Evidence and argumentation styles of scientists/engineers, business/economists, and political scientists associated with environmental protection public policy decisions

The study assessed how decisions are made in four environmental issues using argument structures. The issues were acid rain, designating used oil as a hazardous substance, hazardous landfills reaching capacity, and nutrition and labelling.; An opinion instrument and an information profile sheet developed for this study were administered to four groups of subjects. The groups composed of the science/engineering group, the business/economic group, the political science group and the 'other' group. The members of the science/engineering group were civil engineering, environmental science, chemical engineering and chemistry majors. The business/economic group consisted of the economic and business majors. The political science group composed of the public administration and general political science majors. The "other" group included those with all academic discipline majors excluded from the other three groups. The instrument contains four issues. Each issue had four statements: scientific, economic, political and emotional.; Analyses of four questions that assessed how subjects made decisions about the environmental issues found: (1) subjects made decisions on each environmental issue based on its own logic and rationale, (2) preparation in academic disciples had no effect on the way subjects made decisions concerning the environmental issues, (3) subject's awareness of argument types used in making decisions in Environmental public policy issues was generally low, and (4) preparation in academic disciplines had no effect on subject's awareness of argument types used in decisions in Environmental Public Policy Issues.