Science must tolerate the environment outside of academia, which raises questions

Discussion ● Dag Henning Rexnes and Katrin Lekanj

This is the first time that sustainability has been included in dietary advice recommendations for the Nordic countries. Questions and criticism about this research should be taken seriously, says the Eggs and Meat Information Office in its response to Helen Engerd.

New Nordic countries Nutrition advice recommendations (NNR2023) is out for consultation. It’s been a long process with many seminal articles containing information about nutrients and diet, not the least of which has caused the most controversy – the inclusion of sustainability in advice on what we should eat.

Director of the National Committees for Research Ethics (FEK), Helen Engerd, In this context spoken
worry about it PolicyIn this case, Jenny Kling criticized the work with dietary advice recommendations. Engerd fears that statements by politicians who have questioned the process and content of the report may contribute to discrediting the science. Rather than dismissing it as politics and self-interest, the FEK should, in its role, look more closely at the content of criticism, rather than defend research by defining it as morally irreproachable.

It’s the first time Sustainability should be incorporated into dietary advice recommendations. Priority must be given to carrying out work in a transparent, robust and well-founded manner. Questions and criticism should at least be taken seriously.

After follow up NNR2023 CloseWe believe there is every reason to question both the process and the scientific work. In addition to politicians, researchers and professionals

Criticism of the process and the basis of the research.

In March 2021 advertiser
University of Bergen law professor Ragna Arli, who chairs the national commission to investigate research misconduct, says researchers must tolerate criticism that does not come only from the professional community. “It also means that we have to tolerate criticism of the use of methods that are not scientifically fraudulent, but may nonetheless be a violation of research ethics standards of a less serious nature,” says Arley.

Engird Claims
that klings play it It blurs the distinctions between research and policy. The problem is that the distinctions between research and policy are already blurred when it comes to working with dietary recommendations. They were largely obscured when the Commission i NNR2023 has chosen to delegate Much of the responsibility for integrating sustainability into a self-proclaimed British think tank for international relations (Chatham House). Political organizations can also conduct objective research, but when it is clear that articles laying much of the groundwork for including sustainability in dietary advice is based only on a very limited part of the research in the area, there is good reason to ask questions, also of politicians.

“Here we are witnessing testimonies of politicians helping to discredit advice based on scientific methods, where the background is that those critics have strong political interests in this drawer-drafted research,” Ingierd wrote in his post.

However it is No scientific method was used to prepare the seminal articles on sustainability. Many articles lack a reference list, and appear to be based on very few selective studies (1And
2And
3And
4And
5). The articles were also released for consultation while still in the semi-finished stage. They should not really be finished until the dietary advice recommendations themselves have been finalized. Rather than pointing at the sender of criticism, we think the FEK should take a hard look at the work behind the dietary advice recommendations.

Potentially NNR2023 It has a significant impact on Norwegian food production and the use of Norwegian natural resources to produce food in a sustainable way. The process could change consumption patterns, increase food imports, and weaken national self-sufficiency. Moreover, it will have an impact on value creation, the economy and jobs. Not least, it will be able to influence the perception of what sustainable food actually is. The fact that the scientific quality behind the report and background material is poor not only poses a threat to those with political interests associated with food production. This poses a threat to the sustainable development of the Norwegian food system.

in goodScientific process and research that presents advantages and disadvantages must be presented in an objective and representative manner. Moreover, a balanced conclusion should be reached based on the existing knowledge base. The work presented by NNR2023 appears to be heavily influenced by politics and ideology. The process behind the dietary advice is seen as biased and lacking in nuance. It appears that the intent of the background material on sustainability was aimed exclusively at presenting the disadvantages and negative effects of poorly managed livestock production. It is not surprising, then, that agriculture, through various organizations and politicians, tries to highlight the positive aspects of well-managed livestock production.

Research and science You must tolerate questioning, also from environments outside of academia.

It is not criticism Which contributes to questioning the research, or blurring the lines between politics and science. If the criticism is not justified, it is easy to respond to it.

Instead, confidence erodes Reject criticism with the fact that it is outside the sender’s role to ask questions. The content of the criticism should be at the heart of the discourse.