Transparency in Europe: A Quantitative Study

In recent years, European pharmaceutical regulators have increasingly committed to heightening access to raw safety‐related data as part of a wave of transparency initiatives (e.g., providing public Internet‐mediated access to clinical trials data). Yet, the regulators—who are under significant pressure—have not yet benefited from a systematic review of this new policy. In seeking to inject much needed evidence, this article explores the effects of new transparency policies designed to promote meaningful communication of risks and benefits to patients. Results of a cross‐national European survey with respondents from Great Britain, the Netherlands, Spain, France, Germany, and Sweden (N = 5,648) shed light on how patients and the public are likely to react to the regulators’ new transparency policies. The findings demonstrate clear national variations in how European citizens are likely to react and emphasize the need to develop evidence‐based, reasoned transparency policies that integrate benefit‐risk communication. The authors conclude by providing six specific recommendations, informed by the study, that seek to improve the European transparency model both within the medical field and across health, safety, and environmental policy domains.     

Nanotechnology Risk Communication Past and Prologue

Nanotechnologies operate at atomic, molecular, and macromolecular scales, at scales where matter behaves differently than at larger scales and quantum effects can dominate. Nanotechnologies have captured the imagination of science fiction writers as science, engineering, and industry have leapt to the challenge of harnessing them. Applications are proliferating. In contrast, despite recent progress the regulatory landscape is not yet coherent, and public awareness of nanotechnology remains low. This has led risk researchers and critics of current nanotechnology risk communication efforts to call for proactive strategies that do more than address facts, that include and go beyond the public participation stipulated by some government acts. A redoubling of nanotechnology risk communication efforts could enable consumer choice and informed public discourse about regulation and public investments in science and safety.     

ENDOGENOUS PRESIDENTIALISM

We develop a model to understand the incidence of presidential and parliamentary institutions. Our analysis is predicated on two ideas: first, that minorities are relatively powerful in a parliamentary system compared to a presidential system, and second, that presidents have more power with respect to their own coalition than prime ministers do. These assumptions imply that while presidentialism has separation of powers, it does not necessarily have more checks and balances than parliamentarism. We show that political leaders who prefer presidentialism may be supported by their own coalition if they fear losing agenda‐setting power to another group. We argue that the model is consistent with a great deal of qualitative information about presidentialism in Africa and Latin America. (JEL: D72, P5, O1)     

Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies

The communication and regulation of risk has changed significantly over the past 30 years in Europe and to a noticeable but lesser extent in the United States. In Europe, this is partly due to a series of regulatory mishaps, ranging from mad cow disease in the United Kingdom to contamination of the blood supply in France. In the United States, general public confidence in the American government has been gradually declining for more than three decades, driven by a mix of cultural and political conflicts like negative political advertising, a corrosive news media, and cuts in regulatory budgets. While the former approach is based on an objective assessment of the risk, the latter is driven more by the perception of the risk, consumer sentiment, political will, and sectoral advocacy. In this article, the author examines three U.S.‐based food case studies (acrylamide, bisphenol A, and artificial food colorings) where regulations at the local and state levels are increasingly being based on perceived risk advocacy rather than on the most effective response to the risk, be it to food safety or public health, as defined by regulatory interpretation of existing data. In the final section, the author puts forward a series of recommendations for how U.S.‐based regulators can best handle those situations where the perceived risk is markedly different from the fact‐based risk, such as strengthening the communication departments of food regulatory agencies, training officials in risk communication, and working more proactively with neutral third‐party experts.     

The Brent Spar Controversy: An Example of Risk Communication Gone Wrong

This perspective piece uses the theories and ideas of risk communication to shed light on the reasons why the proposed dumping of Brent Spar in the U.K. offshore waters caused such an international uproar. We postulate that the Brent Spar crisis is a classic example of risk communication gone wrong. Had the sinking of the storage buoy not been amplified by the media and the environmental group Greenpeace, and had not the U.K. Government nor Shell come across as distrustful it would probably have taken place without any public notice. We examine some of the main reasons why Greenpeace succeeded in its risk communication and Shell/the U.K. Government failed. We conclude with a discussion concerning some of the risk communication lessons learned from this crisis.     

SOCIAL INFLUENCE, SELF-REFERENT IDENTITY LABELS, AND BEHAVIOR

Self-referent identity labels are frequently argued to be a central component of the self and to be important in the planning of conduct. Despite the attractiveness of this argument, relatively little research has yet appeared that supports it, and studies of the etiology and effects of self-referent labels often fail to control for the confounding effects of preferences, norms. or other conceptions that are known to affect conduct. In this paper, propositions are argued concerning the causes and independent effects of self-referent labels. Some of these propositions are then tested in two studies, one concerned with alcohol use among adolescents in four Western countries, the other focused on alcohol and tobacco use among American high-school and undergraduate students. Both studies found strong ties between reports of peer modeling and respondents self-referent labels and that the latter had significant and independent effects on reported behaviors. Theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed.     

The Informal European Parliamentary Working Group on Risk—History,Remit, and Future Plans: A Personal View

On September 5, 2012 the inaugural meeting of the European Parliamentary Working Group on Risk (WGR) took place in the European Parliament in Brussels. It is chaired by Mrs. Julie Girling (U.K. Conservative), Member of the European Parliament (MEP), and involves some 10–12 other MEPs representing a wide array of European political parties from across the EU member state countries, including Sweden, the Netherlands, and Hungary. The WGR is supported by a small secretariat reporting directly to Julie Girling MEP. In this background article of WGR, I discuss the background to why WGR was set up, the remit of the committee, and some of its possible future plans. I do this very much in a personal capacity, having suggested the formation of the committee in the first place and persuaded Mrs. Girling to chair it.