Uncertainty, insufficient regulation, and vulnerability characterize the role of science in public decision-making, according to Duplomb's law.
In the heart of French politics, questions about transparency and the use of scientific evidence are rising, particularly in light of the Duplomb Law. This controversial legislative proposal has sparked concerns among citizens who believe it represents a deeper democratic deficit.
The Duplomb Law, sponsored by Senator Laurent Duplomb, has been the subject of much debate due to its intention to reintroduce acetamipride, a nicotine-based pesticide banned in France since 2020. Over 2 million citizens have signed a petition denouncing the law as a "scientific aberration."
However, the transparency of the scientific evidence underpinning the Duplomb Law remains unclear. Experts from public research institutes, such as Inserm, CNRS, Inrae, and Anses, were heard in commission regarding the Duplomb Law. Yet, no public record of the questions asked or answers given exists, fueling mistrust among the public.
In general, French parliamentary decision-making promotes transparency of scientific evidence through expert consultations, the use of independent research institutions, publication of scientific reports, and ethical peer-review processes. These mechanisms ensure that legislators are informed by up-to-date research and that the scientific basis for policy proposals is rigorous and transparent.
But the Duplomb Law appears to have bypassed some of these transparency measures. Since 2009, government bill projects in France must be accompanied by impact studies. However, this requirement does not apply to parliamentary initiative bills, such as the Duplomb Law. As a result, the Duplomb Law proposal progressed to a vote without a thorough and public critical and bibliographic apparatus.
The lack of transparency surrounding the Duplomb Law has legitimately fueled mistrust among citizens. If the promise of a science-informed policy underpins the normative architecture of liberal democracies, it must be kept. The Duplomb Law controversy reveals a structural flaw in our democracy regarding the role of science in public decision-making.
On August 7, the Duplomb Law was partially censored by the Constitutional Council. While this decision offers some reassurance, it does not address the underlying concerns about the transparency of the decision-making process.
As the Duplomb Law continues to make headlines, it serves as a reminder of the importance of transparency in parliamentary decision-making. Ensuring that the public has access to the scientific evidence underpinning legislative proposals is crucial for maintaining trust and faith in the democratic process.
The Duplomb Law, in disregarding standard transparency measures, raises concerns about the use of scientific evidence in health-and-wellness and environmental-science sectors, as the public lacks access to critical and bibliographic resources needed to assess the law's scientific basis. The ongoing transparency issues surrounding the Duplomb Law highlight the need for increased accountability in the use of scientific evidence to maintain public trust and uphold the promise of a science-informed policy in French politics.
