Trust,Emotion, Sex,Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield

Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept risk and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach—one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.     

Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy

Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and overt conflict have become pervasive. Risk-perception research has recently begun to provide a new perspective on this problem. Distrust in risk analysis and risk management plays a central role in this perspective. According to this view, the conflicts and controversies surrounding risk management are not due to public ignorance or irrationality but, instead, are seen as a side effect of our remarkable form of participatory democracy, amplified by powerful technological and social changes that systematically destroy trust. Recognizing the importance of trust and understanding the "dynamics of the system" that destroys trust has vast implications for how we approach risk management in the future.     

Public Distrust and Hazard Management Success at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant

Based on experience gained while serving a public oversight commission appointed by the governor of Colorado, hazard management at the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant is reviewed. Specific reference is made to the plant's history of controversy, its defense-in-depth strategy of hazard control, occupational health issues, public exposure to plutonium, and the assessment of low-probability, high-consequence risks. This leads to the conclusion that Rocky Flats is, by any objective standard, a hazard management success. It follows that public distrust of Rocky Flats arises as much from fear and loathing of nuclear weapons themselves as from the manufacturing process by which they are made.     

The NAS Risk Paradigm as a Medium for Communication

Many journalists, public interest groups and other recipients of risk assessment information are familiar with the National Academy of Sciences risk assessment paradigm. From time to time, paradigm concepts appear in news features or community group discussions on environmental issues. With knowledge of the paradigm common to scientists, journalists, and other interested parties, the paradigm is a potentially important medium for communication between risk scientists, journalists, and the public. Specifically, the paradigm offers widely-accepted organizing principles for presenting risk information, a common language for addressing a variety of issues and concepts, and a flexible analytical system that accommodates the diversity of scientific information and policy perspectives that characterize the risk assessment process. In addition, the paradigm outlines important relationships and distinctions between risk assessment and risk management. Informed and creative use of these features of the paradigm can guide and simplify interviews between journalists or community groups and their expert sources, clarify presentation of risk information, and promote collaboration between risk scientists, journalists, and others to assure complete, objective and fair comment on risk issues of interest to the public.     

Variations in Concepts of "Susceptibility" in Risk Assessment

The Food Quality Protection Act and the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act are two of the most recent examples of legislation calling for protection of susceptible subpopulations. As regulatory deadlines draw nearer, controversies in scientific and policy arenas increase about incorporating susceptibility in risk assessment. The previously accepted working definition of "susceptibility" has already been called into question. Part of the controversy results from different disciplines conceiving of susceptibility in different ways. Understanding the conceptual differences embodied within definitions can provide a basis on which a revised working definition may be developed across disciplines. The purposes of this article are to describe the varying definitions of susceptibility, discuss the differing concepts incorporated in the definitions, and recommend ways in which susceptibility may be defined and framed to meet current risk assessment needs. The present analysis of definitions from the fields of ecology, biology, engineering, medicine, epidemiology, and toxicology revealed different emphases that relate to the underlying perspectives and methods of each field. It is likely that susceptibility will need to be formally defined for public policy purposes, but until that time, the use of more informal communication and decision-making processes is suggested to develop and utilize a new working consensus on the definition of susceptibility.     

Risk Analysis in Developing Countries1

In summary, risk analysis is not yet well practiced in developing countries, although there are numerous, diverse environmental and other risk-related issues and concerns that need attention. A few initiatives have been taken, but, so far, they have created only relatively small impact in a few areas. Many risk issues may not be addressed, partly as a result of lack of resources and inadequate knowledge by policy makers. Risk analysis is an essential tool for the planning and implementation of development projects. To enhance its use, however, risk analysis approaches and methods must be adapted to developing countries, and this requires research. Unfortunately, funds for research, in general, are hard to find. There are other problems in the implementation of risk analysis. Trained professionals on risk analysis are few. Existing institutions that are tasked with resolving environmental and other risk issues are overburdened. Risk-related data are sorely lacking. Resources are very limited for addressing numerous natural and technological hazards. In most developing countries, political and economic stability is still threatened by both internal and external forces, hence, that is what receives priority attention. Activities like risk analysis, which generally lead to long-term results and benefits, do not get enough interest. In addition, there is still little public awareness of risks even among those who have passed the stage of survival; thus, there is little public concern about them. We cannot afford this lack of concern for long. In the Philippines, the government was the first to recognize after our peaceful revolution in 1986 that “the environmental issues can add fuel to the insurgency; they can also hamper efforts towards national recovery”.⁽⁴⁾ To this point, I have added that risk management (including risk assessment and risk communication), like attainment of peace and freedom, is a social imperative because risk issues affect our health, safety, and both our physical and economic well-being.⁽⁷⁾ Many of such issues in developing countries have not only local, but also global origin and impacts. They thus deserve the interest of each of us.     

Patterns of Conflict About Risky Technologies

This paper examines taxonomies for classifying risks and conflicts about risky technologies. First, we describe six levels of conflict that represent various " shades of gray" between purely factual and purely value laden conflicts in technology disputes. Subsequently, we survey several recent taxonomies of risks and hazards that were at least partly intended to clarify the nature of the public conflicts about technologies and their risks. After pointing out that non-risk features frequently shape technology debates, we develop a taxonomy of the disputes themselves, based on a collection of 162 cases. Our taxonomy of technological controversies is related to the recent risk taxonomies and to the different levels of conflict. It turns out that the different technological disputes create quite different levels of conflict ranging from mainly factual (consumer products, drugs) to extremely value laden (nuclear power, genetic engineering). Depending on the type of controversy and level of conflict we suggest alternative conflict management strategies.     

Public participation in life cycle assessment and risk assessment: a shared need.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and risk assessment are operationally different but share the common purpose of supporting decisions about reducing threats to human welfare. Both analysis methods also involve a complex mixture of science and value judgments reflecting epistemological as well as moral and esthetic values. The inability of risk assessment and LCA to be "value free" has been a source of considerable controversy in both communities. Recognition of the contingent and social nature of human interpretation of the risks and environmental impacts created by public and private decisions has led to an increased appreciation of the importance of involving interested and affected parties in risk characterization. Comparison of the value-based nature of LCA and risk assessment demonstrates the need for participation in LCA. Although the need for participation by affected parties in decision-making processes is gaining acceptance, there is little agreement as to how participation should be structured. Risk assessment and LCA have a shared need for research examining the design and analysis of participation processes appropriate to a given decision context. A proposed framework recommends participation strategies designed to enhance the effectiveness of policy-driven analyses such as risk assessment and LCA based on the level of trust that interested and affected parties have for other policy participants.     

Sustainable Supply Network Management

This article presents an overview of current practices in managing sustainability (social, ethical, environmental) issues in supply networks. It is based on an examination of eight economic sectors in Europe and North America, including utilities, transport, information and communication technology (ICT), retail, tourism and leisure, construction, chemicals and the public sector. It was found that for the vast majority of organisations, the incorporation of sustainability issues is a new area of activity and many have yet to begin managing them in their supply networks. Of those that are active, most have so far only focused on environmental issues. This is largely due to the presence of external environmental drivers, such as legislation, market pressure and media attention, and a lack of external pressures for social and ethical issues in most sectors. So far, tools and strategies have predominantly focused on the procurement process and the management of corporate risk. However, cutting edge organisations are exploring partnership approaches for sharing knowledge, solving shared problems and harnessing opportunities for competitive advantage.     

Historical Application of a Social Amplification of Risk Model: Economic Impacts of Risk Events at Nuclear Weapons Facilities

Public perception of risk is being cited as a documented reason to rethink a very contentious congressionally mandated process for siting interim storage and permanent disposal facilities for high-level radioactive waste. Rigorous survey research has shown that the public holds intense, negative images of "nuclear" and "radioactive" technologies, activities, and facilities. Potential host states and opponents claim that these negative images, coupled with an amplification of negative risk events, will potentially stigmatize the area surrounding such facilities and result in significant economic losses. At issue is whether a supporting social amplification of risk model is applicable to communities hosting facilities that are part of the U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Weapons Complex. An initial assessment of high-profile discrete and cumulative key negative risk events at such nuclear facilities does not validate that there has been stigmatization or substantial social and economic consequences in the host areas. Before any changes to major national policy are implemented, additional research is required to determine if the nearby public's "pragmatic logic," based on practical knowledge and experience, attenuates the link between public opinion and demographic and economic behaviors.     

Risk and Systems Theory

The last few decades have seen increasingly widespread use of risk assessment and management techniques as aids in making complex decisions. However, despite the progress that has been made in risk science, there still remain numerous examples of risk-based decisions and conclusions that have caused great controversy. In particular, there is a great deal of debate surrounding risk assessment: the role of values and ethics and other extra-scientific factors, the efficacy of quantitative versus qualitative analysis, and the role of uncertainty and incomplete information. Many of the epistemological and methodological issues confronting risk assessment have been explored in general systems theory, where techniques exist to manage such issues. However, the use of systems theory and systems analysis tools is still not widespread in risk management. This article builds on the Alachlor risk assessment case study of Brunk, Haworth, and Lee to present a systems-based view of the risk assessment process. The details of the case study are reviewed and the authors' original conclusions regarding the effects of extra-scientific factors on risk assessment are discussed. Concepts from systems theory are introduced to provide a mechanism with which to illustrate these extra-scientific effects The role of a systems study within a risk assessment is explained, resulting in an improved view of the problem formulation process The consequences regarding the definition of risk and its role in decision making are then explored.     

What Can Decision Analysis Do for Invasive Species Management?

Decisions about management of invasive species are difficult for all the reasons typically addressed by multiattribute decision analysis: uncertain outcomes, multiple and conflicting objectives, and many interested parties with differing views on both facts and values. This article illustrates how the tools of multiattribute analysis can improve management of invasive species, with an emphasis on making explicit the social values and preferences that must inform invasive species management. Risk assessment protocols developed previously for invasive species management typically suffer from two interacting flaws: (1) separating risk assessment from risk management, thus disrupting essential connections between the social values at stake in invasive species decisions and the scientific knowledge necessary to predict the likely impacts of management actions, and (2) relying on expert judgment about risk framed in qualitative and value-laden terms, inadvertently mixing the expert's judgment about what is likely to happen with personal preferences. Using the values structuring and probability-modeling elements of formal decision analysis can remedy these difficulties and make invasive species management responsive to both good science and public values. The management of feral pigs in Hawaiian ecosystems illustrates the need for such an integrated approach.     

Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.     

What Should Be the Implications of Uncertainty,Variability, and Inherent “Biases”/“Conservatism” for Risk Management Decision-Making?

This paper is a challenge from a pair of lifelong technical specialists in risk assessment for the risk-management community to better define social decision criteria for risk acceptance vs. risk control in relation to the issues of variability and uncertainty. To stimulate discussion, we offer a variety of straw man proposals about where we think variability and uncertainty are likely to matter for different types of social policy considerations in the context of a few different kinds of decisions. In particular, we draw on recent presentations of uncertainty and variability data that have been offered by EPA in the context of the consideration of revised ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act.     

Health Claims and Methodological Controversy in Nutrition Science

This article analyzes the debate about data acquisition and assessment in health claims regulation by identifying the underlying controversies on methodological choice. Regulation in the European Union imposes the need for a scientific substantiation of all health claims (claims about a relationship between consumption of certain food ingredients and positive health effects). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the method that generally is considered to provide the highest quality data for decision making in claims regulation because they allow for establishing cause–effect relationships. The latter are demanded in European regulatory practice for authorization of a claim. This requirement has contributed to a debate about the advantages and limitations of the RCT methodology in nutrition research and regulation. Our analysis identifies five types of tensions that underlie the controversy, with respect to evidence, cognitive values, standards of proof, future lines of research, as well as expert judgment. We conclude that there is a direct and mutual interaction between methodological decisions in nutrition science, and different strategies in health claims regulation. The latter have social and public health consequences because not only may they affect the European market for functional foods, as well as concomitant consumption patterns, but also the generation of future regulation‐relevant evidence in nutrition.     

Perspectives on Risk Management

The development of the techniques of risk assessment and management are considered, noting the early emphasis on quantitative approaches. The basic strategies available to governments for risk management—educational, economic, and regulatory—are discussed. Six specific issues are considered with reference to the Canadian experience and the lessons learned. These are: the separation of risk assessment from risk management; the uncertainties of science; the weakness of numerical comparisons; too great a trust in education; the Great White Father Syndrome; and regulatory perils. This examination shows a number of inadequacies in the application of risk management techniques. It is suggested that knowledge of the limitations of quantitative assessment in its application to decision-making together with the involvement of those affected by the risk in the decision-making processes will lead to greater success.     

The Promise of Molecular Epidemiology for Quantitative Risk Assessment

In the long run, molecular epidemiological techniques can provide important insights for understanding a wide variety of important issues in current risk assessment and are applicable across a broad spectrum of adverse effects in addition to carcinogenesis. Unfortunately, current risk assessment practices make very little use of the kind of detailed mechanistic information that molecular epidemiology can provide. Eventually, there is reason to hope that the availability of mechanistic insights provided in part by molecular epidemiology can produce some of the "essential tension" required to reform paradigms for the formulation of quantitative risk assessment models in general.     

Generic Assessment Endpoints Are Needed for Ecological Risk Assessment

This article presents arguments for the development of generic assessment endpoints for ecological risk assessment. Generic assessment endpoints would be ecological entities and attributes that are assumed to be worthy of protection in most contexts. The existence of generic assessment endpoints would neither create a requirement that they be used in every assessment nor preclude the use of other assessment endpoints. They would simply be a starting point in the process of identifying the assessment endpoints for a particular assessment. They are needed to meet legal mandates, to provide a floor for environmental degradation, to provide some consistency in environmental regulation, as exemplars for site- or project-specific assessment endpoints, to allow development of methods and models, to give risk managers the courage to act, for screening and site-independent assessments, to support environmental monitoring, to facilitate communication, and to avoid paralysis by analysis. Generic assessment endpoints should include not only a list of entities and attributes, but also explanations of each endpoint, guidance on their use and interpretation, and measures and models that could be used to estimate them.     

The Contrast Between Risk Assessment and Rules of Evidence in the Context of International Trade Disputes: Can the U.S. Experience Inform the Process?

Risk assessment provides a formalized process to evaluate human, animal, and ecological responses associated with exposure to environmental agents. The purpose of risk assessment is to answer two related questions.

• ? How likely is an (adverse) event to occur?
• ? If it does, how severe will the impact be?

In the United States, the science of risk assessment has evolved out of the necessity to make public health decisions in the face of scientific uncertainty. Its basic propositions have been established over the past three decades and its applications have impacted virtually every aspect of public health and environmental protection in many countries, including the United States. More recently, the World Trade Organization's (WTO) dispute‐settlement process has provided additional incentive for the reliance on risk assessments internationally through the requirement that member countries be able to provide scientific justification, based on a risk assessment, for public health and environmental regulatory measures that are challenged. The purpose of this article is to review the history of risk assessment in the United States, emphasizing the development of both its scientific and policy aspects, as one example of the development of institutional capacity for risk assessment. This article discusses the importance of the social, political, and economic contexts of risk assessment and risk management in shaping the approaches taken while highlighting the reality that the analytic or risk assessment part of the decision‐making process, in the absence of scientific data, can be completed only by inserting inferences, or policy judgments, which may differ among countries. This article recognizes these differences, and the consequent difference between risk assessment that incorporates public health protective assumptions and the rules of evidence that seek to answer questions of causality, and discusses implications for the WTO dispute‐settlement process. It further explores the value of country‐specific risk assessment guidelines to facilitate consistency within a country along with the appropriateness and feasibility of international risk assessment guidelines.