{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020599250936329586, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.311023622047244, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Democracy and science advice: the case of environmental health risks].

Science advice, in the context of environmental health, is an activity consisting in bringing together and evaluating available scientific data at a given moment on a particular question or concern regarding the hazardous nature of an agent or substance--whether it be of a physical, chemical or microbiological nature. Science advice also relates to assessing health risks linked to the quality of the environment, in vue of rendering this information useful to those in charge of decision making and risk management. Naturally, many groups are interested by a potential hazard or risk, and they all would like to effectively intervene over the course of the process in order to influence the decision or measure taken. In this article, the author recalls that risk is an entity which is both scientific and political by nature. Hence, this demand is well founded. Nevertheless, he proposes and explicates a series of different steps, whether concurrent or successive, throughout the entire process of science advice in support of decision-making on matters related to environmental risk. He justifies why hazard and risk assessment, followed by risk analysis, requisites a clear delineation of the roles of the various actors so that their own responsibilities could be clearly attributed. The "procedural" approach of science advice, which is more and more frequently implemented within international expert groups in the international arena, satisfactorily achieves the target of objectivity, transparency and accountability.