). The third group would be the Policy Analysis Panel (PAP): Hulme, n. 9 above.

¹²¹ The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) (available at: http://www.ieee.org) also produces safety standards in the field of RF electromagnetic fields; its work provides an alternative view to that of ICNIRP, although ICNIRP is more dominant: see Osepchuk, J.M. & Petersen, R.C., ‘Safety Standards for Exposure to RF Electromagnetic Fields’ (2001) 2(2) Microwave Magazine, pp. 57–69Google Scholar; Reilly, J.P., ‘An Analysis of Differences in the Low-Frequency Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure Standards of ICES and ICNIRP’ (2005) 89(1) Health Physics, pp. 71–80Google Scholar; and Roy, C.R. & Martin, L. J., ‘A Comparison of Important International and National Standards for Limiting Exposure to EMF Including the Scientific Rationale’ (2007) 92 Health Physics, pp. 635–41.Google Scholar

¹²² See OECD Competition Committee, available at: http://www.oecd.org/daf/competition/roundtables.htm.