Science, Values and Risk RD300 15 October 2001 &quot;It is by no means uncommon to find decision makers interpreting the same scientific information in different ways in different countries.&quot; (Jasanoff, 1991, p.29) Cultural Variation U.S. Environmental Regulators more highly value formal analytical methods (testable validity) than do their European counterparts. US regulators tend to address scientific uncertainty through quantitative analysis. action in one country may not do so in another. Result: Evidence sufficient to trigger The Problem with PolicyRelevant Science When knowledge is uncertain or ambiguous facts alone are inadequate to compel a choice. Policymakers inevitably look beyond just the science and blend scientific and policy considerations together in their preferred reading of the evidence. Risk Assessment Different risk assessment methodologies can produce widely varying risk estimates. Can animal data be extrapolated to humans? Do policy makers hide behind the numbers? Most lay persons don't understand quantitative risk assessments. Value judgments and uncertainties in risk assessments may not be stated by the experts. Risks of less than one in a million are often considered negligible from a regulatory standpoint. Judgmental Probability Encoding Field of US health risk assessment. Attempts to ascertain the range of scientific expert opinion on a particular risk as well as the levels of confidence attached to each of those judgments. (e.g. ambient air quality standards) selection of experts). Has proven to be problematic (e.g. biased British Approach Multistakeholder commissions with noted academics and major interest groups. Collective credibility. Unlike US approach, risk assessment and risk management are examined together. (science and policy) With respect to lead and the risk to children's health, they were equivocal in their findings and reported no persuasive evidence of a risk. rather than numerical terms. be phased out of gasoline. Described the risk in qualitative (&quot;small&quot;) Yet they recommended that lead additives Interpreted the Precautionary Principle as: &quot;dangerous until proven safe&quot;. Dealing with uncertainty. Regulatory processes: USA vs Britain: Administrative and Political Cultures Britain consensual, nonlitigious, relatively closed. USA adversarial, litigious, open. USA regulatory process more open to political pressures. Quantitative analysis becomes a &quot;lifeline to legitimacy&quot;. Slovic Article &quot;the goal of informing the public about risk issues which in principle seems easy to attain is surprisingly difficult to accomplish.&quot; Why? Three Categories of Reasons Limitations of risk assessment. Limitations of public understanding. The problems of communicating complex technical information. Limitations of Public Understanding The public's perceptions of risk are sometimes inaccurate. Memorable past events Imaginability of future events Media coverage can influence Overestimate dramatic causes of death. How good are the public at estimating risks? Rare causes of death tend to be overestimated while common causes are underestimated. of dying of a heart attack is about 1 in 20. The truth is closer to 1 in 4. Example: Most people think their chances Judgmental bias people's predilection for exaggerating their personal immunity from Risk information may frighten and frustrate the public. Simply mentioning a risk may enhance perceptions of danger. Even neutral information may elevate fears (e.g. transmission lines) People may try to reduce their anxiety about a hazard and its uncertainty by denying its existence or in their minds making the risk smaller than it is. Strong beliefs are hard to modify. &quot;strong beliefs about risks, once formed, change very slowly and are extraordinarily persistent in the face of contrary evidence&quot;. Vincent Covello People gravitate or tend to accept evidence that supports their preexisting beliefs on the subject. When people lack strong opinions they &quot;framing effects&quot; Ethical issues can be easily manipulated by presentation format. Expert versus Lay Conceptions of Risk Risk experts employ a technical evaluation of risk: Risk = Probability x Consequences of risk that also incorporates: accountability, economics, values, and trust. The public applies a broader conception As our technical control has increased in the technological age, our social control has decreased. &quot;Most citizens' calls for `scientific' decisions, in reality, are a request for something a bit broader in most cases, a call for ways of assuring that `the human element' of societal decision making will be not just technically competent, but equitable, fair, and responsive to deeply felt concerns&quot; Freudenburg Should Zerorisk be the goal? As Harvard professor John Graham has said, &quot;We all want zero risk. The problem is if every citizen in this country demands zero risk, we're going to bankrupt the country&quot;. Perceptual cues (e.g. odor) may signal more ominous events. theory of risk. Risk as a `collective construct' cultural Studies have found crossnational differences in risk judgments. Value orientation influences risk perceptions as do worldviews. The <a href="/keyword/mad-cow/" >mad cow</a> Crisis In March 1996, the British government announced that scientists had linked CreutzfeldtJa...