The regulation and management of hazardous industrial activities increasingly rely on formal expert judgment processes to provide wisdom in areas of science and technology where traditional "good science" is, in practice, unable to supply unambiguous "facts." Expert judgment has always played a significant, if often unrecognized, role in analysis; however, recent trends are to make it formal, explicit, and documented so it can be identified and reviewed by others. We propose four categories of expert judgment and present three case studies which illustrate some of the pitfalls commonly encountered in its use. We conclude that there will be an expanding policy role for formal expert judgment and that the openness, transparency, and documentation that it requires have implications for enhanced public involvement in scientific and technical affairs.
The social acceptability of large-scale technologies depends upon a wide range of things, some related to safety and economics, but also some factors of cultural, social and psychological significance. However, many risk analysts assume that public opposition to technologies is mostly due to unfounded fears of their risks and, that there can exist quantitative criteria of "acceptable risk" that could allow the acceptability of technologies to be judged. This paper traces the emergence of the "acceptable risk" problem formulation and reviews critically some of the approaches that have been put forward to "solve" it. It concludes by discussing the problem of acceptable technology returned to its wider political and cultural context. Social opposition to technologies is not new. In recent years we have seen many examples, which include rural electrification, water fluoridation, supersonic air transport, contraceptive devices, nuclear weapons and nuclear power (Lawless, 1977). Although opposition itself is not new, the reasons for it have differed from case to case, reflecting a complex mixture of concerns related to morals, religion, political ideologies, power, economics, physical safety and psychological wellbeing. Yet, oddly enough, today's debates about the acceptability of technologies are frequently treated * Paper written in the framework of a collaboration with the FAST Programme (Forecasting and Assessment in the Field of Science and Technology) of the Commission of the European Communities. We wish to thank
This paper looks critically at the emergence and present status of risk analysis with the aim of assessing its usefulness for policy decisions on risk regulation and the acceptability of risk-bearing innovations. The authors adopt a personal narrative to illustrate their own involvement in risk research and to comment on empirical trends that have resulted in the current fashion for risk workshops. The second part of the paper confronts specific issues in risk research. These are not new problems-indeed several of the questions asked have been taken directly from a list used to structure a recent risk seminar; but the stand taken here is rather less conciliatory than is usual when these issues are discussed. The pessimistic message of this paper is that risk research, especially in the area of risk perception, is being used as a panacea with which to attempt to remedy what are essentially societal and political matters. Risk research is being used as a tool in a discourse which is not concerned with risks per se, nor with the cognitive processes by which people misperceive the risks of new technologies, but whose hidden agenda is the legitimacy of decision-making institutions and the equitable distribution of hazards and benefits. The authors take a subjectivist view, not just of risk but in general, and query the natural science approach to risk perception, with its assumption that universal dimensions of risk perception can be discovered and used in policy-making and setting regulatory standards. Although it is possible to collect subjective data on the wider meanings that risks and benefits associated with technological innovations have for lay publics, 'the interpretation and recombination of these data into useful policy guidelines is seen as fraught with technical and, above all, political problems.
Respondents (n -148) were asked to rate the hazard they perceived to be associated with living near seven different types of public facilities. Two respondent groups lived about .5 km (n -32) and 1.4 km (n -31) from a nuclear research reactor, two groups lived at similar distances from a district heating facility, and the control group lived about 10 km from both facilities. Statistically significant differences were found with respect to the item "nuclear reactor," with the group living 1.4 km from the reactor perceiving it to be riskier than the nearer group and the controls, suggesting that frequent contact with potentially threatening objects reduces the perceived hazard.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.