Risk Governance for Mobile Phones,Power Lines,and Other EMF Technologies

Power‐frequency electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) have been present in industrialized countries since the late 19th century and a considerable amount of knowledge has been accumulated as to potential health effects. The mainstream scientific view is that even if there is a risk, it is unlikely to be of major public‐health significance. EMFs from cellular communications and other radio‐frequency technologies have increased rapidly in the last decade. This technology is constantly changing, which makes continued research both more urgent and more challenging. While there are no persuasive data suggesting a health risk, research and particularly exposure assessment is still immature. The principal risk‐governance issue with power frequencies is how to respond to weak and uncertain scientific evidence that nonetheless causes public concern. For radio‐frequency electromagnetic fields, the issue is how to respond to large potential consequences and large public concern where only limited scientific evidence exists. We survey these issues and identify deficits in risk governance. Deficits in problem framing include both overstatement and understatement of the scientific evidence and of the consequences of taking protective measures, limited ability to detect early warnings of risk, and attempted reassurance that has sometimes been counterproductive. Other deficits relate to the limited public involvement mechanisms, and flaws in the identification and evaluation of tradeoffs in the selection of appropriate management strategies. We conclude that risk management of EMFs has certainly not been perfect, but for power frequencies it has evolved and now displays many successful features. Lessons from the power‐frequency experience can benefit risk governance of the radio‐frequency EMFs and other emerging technologies.     

Technology Learning, Technology Strategy and Competitive Pressures

This paper develops some hypotheses concerning technological learning in firms. The hypotheses are examined using a detailed study of Europe's leading dedicated biotechnology firm, Celltech Ltd. It relates how the competitive pressures facing the company, and similar US companies, have changed over the past decade, and how Celltech's technology strategy has placed considerable emphasis on technological learning in order to maintain its competitive position compared with large, multinational pharmaceutical companies. Some of the features of technological learning are examined, including: its purposive character; its differential and complex nature; its internal and external components; the complementary nature of the company's technology and human resource development strategy; and the importance of organizational considerations.     

Making ‘my’ problem ‘our’ problem: Warfare as collective action,and the role of leader manipulation

Warfare is a collective action problem, and groups often stand to benefit from the quick and coordinated action that leaders can provide. This basic principle is as true in modern political contexts as it has been across our evolutionary history, and there is growing evidence that leadership has evolved, in part, to solve such collective action problems. Despite the material and reproductive benefits of leadership for groups, leaders may also seek private gains at the expense of group interests. Drawing upon insights from social and evolutionary psychology, I explain how leaders solve collective action problems in warfare, but also how leaders manipulate audience preferences when their own interests do not align with group interests. Specifically, when leaders anticipate great private gain from foreign aggression while facing steep public resistance at home, leaders will misframe the conflict as defensive rather than offensive in nature. I provide an evolutionary analysis that explains why leaders exploit this framing specifically, and I identify the specific aspects of conflict framing that are most likely to be exploited toward this end.     

Nanotechnology risk perceptions and communication: emerging technologies, emerging challenges

Nanotechnology involves the fabrication, manipulation, and control of materials at the atomic level and may also bring novel uncertainties and risks. Potential parallels with other controversial technologies mean there is a need to develop a comprehensive understanding of processes of public perception of nanotechnology uncertainties, risks, and benefits, alongside related communication issues. Study of perceptions, at so early a stage in the development trajectory of a technology, is probably unique in the risk perception and communication field. As such it also brings new methodological and conceptual challenges. These include: dealing with the inherent diversity of the nanotechnology field itself; the unfamiliar and intangible nature of the concept, with few analogies to anchor mental models or risk perceptions; and the ethical and value questions underlying many nanotechnology debates. Utilizing the lens of social amplification of risk, and drawing upon the various contributions to this special issue of Risk Analysis on Nanotechnology Risk Perceptions and Communication, nanotechnology may at present be an attenuated hazard. The generic idea of "upstream public engagement" for emerging technologies such as nanotechnology is also discussed, alongside its importance for future work with emerging technologies in the risk communication field.     

Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields,Particulate Matter,and Antimicrobial Resistance

This perspective presents empirical data to demonstrate the existence of different expert views on scientific policy advice on complex environmental health issues. These views are partly research‐field specific. According to scientific literature, experts differ in the way they provide policy advice on complex issues such as electromagnetic fields (EMF), particulate matter (PM), and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Where some experts feel their primary task is to carry out fundamental research, others actively engage in the policy dialogue. Although the literature provides ideas about expert roles, there exists little empirical underpinning. Our aim is to gather empirical evidence about expert roles. The results of an international study indicated that experts on EMF, PM, and AMR differ in the way they view their role in the policy dialogue. For example, experts differed in their views on the need for precaution and their motivation to initiate stakeholder cooperation. Besides, most experts thought that their views on the risks of EMF/PM/AMR did not differ from those of colleagues. Great dissensus was found in views on the best ways of managing risks and uncertainties. In conclusion, the theoretical ideal–typical roles from the literature can be identified to a certain extent.     

Resilience and Climate Change Adaptation: The Importance of Framing

In the Australian policy context, there has recently been a discernible shift in the discourse used when considering responses to the impacts of current weather extremes and future climate change. Commonly used terminology, such as climate change impacts and vulnerability, is now being increasingly replaced by a preference for language with more positive connotations as represented by resilience and a focus on the ‘strengthening’ of local communities. However, although this contemporary shift in emphasis has largely political roots, the scientific conceptual underpinning for resilience, and its relationship with climate change action, remains contested. To contribute to this debate, the authors argue that how adaptation is framed—in this case by the notion of resilience—can have an important influence on agenda setting, on the subsequent adaptation pathways that are pursued and on eventual adaptation outcomes. Drawing from multi-disciplinary adaptation research carried out in three urban case studies in the State of Victoria, Australia (‘Framing multi-level and multi-actor adaptation responses in the Victorian context’, funded by the Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research (2010–2012)), this article is structured according to three main discussion points. Firstly, the importance of being explicit when framing adaptation; secondly, this study reflects on how resilience is emerging as part of adaptation discourse and narratives in different scientific, research and policy-making communities; and finally, the authors reflect on the implications of resilience framing for evolving adaptation policy and practice.     

Medical resource allocation: rationing and ethical considerations, Part II

The proliferation of medical technology during the past decade has doubtless surpassed that of any other recent period. We have witnessed and are continuing to witness rapid advances in human genetic engineering, reproductive technology, and biomedical intervention in the life process. Our population has benefitted from this technology as a result of its ability to extend the life of individuals, particularly the elderly sector of our society. This technological proliferation has caused philosophers, physicians, engineers, and policy strategists to focus upon questions of ethics and mortality relating to their application. In approaching the ethics of rationing, consideration must be given to both the deontological concepts of the individual and the utilitarian principles of societal preservation. This article continues a discussion of the issues of resource allocation that was begun in the February 1994 issue of Physician Executive.     

From Breeder Reactors to Butterflies: Risk, Culture, and Biotechnology

Social theories of risk suggest that a combination of scientific and cultural perspectives converge to influence risk perception. This article first surveys sociological perspectives suggesting that risks from modern technological development have become predominant concerns in the social consciousness. Particular attention is given to those theses describing how social elements work to create perception of risks in relation to new technologies. The themes that emerge from this survey are then related to contemporary debates concerning biotechnology. Specific attention is given to recent controversies regarding genetically modified crops, and parallels are drawn between debates over nuclear power and biotechnology. A procedural ethic for public discourse and decision making over the diffusion of genetically modified foods is offered. Ethical and social theories are linked with the hope that by recognizing the social dimensions of debates over new technologies a broader framework for conducting risk analysis may emerge.     

Analyzing Precautionary Regulation: Do Precaution,Science, and Innovation Go Together?

In this article we argue that the precautionary principle, as applied to the regulation of science and technology, cannot be considered in any general manner inconsistent with the norms and methods of scientific knowledge generation and justification. Moreover, it does not necessarily curtail scientific‐technological innovation. Our argument flows from a differentiated view of what precaution in regulation means. We first characterize several of the most relevant interpretations given to the precautionary principle in academic debate and regulatory practice. We then use examples of actual precaution‐based regulation to show that, even though science can have varying functions in different circumstances and frames, all of those interpretations recur to scientific method and knowledge, and tend to imply innovation in methods, products, and processes. In fact, the interplay of regulation and innovation in precautionary policy, at least in the case of the interpretations of precaution that our analysis takes into account, could be understood as a way of reconciling the two fundamental science and technology policy functions of promotion and control.     

Fuzzy System Dynamics Risk Analysis (FuSDRA) of Autonomous Underwater Vehicle Operations in the Antarctic

With the maturing of autonomous technology and better accessibility, there has been a growing interest in the use of autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs). The deployment of AUVs for under-ice marine science research in the Antarctic is one such example. However, a higher risk of AUV loss is present during such endeavors due to the extreme operating environment. To control the risk of loss, existing risk analyses approaches tend to focus more on the AUV's technical aspects and neglect the role of soft factors, such as organizational and human influences. In addition, the dynamic and complex interrelationships of risk variables are also often overlooked due to uncertainties and challenges in quantification. To overcome these shortfalls, a hybrid fuzzy system dynamics risk analysis (FuSDRA) is proposed. In the FuSDRA framework, system dynamics models the interrelationships between risk variables from different dimensions and considers the time-dependent nature of risk while fuzzy logic accounts for uncertainties. To demonstrate its application, an example based on an actual Antarctic AUV program is presented. Focusing on funding and experience of the AUV team, simulation of the FuSDRA risk model shows a declining risk of loss from 0.293 in the early years of the Antarctic AUV program, reaching a minimum of 0.206 before increasing again in later years. Risk control policy recommendations were then derived from the analysis. The example demonstrated how FuSDRA can be applied to inform funding and risk management strategies, or broader application both within the AUV domain and on other complex technological systems.     

The Significance of Socioeconomic and Ethnic Diversity for the Risk Communication Process

Risk communication is being characterized as one way of facilitating more effective, democratic and participatory risk management strategies. An emphasis on formal communication approaches as a means to improve decisions and decrease conflict will highlight the challenge of managing hazards within a culturally heterogeneous society. Communication and participatory strategies will be considered successful only if diverse communities can be engaged as partners in the policy process. Because responses to risks are embedded and evolve within broader social environments, achieving the promise of risk communication across a diverse society may not be possible absent an understanding of how sociocultural variables and past experiences shape the exchange of ideas or information in any particular situation. This paper considers the implications of ethnic and socioeconomic variability for the risk communication process, summarizing theoretical perspectives and empirical evidence on the link between sociocultural features and risk responses. Specifically, the factors that define the context of communication may influence: the initial framing of a risk issue, particularly, the adoption of an environmental justice vs. scientific/economic perspective; the perceived importance of various aspects of the decision problem; and prior beliefs about environmental hazards and agencies involved in risk management. Two examples of situations requiring communications about risk are presented and illustrate how these principles could operate in minority or lower-income communities. A significant challenge for health and regulatory officials will be to engage in an interactive process of information and opinion exchanges that is reasonable and effective within vastly different socioeconomic and cultural contexts.     

Analytical Paradigms: The Epistemological Distances between Scientists, Policy Makers, and the Public

The effective use of evidence and its resultant knowledge is increasingly recognized as critical in risk analysis. This, in turn, has led to a growing concern over issues of epistemology in risk communication, and, in particular, interest in how knowledge is constructed and employed by the key players in risk--scientists, policy makers, and the public. This article uses a critical theoretical approach to explore how evidence is recognized and validated, and how limits are placed on knowledge by scientists, policy makers, and the public. It brings together developments in the sociology of science, policy and policy development, public understandings of science, and risk communication and analysis to explicate the differing forms of rationality employed by each group. The work concludes that each group employs different, although equally legitimate, forms of rationality when evaluating evidence and generating knowledge around risky environment and health issues. Scientists, policy makers, and the public employ scientific, political, and social rationality, respectively. These differing forms of rationality reflect underlying epistemological distances from which can develop considerable misunderstandings and misinterpretations.     

In Search of Perfect Foresight? Policy Bias,Management of Unknowns,and What Has Changed in Science Policy Since the Tohoku Disaster

The failure to foresee the catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, and nuclear accident of 2011 has been perceived by many in Japan as a fundamental shortcoming of modern disaster risk science. Hampered by a variety of cognitive and institutional biases, the conventional disaster risk management planning based on the “known risks” led to the cascading failures of the interlinked disaster risk management (DRM) apparatus. This realization led to a major rethinking in the use of science for policy and the incorporations of lessons learned in the country's new DRM policy. This study reviews publicly available documents on expert committee discussions and scientific articles to identify what continuities and changes have been made in the use of scientific knowledge in Japanese risk management. In general, the prior influence of cognitive bias (e.g., overreliance on documented hazard risks) has been largely recognized, and increased attention is now being paid to the incorporation of less documented but known risks. This has led to upward adjustments in estimated damages from future risks and recognition of the need for further strengthening of DRM policy. At the same time, there remains significant continuity in the way scientific knowledge is perceived to provide sufficient and justifiable grounds for the development and implementation of DRM policy. The emphasis on “evidence‐based policy” in earthquake and tsunami risk reduction measures continues, despite the critical reflections of a group of scientists who advocate for a major rethinking of the country's science‐policy institution respecting the limitations of the current state science.     

How Much Uncertainty is Too Much and How Do We Know? A Case Example of the Assessment of Ozone Monitor Network Options

Limited time and resources usually characterize environmental decision making at policy organizations such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. In these climates, addressing uncertainty, usually considered a flaw in scientific analyses, is often avoided. However, ignoring uncertainties can result in unpleasant policy surprises. Furthermore, it is important for decisionmakers to know how defensible a chosen policy option is over other options when the uncertainties of the data are considered. The purpose of this article is to suggest an approach that is unique from other approaches in that it considers uncertainty in two specific ways-the uncertainty of stakeholder values within a particular decision context and data uncertainty in the light of the decision-contextual data-values relationship. It is the premise of this article that the interaction between data and stakeholder values is critical to how the decision options are viewed and determines the effect of data uncertainty on the relative acceptability of the decision options, making the understanding of this interaction important to decisionmakers and other stakeholders. This approach utilizes the recently developed decision analysis framework and process, multi-criteria integrated resource assessment (MIRA). This article will specifically address how MIRA can be used to help decisionmakers better understand the importance of uncertainty on the specific (i.e., decision contextual) environmental policy options that they are deliberating.     

Who Reaps the Benefits,Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism,Comparative Utility,and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology

Although the issue of risk target (e.g., self, others, children) is widely acknowledged in risk perception research, its importance appears underappreciated. To date, most research has been satisfied with demonstrating comparative optimism, i.e., lower perceived risk for the self than others, and exploring its moderators, such as perceived controllability and personal exposure. Much less research has investigated how the issue of target may affect benefit perceptions or key outcomes such as stated preferences for hazard regulation. The current research investigated these issues using data from a public survey of attitudes toward mobile phone technology (N= 1,320). First, results demonstrated comparative optimism for this hazard, and also found moderating effects of both controllability and personal exposure. Second, there was evidence of comparative utility, i.e., users believed that the benefits from mobile phone technology are greater for the self than others. Third, and most important for policy, preferences for handset regulation were best predicted by perceptions of the risks to others but perceived benefits for the self. Results suggest a closer awareness of target can improve prediction of stated preferences for hazard regulation and that it would be profitable for future research to pay more attention to the issue of target for both risk and benefit perceptions.     

“Modest doubt is called the beacon of the wise”—Incorporating uncertainty in risk analysis from Shakespeare to today

“Modest doubt is call'd the beacon of the wise.”—William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida. Although the character Hector warns his fellow Trojans with this line not to engage in war against the Greeks, Shakespeare's works are replete with characters who do not incorporate modest doubt, or any consideration of uncertainty, in their risk decisions. Perhaps Shakespeare was simply a keen observer of human nature. Although risk science has developed tremendously over the last five decades (and scientific inquiry over five centuries), the human mind still frequently defaults to conviction about certain beliefs, absent sufficient scientific evidence—which has effects not just on individual lives, but on policy decisions that affect many. This perspective provides background on the Shakespearean quote in its literary and historical context. Then, as this quote is the theme of the 2023 Society for Risk Analysis Annual Meeting, we describe how “modest doubt”—incorporating the notion of uncertainty into risk analysis for individual and policy decisions—is still the “beacon of the wise” today.     

Limits of Knowledge and the Limited Importance of Trust

Perceived risk and related attitudes have been implicated as major factors in many of the difficult policy problems that face modern society (nuclear power, genetically modified food, etc). Experts often argue that no or very small risks are involved; people are still worried. Why? The standard answer is lack of trust. Data on trust and risk perception, however, point to only a weak relationship between the two (r approximately 0.3). It is suggested here that the reason for the surprisingly minor importance of trust is that people believe that there are clear limits to how much science and experts know. Results are presented from studies of risk perception of the public, experts, and politicians. Politicians and members of the public believe that there are many unknown effects of technology and such beliefs were strongly related to their perceived risk. Experts on nuclear waste, on the other hand, seemed to believe that little is unknown in their field of expertise. Regression analyses of risk perception showed the unknown‐effects factor to be a more important explanatory factor than trust for the public and politicians.     

Constructing Scientific Authorities: Issue Framing of Chlorinated Disinfection Byproducts in Public Health

The practice of chlorine disinfection of drinking water to reduce microbial risks provides substantial benefits to public health. However, increasing concern around potential risks of cancer associated with exposure to chlorinated disinfection byproducts confuses this issue. This article examines the science agenda regarding chlorinated disinfection byproducts (CDBP) and cancer in Canada and the United States, focusing on the social construction of scientific knowledge claims and evidence. Data for this analysis were obtained from published documents as well as from in-depth interviews with epidemiologists and toxicologists centrally involved with the issue in both countries. Results of the analysis suggest that toxicological scientists want to close the door on the "chloroform issue" due to increasing evidence that chloroform is safe at low doses, because epidemiological scientists can no longer move forward the cancer science until significant improvements can be made in assessing human exposures, and because the scientific foci of research on DBP have shifted accordingly. Further, a distinction emerges in terms of how scientific uncertainties are interpreted when they cross-cut disciplines in the context of human health risk assessment. We suggest this tension reflects a balance of how uncertainty and authorities are managed in a mandated science-policy domain. Sufficient evidence was provided to keep the DBP issue on the regulatory agenda and to generate additional research, yet authorities and concomitant interpretations of uncertainty were contested. Such science generation and contestation inevitably influences complex risk assessment processes with respect to what water-related health risks are addressed and how.     

Exploring Framing Effects in Inventory Control Decisions: Violations of Procedure Invariance

Recent research on decision framing has shown that (i) there are multiple types of framing effects and (ii) the context of the decision can influence framing effects. This research examines decision framing effects in inventory control contexts by questioning the assumption of procedure invariance, that preference should not be impacted by how options are presented to a supply chain manager making an inventory control decision. Study 1 uses three single‐shot decision experiments to establish that all three types of framing effects identified by Levin et al. ( 1998 ) apply in basic inventory control contexts. Results were consistent with theory in all three cases. Given this evidence that framing effects have potential to impact inventory control decisions, two laboratory experiments in Study 2 utilize multi‐period decision tasks to demonstrate that framing effects can impact performance in a dynamic inventory decision setting similar to practice. One of the experiments in Study 2 was conducted with student subjects, while the other with inventory managers from a large retail firm. Results from both experiments provide evidence that even when initial framing effects on order quantities fade, there can be longer term effects on inventory levels and performance. Furthermore, these effects are robust to education and professional experience. The findings suggest that although a manager might select appropriate inventory control metrics, prudence must be exercised in the presentation of these metrics, and that mere presentation can be used to alleviate known human biases in inventory control decisions.     

Risk Perception and Technological Development at a Societal Level

This article tests the hypothesis that the exposure to the threat to societies posed by the introduction of new technologies is associated with a normalization of risk perception. Data collected in 2000 by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) on environmental issues were used to explore this hypothesis. Representative samples from 25 countries were employed to assess the national levels of perceived threat to the environment associated with a series of technologies and activities. These values were correlated with economic indicators (mainly from the World Bank) of the diffusion of each of the technologies or activities in each country. Results indicate a negative association of risk perception with the level of technological prevalence (societal normalization effect) and a positive association with the rate of growth of the technology (societal sensitivity effect). These results indicate that the most acute levels of perceived environmental risk are found in those countries where the level of technological prevalence is low but where there has recently been substantial technological development. Environmental awareness is a mediator of the relationship between risk perception and the indices of technological diffusion. This result means that: (1) societal normalization of risk is not a direct consequence of prevalence of the technology, but is driven by awareness of technological development and that (2) societal sensitivity to risk is associated with lower levels of environmental awareness.