Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards

Abstract

Social scientists have argued about the role of political beliefs in highly charged policy debates among scientific experts. In debates about environmental hazards, the focus of contention is likely to rest on the appropriate scientific assumptions to inform safety standards. When scientific communities are polarized, one would expect to find systematic differences among combatants in the choice of appropriate assumptions, and variation in the application of "precaution" in standard setting. We test this proposition using an experiment applied in a mail survey format to groups of scientists from opposing sides of the nuclear policy debate. Questions were asked about the role of political, social, and epistemological beliefs in reaching scientific and policy judgments about the relationship between radiation dose and cancer incidence in human populations. We find that the precautionary tendency is pervasive regardless of whether the scientist is associated with a putatively pro- or anti-nuclear group. Using a multinomial logit model, we explain a modest percentage of the variation in the choice of preferred judgments about safety standards, but find that distinct sets of political and social values are significantly associated with policy positions among scientists. Implications for scientific advice to policymakers are discussed.

Analytics and Beliefs: Competing Explanations for Defining Problems and Choosing Allies and Opponents in Collaborative Environmental Management

“…Such a finding generally supports the findings of Barke and Jenkins‐Smith (1993), who found differences in analytics between the life sciences and the physical sciences with regard to nuclear waste. The primary importance of trans‐scientific normative beliefs in determining problem perceptions is consistent with Silva, Barke, and Jenkins‐Smith (2007), who found that preferred radiation protection standards were grouped according to personal beliefs, despite differences in scientific discipline and organizational affiliation (respondents belonged to two generally conflicting organizations on this issue—the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Department of Energy’s national laboratory scientists).…”

The eventual rejection of the linear no‐threshold theory will lead to a drastic reduction in the demand for diagnostic medical physics services

“…However, I would dispute his claim that medical physicists are firmly in the LNT theory camp. Surveys of scientists regarding the most accurate radiation dose–response model for cancer have consistently shown that only about 15–20% support the LNT hypothesis and 65–70% support the threshold model …”

Reasoning and Public Health: New Ways of Coping with Uncertainty

“…deduction, induction). Rather, they have investigated issues such as the role of political, social and epistemological beliefs on scientific judgement and risk perception (Barke and Jenkins-Smith 1993;Silva et al 2007) and how the personal values and experiences of scientists might influence risk assessment (Carlo et al 1992). Other studies have compared the risk assessments of scientists to those of the public, often on issues that embody technological complexity (Doble 1995).…”