以系統性文獻分析與書目計量法探討萊克多巴胺爭議中的科學研究與論證

2020年8月，政府宣布開放含萊克多巴胺之豬肉進口，引發社會高度爭辯。辯證過程中各方利害關係人頻繁引述學術文獻作為立論基礎，然而，利害關係人對文獻的挑選與解讀過程缺乏系統性和全面性。因此本研究利用系統性文獻回顧與書目計量法，分析511篇以萊克多巴胺為主題的文獻。分析結果顯示，多數研究聚焦於畜產效率和藥物檢測，臺灣社會關注的健康或生態疑慮，以及頻繁論及的特定文獻，並非整體研究的重點。學術社群對萊克多巴胺的健康或生態立場有明顯分群且欠缺共識。系統性文獻回顧與書目計量法的交互擷取使用，可在短時間、有限研究人力的情境下，有效探勘巨量學術文獻的研究特徵，創造利害關係人的共同知識基礎，實踐低成本的科技民主參與。

關鍵字

萊克多巴胺；系統性文獻回顧；書目計量法；實證決策

並列摘要

A series of debates about health, ecology, and livestock production have been erupted in Taiwanese society since August 2020, following a decision by Taiwan’s government to allow the importation of pork containing ractopamine from the United States. It becomes necessary to understand how the academic research results on ractopamine have been quoted and interpreted as the basis for discussing the debates. In this systematic review of literature along with bibliometrics, we designed a coding scheme for judging the positive and negative effects of ractopamine on health and ecology reported in the academic papers. A total of 511 articles were found in the Scopus between 2000 and 2020. According to the literature review, human health and ecological concerns are not the focus of mainstream academia. The analyses reveal that the positions of academic communities are obviously divided and lack consensus on the health and ecological stance of ractopamine. The mutual use of systematic literature review and bibliometrics can effectively explore the research characteristics of a huge amount of academic literature with limited time and research manpower, create a common knowledge base for stakeholders, and practice low-cost democratic participation in science and technology issues. This research suggests that for any controversial and risk-related technology policies, or in the early stages of policy discussion, a large-scale academic literature review should be conducted by a third-party organization in order to achieve transparent governance.

並列關鍵字

Ractopamine ； Systematic Literature Analysis ； Bibliometrics ； Evidence-based Decision Making

參考文獻

胡逸翮、岳修平（2019）。社群媒體之食品安全風險溝通行為研究—以新浪微博為例。圖書資訊學刊，17(1)，151-183。https://doi.org/10.6182/jlis.201906_17(1).151【Hu, Yi-He, & Yueh, Hsiu-Ping (2019). Food safety risk communication behavior on social media: The case of Sina Weibo. Journal of Library & Information Studies, 17(1), 151-183. https://doi.org/10.6182/jlis.201906_17(1).151 (in Chinese)】

Alemanno, A., & Capodieci, G. (2012). Testing the limits of global food governance: The case of Ractopamine. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 3(3), 400-407. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24323333

Alexander, P. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352

Andretta, I., Kipper, M., Lehnen, C. R., Demori, A. B., Remus, A., & Lovatto, P. A. (2012). Meta-analysis of the relationship between ractopamine and dietary lysine levels on carcass characteristics in pigs. Livestock Science, 143(1), 91-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.09.004

Bornmann, L., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). Scientometrics in a changing research landscape: Bibliometrics has become an integral part of research quality evaluation and has been changing the practice of research. EMBO reports, 15(12), 1228-1232. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201439608

主題瀏覽