Abstract
Scientific advice is often solicited in governance, yet it is increasingly challenged in the public domain. Public participation is often suggested to mediate opposing knowledge claims, but it has not resolved crises of expertise and democracy. While Science and Technology Studies (STS) has increasingly focused on emotions in controversies, participation literature remains silent about their role. This study of the Dutch debate on 5G and health, explores how emotions shape/are shaped by participatory processes in technoscientific controversies. For years, Dutch citizens, policymakers, scientists, and industry representatives have been embroiled in a knowledge conflict over the health effects of telecom innovations. The analysis of 36 interviews with stakeholders reveals how interactions between stakeholders focused on establishing epistemic accuracy of information on 5G and health, while telecom innovations continued unimpeded. This led to frustration between stakeholders and feelings of not being taken seriously. We argue that instead of measuring the success of participation based on the accuracy of knowledge exchanged, it is important to look at mutual epistemic recognition between participants in relation to the immutability of relevant policies. When participation continues, while actors are made “immobile”—unable to change perspectives and/or alter policy course—mutual trust and understanding erodes, undermining participation processes in the long-term.
Keywords
Introduction
In July 2020, fifth-generation (5G) communication technology was introduced in the Netherlands. Industries, government, and the public largely welcomed this with enthusiasm. At the same time, 5G met resistance from groups of citizens concerned about health effects of electromagnetic fields. While industry and government traditionally refer to scientific expertise to proclaim the safety of electromagnetic fields in mobile phone technologies, concerned citizens cite contra-expertise to argue electromagnetic fields are dangerous. In 2006, the Dutch government installed the “Kennisplatform Elektromagnetische Velden en Gezondheid”1,2 (Knowledge Platform on Electromagnetic Fields and Health) to facilitate public discussions and exchange information with citizen groups. Despite attempts to bridge gaps between opposing views, Dutch opposition to 5G intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Butot and van Zoonen 2022), with media linking opposition to arson attacks on base stations, and conspiracy theories about elites conspiring against the public (e.g., Sjoukes and Spieksma 2020; Telegraaf 2020; Van Gool and van de Ven 2020).
While scientific advice is increasingly solicited in governance, it is ever more challenged in the public domain (Bijker, Bal and Hendriks 2009). This is particularly visible in conflicts over infrastructural and technological change like windfarms or mobile phone technologies, which affect the daily lives and interests of citizens and other stakeholders (e.g., Aitken 2009; Stilgoe 2016).
Over the past years, concerns about a “crisis of expertise” (cf. Eyal 2019) have been raised in academic circles, media, and public debate. It is often rendered as a matter of “knowledge deficit” in the public understanding of science, or a result of growing feelings of disempowerment among citizens. The “knowledge deficit” approach (cf. Wynne 2006) underscores that scientific literacy and acceptance of scientific advice would increase through public engagement with the scientific community (Durant, Evans and Thomas 1989). While the “deficit model” has long been criticized (Irwin 2006; Wynne 2007, 1996), the idea of “informing an uninformed public” persists in public communication about science and technology today (cf. Lezaun and Soneryd 2007; Simis et al. 2016).
Others have connected the problematization of expert knowledge with a democratic failure to meet citizen concerns. When public questions are treated as technical matters to be answered by scientific experts, it “effectively removes [issues] from the influence of public debate” (Callon, Lascoumes and Barthe 2011, 25), “hollows out the terms of public discourse” (Sandel 2020, 20), and creates “a system in which [some citizens] do not feel heard or represented” (Fischer 2021).
In the context of experts’ loss of credibility, and a growing disempowerment among citizens, public participation techniques were designed to elicit from citizens relevant opinions and local knowledge on technoscientific matters (Lezaun and Soneryd 2007). Different participation formats have been developed and tried out. Despite notable successes, the turn to participation has not fended off crises of expertise in public controversies (Chilvers and Kearnes 2020). This raises a question: how can we understand the fact that forms of citizen participation accompanying the introduction of 5G, and explicitly aiming to address citizens’ critique and concerns, have failed to deescalate conflicts (Bröer and Duyvendak 2009; De Graaff and Bröer 2019)?
The field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) has shown that processes of articulating public issues are not only epistemological, normative and material negotiations, but are also negotiations over (shared) emotions (Soneryd 2007; Pickersgill 2012; Roeser 2017; Steinert and Roeser 2020; Hughes 2024). These scholars have shown that the cognitive, the normative, and the emotional cannot be neatly divided into separate domains, but are co-constituted in the same process (Soneryd 2007; Steinert and Roeser 2020). They also have shown that emotions are not confined to the individual but circulate within a collective (Lupton 2013), that technoscientific innovations simultaneously co-produce shared facts, values, and emotions (Pickersgill 2012), and that bodily experiences and emotions are mediated in networks and processes surrounding technoscientific innovations (Latour 2004; Mukherjee 2017). It has also been suggested that actors’ feelings of not being taken seriously with regard to their epistemic standing, or the knowledge they have to offer, are more indicative of escalating conflicts than a successful exchange of information between parties (Wynne 1996). While STS has analyzed participatory processes, emphasizing their social construction, performativity, and the values, politics, and power operating through them (e.g., Felt and Fochler 2010; Voss and Freeman 2016; Chilvers and Kearnes 2020; Jasanoff 2020), participation literature in STS is still relatively quiet about the role of circulating and escalating emotions in participatory practices.
In this article, we address the question of how emotions, and in particular (shared) feelings of not being taken seriously, shape and are shaped in participatory processes concerning 5G and health. The focus on emotions helps us to better understand why attempts to engage with the public in participation processes fail to address crises of expertise and democracy.
Dutch Debates About Electromagnetic Fields and Health
Most controversies cannot be reduced to two opposing sides (Sismondo 2011, 99). Different actors get gradually involved, acting from diverging interests and standpoints. Polarization in public debates, furthermore, does not develop overnight. The Netherlands has a long history of mobile phone site controversies and participatory practices regarding issues of electromagnetic fields and health (Bröer, Duyvendak and Stuiver 2010; Hermans 2015; Bröer et al. 2016). Therefore, we address the historical context in which the 5G controversy evolved, showing how citizens’ concerns grew over the years, and how participatory processes were installed to amend “knowledge deficits” and engage citizens in policy processes.
Questions about the possible health effects of telecommunication electromagnetic fields grew in the 1990s. The Dutch government and (then) recently privatized telecom providers planned for the rollout of mobile phone technologies. Around the same time local protests sprung up against the installation of base stations. In those early days, concerns about mobile phone technologies did not primarily focus on the health effects of electromagnetic fields. Principal concerns included issues of land use, landscape pollution, and disturbances to (medical) equipment such as hearing aids caused by mobile phone signals (Bröer, Duyvendak and Stuiver 2010). Parliament discussed the health effects of these new technologies for the first time in 1997, when the National Health Council published a report on the health effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, including mobile phone technologies (Gezondheidsraad 1997).
Toward the turn of the millennium, societal resistance had increased, with municipalities playing a crucial role in aligning with the complaints of individual citizens (Bröer et al. 2016). In 1999, nine municipalities dealing with protests against base stations started demanding building permits from providers (a decision that the Council of State, the highest general administrative court in the Netherlands, confirmed in 2001 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2001:AB1237, previously LJN AB1237, AN6674, Council of State, 200003191/1). This was a setback for providers and the national government, who had committed to a 60-percent network coverage in the Netherlands by 2007. Threatened by time-consuming permit procedures, providers combined efforts in 1999 by establishing the national Monet foundation, the association of (mobile) network operators in the Netherlands. Monet started activities in public education on base station safety and the promotion of telecom technologies.
When the auction of new frequencies for third-generation (3G) mobile phone technologies was on the horizon in 2002, the national government in cooperation with industry representatives and the Dutch association of municipalities, presented a national antenna policy with important consequences for protesting voices. The purpose of this policy was to guarantee that there is “sufficient space for the installation of base stations, as long as they do not jeopardize public health, the environment and public safety” (Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat 2000, 10). This policy also implied that smaller base stations (less than 5m tall) no longer required building permits (Bröer et al. 2016), and that citizens could no longer legally object to base stations under the 5m threshold. To prevent new antennas from being placed on their apartment roof, the majority of residents had to vote against it. Moreover, in the permit procedure for larger base stations, health concerns were explicitly ruled out as a basis for objecting to base station siting (as long as antennas complied with radiofrequency electromagnetic fields exposure limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) (1998)).
In 2003, providers installed the first 3G antennas. In that same year, the Dutch COFAM study on the health effects of electromagnetic fields and base stations, unexpectedly, reported adverse effects on (self-reported) wellbeing (Zwamborn et al. 2003). Media coverage of this report led to a wave of local protests. Between 2003 and 2005 social unrest was noted in about 50 of 420 municipalities, and 14 percent of resident-voting procedures resulted in a “no” (Beenakker et al. 2005). The national government stated that the results of the 2003 COFAM study required validation through replication research before taking policy action. They continued the rollout of 3G networks, awaiting the results of the new study. Concerned citizens started to organize and create websites such as “electroallergie.org” and “stopumts.nl” to collect, organize, and disseminate scientific literature, experiences, and media reports.
In 2006, the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment together with the Ministry of Economic Affairs began a new public information initiative, the Knowledge Platform on Electromagnetic Fields and Health. The platform was tasked to provide information—based on impartial, reliable, established science—about electromagnetic fields and health for a wide range of societal actors (citizens, press, industry, and government professionals). 1 The government also made 16.6 million euros available for scientific research. The Platform was tasked to host Sounding Board Meetings with concerned citizens to promote public dialogue on the topic and exchange views about the health effects of electromagnetic fields with citizen groups.
In 2006, the new COFAM II study disconfirmed the results from the previous study (Regel et al. 2006). Societal attention shifted from general health risks to electrohypersensitivity and the relatively small group of citizens claiming to directly suffer from exposure to electromagnetic fields (Bröer and Duyvendak 2011; De Graaff and Bröer 2012). Sufferers of electrohypersensitivity were in close contact with national and local government, as well as health researchers and providers, for example through the national Sounding Board Meetings of the Knowledge Platform. Meanwhile, providers and site acquisition professionals were learning to avoid societal unrest by finding locations or base station designs that were accepted without protest, and by working around “difficult” municipalities (Bröer, Duyvendak and Stuiver 2010; Bröer et al. 2016). In 2012, new frequencies for 4G technologies were auctioned, introducing a fast internet experience. In the ensuing years, Dutch providers managed to rollout a 4G network (Fitchard 2017), with relatively little societal resistance or local protests.
As of 2016, industry and government started promoting new 5G technologies to facilitate the ongoing digital transition. In 2018, the first signs of societal resistance to 5G started to show locally (Butot and van Zoonen 2022), and the 5G dossier was discussed in the Dutch parliament with pressing cybersecurity concerns about a Chinese tech giant (Calcara 2023). Several hundred people demonstrated in The Hague against the imminent arrival of 5G in 2019. The standing Parliamentary Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Sport formally asked advice about the health effects of 5G technologies from the Health Council. In early 2020, the civil organization “Stop5GNL” subpoenaed the national government to stop the rollout of 5G technologies, until scientific research concluded that negative health effects from long-term exposure to electromagnetic fields could be ruled out. The judge ruled in favor of the national government because it had acted in accordance with scientific advice provided by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and the Health Council, and followed international exposure limits set by theICNIRP (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:4461). During and after the lawsuit, the controversy became more volatile, including accusations of conspiracy and allegations of civilian aggression toward base stations (Van Gool and van de Ven 2020; Butot and van Zoonen 2022).
In September 2020, the Health Council published its report on 5G, stating that lower frequencies intended for 5G technologies (up to 3.5 GHz) were already in use without proven adverse effects to public health (Gezondheidsraad 2020). It also recommended waiting on further research before using the 26 GHz frequency band for 5G, as no research was available at the time. The report of the Health Council was never discussed in parliament, and the auction for 3.5 GHz frequencies was planned for 2023. In January 2021, national government, providers and municipalities agreed to a new version of the national Antenna Covenant regulating the installation of small cells (for 5G technologies). The covenant specified that adjustments to existing installations would not require a new vote by residents, which paved the way for the rollout of a 5G network.
The manner in which Dutch participatory practices surrounding the rollout of new generations of mobile phone technologies developed over time, fits the general turn toward participation trying to amend “knowledge deficits,” and engage citizens with a view to improving decision making and policy acceptance in the medium and long term. Over the years, these participatory processes have focused on the “accuracy” of scientific knowledge about electromagnetic fields and health, engaging citizens, policymakers, industry representatives, and experts in repeated discussions about scientific evidence, while the technologies in question continued to be rolled out.
Studying Participatory Processes in Technoscientific Controversies
For a long time, public participation has been proposed as a vehicle for amending “knowledge deficits” and engaging citizens to improve decision making or policy acceptance. However, participation processes have not always helped to settle and mediate technoscientific controversies. STS scholars have been critical about the role that participatory practices play in settling technoscientific controversies, pointing to implicit values, politics, and power operating through them (e.g., Wynne 2006; Felt and Fochler 2010; Voss and Freeman 2016; Chilvers and Kearnes 2020; Jasanoff 2020). Felt and Fochler (2010), for example, have shown that “invited publics” are easily forced to shape their voice into classical expert models, established vocabulary and shared visions regarding the topic under debate. Lezaun and Soneryd (2007) show that while public participation can be constructed as an instrument of credible policy making, it can easily lead to experts telling nonexperts what “correct” areas of concern are. Others have raised concerns about whether this type of invited voice is (unintentionally) being “made” or “wrongly appropriated” in such “formalized mechanisms of voice” (Felt and Fochler 2010, 541; Irwin 2006; Michael 2012).
Several criteria have been proposed for remaking public participation, for example, to “forge reflexive participatory practices that attend to their framings, emergence, uncertainties, and effects” of participatory practices and to “ecologize participation through attending to the interrelations between diverse public engagements in wider systems,” among other criteria (Chilvers and Kearnes 2020, 348, emphasis in original). While these approaches may help to reflect on the values, power, and politics running through participatory practices, and to become more aware of the diverse and multiple settings in which experts, policymakers, and citizens interact and participate, the role of (escalating) emotions operating through these participatory processes remains largely unexamined.
Traditionally, the field of STS emphasized the coproduction of the cognitive and the normative in science and technologies (Latour and Woolgar 1979; Jasanoff 1990). Over the years, STS scholars have increasingly looked at emotions as an inherent part of processes of articulating public issues (Soneryd 2007; Pickersgill 2012; Lupton 2013; Roeser 2017; Steinert and Roeser 2020; Hughes 2024). Pickersgill, for example, has shown the “essential emotionality of science” by looking at how scientists “pulse with emotion” and how emotions shape the “knowledge that laboratories produce” (Pickersgill 2012, 579). They have shown that the cognitive, the normative, and the emotional cannot be divided into separate domains but are co-constituted in the same process.
Scholars including Lupton (2013, 634) have shown that emotions concerning new technologies are “inevitably and always configured via social and cultural processes and through interaction with others’ bodies, material objects, space and place” and that “rather than being located within the individual” emotions are actually “fluid, shared and collective.” Soneryd (2007, 289), furthermore, proposes to replace the traditional rational actor model of human behavior that splits knowledge from emotion, with a model that views people as actors who are “moved and touched by other entities.” Soneryd looks at public deliberations on new technologies as processes where participants “learn to be affected” (cf. Latour 2004). Furthermore, Mukherjee (2017) has shown how bodily experiences and emotions concerning electromagnetic fields are mediated in media and technological networks surrounding technoscientific innovations.
Despite these insights, emotions often remain under-examined in prominent studies on participatory processes (cf. Irwin 2006; Felt and Fochler 2010; Michael 2012; Chilvers and Kearnes 2020). In this article, we aim to better understand why participation processes do not always lead to trust, understanding, and conflict resolution, and in some cases may have adverse effects that damage “ecologies of participation” in the longer run (cf. Chilvers and Kearnes 2020). What can we learn about the (de)escalation of controversies by looking at circulating emotions within participatory processes? We analyze Dutch debates concerning electromagnetic fields and health to investigate the co-shaping of participatory processes and circulating emotions between citizens, policymakers, scientists, and industry representatives.
Methods
This article is based on extensive documentary analysis, observations in public meetings, 36 in-depth interviews, and five “member check” meetings with interviewees. Documentary research included public information leaflets, government reports, scientific papers, and legal documents regarding the introduction of new technologies such as 5G. Moes conducted 36 interviews with a total of 41 interviewees. Duration of the interviews ranged from 54 to 158 min. Moes concluded the interview only after the participant had confirmed that all relevant themes had been discussed. Participants had the opportunity to contact Moes in case they wanted to share more information. Different stakeholders were interviewed: citizens (16 interviewees), scientists (13 interviewees), local and national government (10 interviewees), and telecom industry (2 interviewees). With participants’ (oral) consent, the interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and anonymized in analysis. A Data Protection Impact Assessment under the European General Data Protection Regulation was executed. 3
Interviewees were asked to speak about their experiences with the knowledge dispute about the possible health effects of electromagnetic fields. Early in the research it became clear that the topic triggered rich emotional responses. Conversations were replete with references to experiences of misrecognition, meaning feelings of (not) receiving social and epistemic respect and standing. Following this development, Moes encouraged interviewees to speak about their feelings and also used ethnographic observations to register emotions (see Wright and Nyberg 2012; Davies 2019). Using the analytical tool ATLAS.ti and sensitized by philosophical literature on emotions and (epistemic) recognition, Moes coded and culled from the data all statements containing emotional experiences, all statements referring to different forms of (mis)recognition in the technoscientific controversy on 5G and health. All authors engaged in the analysis of the coded material and writing of the manuscript.
We used the technique of “member checking” or “participant validation,” as a means to verify the credibility of results (Birt et al. 2016). In a “member check” we presented the results to groups of participants to check for accuracy and whether the analysis resonated with their experiences. We organized five such meetings of 1.5 h each. Member check meetings were attended by 32 out of 41 interviewees. Each meeting was presided by an independent chairperson and included a mix of citizens, scientists, government, and industry representatives, and had between 5 and 9 participants. Moes presented a preliminary analysis of the interviews, focusing on the (de)escalation of emotions, and experiences of being (mis)recognized. Participants provided feedback and discussed the findings. The meetings were recorded, transcribed, and anonymized in the analysis. Interviewees unable to attend the member check meetings were invited to provide feedback by email or phone. When the five member check meetings were completed, data collected in the meetings were used to refine the analysis. Moes also discussed the study's findings at a Sounding Board Meeting of the Knowledge Platform on Electromagnetic Fields and Health, 4 where interviewed citizens, scientists, local and national government representatives, and industry representatives were gathered.
Working from an STS perspective, we take a “symmetrical” approach in our analysis of controversies. This means the researcher is agnostic or “impartial with respect to truth and falsity, rationality or irrationality” (Bloor 1991), and seeks social-historical explanations of all knowledge claims and emotions, regardless of whether they are currently held to be true, successful, and/or rational or legitimate (cf. Lynch 2017). Experts, lay people, industry representatives, or policymakers may differ in their means and manners of legitimating knowledge claims and expressing emotions. In our analysis, working symmetrically, these different actors are treated equally and none of their perspectives or expressions are a priori granted more truthfulness, appropriateness, rationality, or emotionality than another.
Results
An Epistemic Arms Race
Dutch debates about electromagnetic fields and health are set in a scientific epistemic culture, meaning to gain a voice in the public debate, citizens, and policymakers are expected to present scientific evidence. Yet accumulating scientific data and technical insights did not settle the debate. Instead, polarized views grew more vehemently apart. This section demonstrates how different types of research and evidence were increasingly mobilized in the conflict over 5G.
Electromagnetic fields entail a spectrum of different frequencies (static fields (0 Hz), extremely low frequency fields (<10 kHz), radiofrequency fields (10 kHz–200 GHz)), as well as different applications in powerlines, military radar installations, microwaves, radio, television, mobile phones, medical equipment, etc. Research into electromagnetic fields entails diverse methods and theoretical perspectives (in vitro research on tissue or cells; in vivo research on animals or human beings; epidemiological research in case control studies or cohort research, etc.) to gain insight into different adverse health effects (DNA damage, cancer, fertility issues, Alzheimer, autism, ADHD, depression, and other immunological, genetical and neurological effects). Hence, gaining an overview of scientific research into the possible health effects of electromagnetic fields is no easy task.
In our interviews, policymakers expressed how they depend on national and international scientific advisory bodies: “I’m not a scientist myself. I’m a policy officer. I have a limited amount of time for this dossier” (policymaker#10). Another policymaker (#5) explained that “what I want to focus on is: what is the scientific consensus? And I’m trying to gauge that by looking at institutions like National Institute for Public Health and the Environment and the World Health Organization, and seeing what kind of metastudies they are conducting, and the Health Council of the Netherlands too, of course.” Policymakers explained that they work with the scientific consensus that exposure to electromagnetic fields below international ICNIRP-norms is safe (cf. Stilgoe 2005). Policymakers rely heavily on advisory bodies monitoring scientific developments.
Citizens are generally considered “lay people,” especially regarding highly technical topics like electromagnetic fields and health. In interviews it became clear that, over time, citizens developed into “semi-professional” citizens. Some of these citizens invested over 25 years on the topic. As one citizen (#8) commented: “we have a vast amount of knowledge here…Not just experiential knowledge but…I spent so much time sifting through the scientific literature” and “all the case law and statutes and government reports.” Many concerned citizens invested time and effort in digesting and ordering the immense patchwork of scientific research and legal documents on the topic of electromagnetic fields and health.
Why did citizens invest this much time and effort in acquiring this knowledge? As citizens explained, the installation of base stations was legitimized by (local) government which referenced international exposure limits (ICNIRP), and scientific advisory reports: “the standard reasoning was: it's below the exposure limit, so it's safe, over and out” (citizen#15). Another stated that “if you go to the municipality, a government body, the first thing they say is: ‘We’re below the limits’…'they were established based on scientific evidence, so it's safe.’ And that's the end of the conversation” (citizen#14). From the interviews, there emerges a picture of citizens who felt forced to provide ever more research reports about the health risks of electromagnetic fields: You get a response that repeats the same mantras about the ICNIRP, that they remain below the limits. But yeah, people have been debating those ICNIRP limits for decades now…At a certain point, you have to start presenting more and more evidence because you just keep hitting that wall. And at first, I was like: “Huh? Don’t I have tons of information showing that—at minimum—there are risks?” (citizen#8)
This ultimately resulted in a citizens’ court case against the rollout of 5G network. Citizens punctuated their appeal to stop the rollout of 5G with a number of research publications (e.g., National Toxicology Program 2018; BioInitiative Working Group 2012; Yakymenko and Sidorik 2010; International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2013) and stated that “many thousands of existing studies have demonstrated health effects such as DNA damage in connection with exposure below the ICNIRP guidelines” (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2020:4461).
The State, in its defense, disputed the quality of these studies: The main flaws and/or limitations associated with the research publications presented by Stop5GNL and the conclusions of those reports can be summarized as follows: (i) the study does not meet the relevant methodological criteria established by the scientific community and/or has not been positioned in the context of the entirety of scientific literature and therefore gives a skewed impression of the current state of knowledge; (ii) it pertains to results from animal trials and studies conducted on cultured cells (in vivo and in vitro research) that are not translatable (or not directly so) to health effects in humans and are likewise not supported by epidemiological research on humans; (iii) the results of the studies could not be replicated; (iv) in many cases, specific effects were observed only after exposure that exceeded the allowed limits; and finally (v) the majority of the studies incorrectly translate biological effects into effects on health. For all these reasons, the reports mentioned by Stop5GNL have been met with a great deal of vociferous criticism from authoritative international, European and Dutch health institutes.
5
People from the BioInitiative report or something, [Professor] Hardell in Sweden and so on—well, a portion of the scientific community sees them as something like, those are charlatans; they’re in league with the activists, and they’re no longer taken seriously. (scientist#1) What the Health Council does?… It is systematic cherry-picking. They’ve already made a device, that meanwhile, the good cherries, and the others, straight away… No, they don’t want those. Yeah, I can’t think of any other way to put it: systematic cherry-picking. (citizen#7)
While some interviewees stressed the need for more research—“there is still a gap in knowledge” (membercheck#5)—others were not hopeful that new scientific research would settle the debate. Several scientists doubted whether new scientific research would solve anything: “more of the same research won’t supply any new answers” (membercheck#5) and that “breakthroughs are unlikely at this stage, unless you can come up with a totally different approach that the thousands of other people who have looked at it were unable to find” (scientist#10). Many interviewees thought the focus on scientific studies would not lead to closing the debate but would continue polarized dynamics. Someone working in local governance commented that “knowledge and persuasion are not the way to go” and that one should “stay well away from knowledge. Knowledge is misery” (policymaker#3). A scientist said: “you can’t settle the matter using knowledge…you have to use other tools as well” (scientist#8).
In democratic societies it is a sign of good governance that policymakers substantiate their work with up-to-date scientific knowledge. This pertains to ideals of objectivity, impartiality, and justice in policy making (Porter 1995). In the case of 5G, science provided the legitimate idiom to argue for or against the introduction of this technology. By contrast, religious claims—for example, “I cannot have a base station near my house because my religion forbids it”—were not legitimate arguments. Although science was looked at as an arbiter for settling the controversy, citizens, experts, policymakers, and industry representatives become increasingly entangled in debates over the “accuracy” of scientific evidence. Ultimately, they ended up in a deadlock of “traumatizing discussions” that replicated static and polarized views (cf. Lezaun and Soneryd 2007, 297).
Growing Feelings of Powerlessness
The focus on scientific evidence in the Dutch debate about 5G and health, over time, resulted in a mobilization of scientific knowledge claims among stakeholders, and an intensifying dispute about the accuracy and trustworthiness of diverse studies and of the scientists and institutes producing them. Citizens, at the same time, continued to be invited into dialogue about 5G and health, while the rollout of 5G carried on. This evolving landscape increasingly led to growing frustration from citizens, local governance, and scientists, who felt “stuck” and “powerless” in this epistemic-political dispute.
Frustration was tangible in the interviews. An interviewee working for the municipality expressed feeling powerless: “I can actually feel powerless, too, because I’d like people to have a radiation-free environment,” but my power to change things is “grossly overestimated” (membercheck#5). The 2002 national antenna policy reversed municipal rights for spatial planning regarding base stations and smaller base stations (less-than 5m) no longer required building permits. The municipality largely lacks the power to influence the rollout of a 5G network and the installation of base stations: They think that, as a government employee, I have the power to get rid of base stations or something. That did happen once, because the base stations didn’t have a permit, but in general, I—as the municipal government in any case—lack the authority to do that. So my power is limited, but the powerlessness felt by people who are electrosensitive, for example, is greater, because they want to live in a place where they will not be exposed to electromagnetic fields. And while I may not be able to make that happen for them, I’m not the one suffering the consequences either, so I can imagine they see me as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. (membercheck#5)
A scientist described experiencing a dilemma, as, on the one side (s)he felt that the investment of time and effort on the topic was in vain as “we are wasting our time, really…there are no proven effects on health, absolutely none, but there's a major fuss going on” and on the other hand, the nagging thought that “yeah, imagine that it is proven one day that 5G can lead to health problems that make lots of people ill, and imagine that proof isn’t found for another 20 years, then the consequences of that would be tremendous” (scientist#3).
A policymaker stated that there was a commitment among colleagues to “remain in dialogue” with citizens, but doubts that it would lead somewhere: “but you’re never going to reach a solution together, so you can tell there is a certain hopelessness in that area” (policymaker#8). Another policymaker explained that they were dependent on scientific advice, and only “if we learn that action is required based on new scientific insights, then we should take that action” (policymaker#10). Policymakers and scientists described increasingly feeling “despondent” and “resigned” (policymaker#8) about interactions with citizens on the topic of electromagnetic fields.
Citizens felt increasingly powerless after repeated attempts to object to base station installation. As of 2002, the national antenna policy explicitly ruled out health concerns as a basis for objection to installation of base stations if antennas stay within the established exposure limits. Citizens expressed deep-felt frustration with the fact that municipalities “are not addressing health aspects” (citizen#9). They felt they were walking into a “wall”: Part of that wall is a recommendation…to municipalities and Municipal Public Health Services that they should respond to citizens with health-related concerns by showing empathy but should avoid addressing the substance of those health-related concerns. In other words: just let them talk. Act like you empathize. But of course, empathy is only real if you are genuinely willing to put yourself in the other person’s place and learn about the substance of the issue. So it’s always pseudo-empathy. And at a certain point, you start to feel that. I mean, I’m not stupid. So you feel like, yes, it’s an empty protocol, because—based on the General Administrative Law Act—they have a legal obligation to offer people an opportunity to share their perspectives, to submit a written objection. But absolutely nothing is done with it. (citizen#8)
Even industry representatives expressed being frustrated, despite the fact that the rollout of 5G networks largely continued over time. They struggled with increasingly complicated and expensive policy measures and permit procedures, for example, voting procedures for placing new antennas on residential buildings (enforced by the 2002 national antenna policy). An industry representative stated: “We are now seeing that, in practice, we fairly often run into building owners, for instance, who say: ‘yeah, I’d rather not have it on my building, because my residents will give me trouble’” (industry#1). (S)he explained that: We are already paying a billion euros for the frequency, and then literally hundreds of millions for those installations. So yeah, and then we have to pay a lease as well, you know. So it is, the costs are tremendous. And once you make the investment to set up something like that, you want it to be there for at least fifteen years. Well, and that's something we are now hearing when contracts reach the end of their term, that housing corporations and sometimes owners’ associations, too, are saying: “Hey, we’d prefer not to have it here anymore, since we don’t know exactly what effects it has on health. And there are a few people who are strongly against it, and we don’t want a big debate in the owners’ association, so we’re ending the contract.” And then we have to find a different spot. (industry#1)
Many interviewees described processes of accumulating and managing deep-felt emotions tied to the topic of electromagnetic fields and health. A citizen described approaching the municipality for the first time to object to the installation of a 5G base station with a kind of “innocence” and with “empathy for the civil servant” but that (s)he built up all kinds of emotions over repeated interactions with local government: Look, of course you go through phases when you’re not being heard…Including rage and frustration. That disappointment, over and over again. Feeling like you’ve been betrayed, because the government is supposed to take care of you, etc. That you’ve been abandoned, all those things…and a kind of bafflement at how the government is acting. (citizen#8) The fear has also increased for me personally… One time, I got scared because someone was fairly aggressive toward me. And as a result of that, I turned down an invitation for an information evening a while ago…afraid that a discussion could get out of hand. Fear of a discussion, if it takes a turn that's not worthy of my time as a scientist. Fear of verbal assault—although it isn’t a physical assault, a verbal attack can be every bit as painful as a physical one. And that is why I feel compelled to distance myself from this field. (membercheck#2)
Escalating Distrust and Alienation
Repeated interactions between actors in the 5G controversy led to increased feelings of powerlessness and frustration. Next, we show how these failed attempts gave rise to a dynamic of escalating distrust, ad hominem attacks and alienation between citizens, policymakers, scientists, and industry representatives. As one scientist observed: A dynamic arises in a debate, because we’re talking about 5G now, but before that we had 4G and 3G. And we’ll be having the same conversation about 33G somewhere down the line. Within that dynamic, you can see a hardening of people's viewpoints and a declining willingness to be open to each other's arguments, and now there are doubts about the honesty of the policy officers who meet with electrohypersensitive individuals or people otherwise involved in the electromagnetic fields debate, but they are meeting with disbelief, just being disbelieved in advance. And the same goes for the scientists who work in this field. (membercheck#3)
Many interviewed citizens grew skeptical with regard to the impact of their participation in the debate about electromagnetic fields and health and policy processes. Citizens mentioned disappointment with regard to the Sounding Board Meetings of the Knowledge Platform on Electromagnetic Fields and Health, and also about the online consultancies held by the Ministry of Economic Affairs with regard to the auction of frequencies: “We also submitted a lot of input to the Ministry of Economic Affairs… They have these online consultations there…and then the response to what people say in them is a deafening silence” (membercheck#3). Many citizens felt they could have their voice but it had no policy impact. One citizen (#2) described: “I felt mistreated… I was allowed to have a voice, but they immediately set it aside, as in: we won’t be doing anything with this, period.” Others expressed that they simply did not feel that they were taken seriously, because “if you were taking this seriously, guys, you’d be compelled to act” (membercheck#3).
As a result, many citizens experienced meetings of the Knowledge Platform on Electromagnetic Fields and Health as a “mere formality” (citizen#6), a “diversion” (citizen#11), or “kicking the can down the road” (citizen#14). A scientist confirmed that interpretation: The fact that the knowledge platform is seen as a lightning rod is, I have to say, not entirely undeserved. Various factions were and are still being brought together in the sounding board group and then given a chance to say their piece. So they had a voice. And that voice was heard, but nothing more was done with that input. It was for information purposes only. (citizen#11)
The fact that citizens could have a seat at the table but still felt ignored led to the erosion of trust. As one citizen (#16) commented: “Damaged trust. Absolutely. There are so many assurances that were never made good on.” Citizens’ feelings of being ignored or even “sidelined” (citizen#8 and citizen#7), led some to think that they were knowingly and willingly ignored: “[Citizens are being] consciously ignored and their concerns downplayed…this obviously leads to annoyance…the response they get is conscious, specific and systematic inaction” (membercheck#3). From our interviews and membercheck meetings a picture emerged of increasing skepticism and accusations of malicious intent that complicated a healthy debate, as one interviewee working in local governance described: What people accuse me of is being part of the conspiracy. In other words, that I, you know, am probably benefiting or being paid to, you know, maintain the cover-up. So that makes me, you know, equally unreliable, and that it is absolutely within my power to remove the base stations or take measures, so that the exposure [can be contained] but that I refuse to do so… because I’m corrupt and probably taking a pay-off. (policymaker#3)
In this context, scientists became increasingly hesitant to participate in dialogues. One scientist observed how accusations of ill intent affected the debate: “when the other party assumes ill intent, it makes it really difficult to have a dialogue or a discussion” (membercheck#4). A scientist claimed that accusations and ad hominem attacks were harmful to the academic field of electromagnetic fields: “I know real-world examples of good researchers, researchers with integrity, who have decided to stop conducting research involving electromagnetic fields…motivated in part by the personal attacks that are taking place” (membercheck#3). Scientists and (local) government described being labeled as “corrupt” (policymaker#3) or “being called a murderer” (scientist#6). And policymakers and industry resented being shelved as “the bogeyman” (policymaker#8) or being part of some sort of “evil machine” (policymaker#6). Those suffering from electrohypersensitivity felt cast off by others as: “conspiracy freaks” (citizen#8), “loonies,” “off their rocker” (citizen#6), or “those hippies who think [electromagnetic fields] are causing them problems” (citizen#2).
Ad hominem attacks triggered all kinds of emotions. One scientist expressed that “it really bothers me when people cast aspersions on my scientific integrity…I find it hurtful” (membercheck#4). Another scientist described seeing co-workers: “nearly in tears…even two years after the fact.” What moved them? “having doubt cast on their integrity” (scientist#10). Another scientist (#13) stated: “I’m not looking for sympathy or anything, but that really affected me quite deeply.”
Citizens, especially those suffering from electrohypersensitivity, recounted painful experiences of not being believed by others: “people don’t believe you, that is another thing, uh, that also drives you to despair. That people are unwilling to believe the words literally coming out of your mouth” (citizen#5). Another explained that “you become an outcast. No one understands you. What you’re going through, it isn’t real” (citizen#6) and another expressed that “we want to be taken seriously, and we don’t want to be discounted as a group in advance, like we’re just conspiracy theorists” (citizen#7).
In the context of “deficit” thinking, the public is often perceived as ill-informed, too “emotional” and “immune” to rational thinking and scientific argumentation (Cook 2004; Roeser 2011). In the interviews, however, all actors—citizens, scientists, policymakers, and industry representatives alike—communicated emotions: feelings of frustration, disappointment, and powerlessness. All suffered emotionally from ad hominem attacks, which they experienced as a violation of their personal integrity. Repeated interactions—involving high stakes and low payoff—fed a dynamic of accumulating alienation for many participants in the debate. This made it increasingly difficult to be open to other actors’ perspectives and further hampered a healthy dialogue.
Conclusion
The Netherlands has a long history of mobile phone site controversies (Bröer, Duyvendak and Stuiver 2010; Hermans 2015; Bröer et al. 2016). Over the years there emerged an “ecology” (Chilvers and Kearnes 2020) of participation processes aimed at settling them. While diverse participatory processes were performed to accommodate interests and concerns, and align the various actors involved, it also created a system in which all actors—experts, policymakers, industry representatives, and citizens—became increasingly polarized. Why have attempts to engage the public in participation processes to settle debates failed to pacify controversies about the health effects of electromagnetic fields?
The ability to interact meaningfully in participatory processes is dependent on whether actors recognize each other as credible and intelligible people with epistemic (and emotional) integrity (cf. Moes et al. 2020). Bifurcated stereotypes of emotional and passionate publics versus rational or detached scientists are detrimental in participatory processes. The notion of “epistemic recognition” (Fricker 2018; Giladi and McMillan 2022; Honneth 2022) refers to the extent to which people are recognized by others as agents with epistemic integrity. Our research shows that experiences of not being “epistemically recognized” in participation fueled a growing rift between experts, policymakers, industry representatives, and citizens (cf. Wynne 1996). Instead of measuring the success of participation on the basis of “accuracy” of the knowledge exchanged, we should look at the epistemic collaboration that is achieved in these processes.
Clearly, there are good reasons to solicit advice from experts to inform technical policy debates, or to value insights from people with experience on a topic more than those from people who have none. Epistemic recognition does not mean blindly attributing equal epistemic status to diverse knowledge claims. Rather it adheres to a “spirit of epistemic cooperation” (Fricker 2007), in which agents are judged on their merits, rather than by identity, politics, stereotyping, and/or prejudice. The extent to which actors in participation processes are engaged in a “spirit of epistemic cooperation” is indicative of whether participation processes actually hold opportunities to settle a controversy. If actors are stuck in a deadlock of mutual epistemic misrecognition, and there is no willingness to change their perspective, continued participation may be doing more harm than good.
Epistemic cooperation and mutual epistemic recognition are not enough. This study shows that participation was being conducted, but that the rollout of new mobile phone technologies was never hampered or reconsidered. As such, different actors were forced to take on a role in a script whose ending was already known. We should, therefore, also look at “the degree of mobility generated” between experts, policymakers, industry representatives, and citizens (Lezaun and Soneryd 2007, 295). In Dutch debates about 5G and health, actors repeatedly interacted in largely ineffective moves. The focus on knowledge exchange in participatory processes, without realistic possibilities for actual policy change, ultimately resulted in a buildup of frustrations, suspicions about people's motivations, and alienation. When there is no longer any cognitive, normative, material, or emotional mobility among participants, alienation is imminent.
Emotions often remain under-examined in STS studies on participatory processes. In this article, we aimed to understand why participation processes often fail to mediate controversy, by looking at emotions. Our research shows that apart from diversifying, ecologizing, observing, and reflecting on participatory processes (Chilvers and Kearnes 2020), those organizing participatory processes should know when and how not to participate. For example, when there is no potential for power or influence invested in these participatory processes. Propulsive emotions and alienation are imminent when there is no mutual “epistemic recognition” (Fricker 2018) or “mobility” (Lezaun and Soneryd 2007) between participants. In that case, participation may have to take other forms, or issues may have to be articulated differently, to (re)create mobility and new forms of epistemic cooperation. Participation processes in situations where actors are immobilized could have an adverse effect on trust and mutual understanding, and may damage ecologies of participation in the longer run.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge all research participants for their valuable contributions to our study. The authors also thank two anonymous reviewers for their inspiring feedback on an earlier draft of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (grant number S/080003/01).
