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.

The United States and Canada have been at the forefront of shale oil and gas development via hydraulic fracturing. Understanding public perceptions is important given the role that they may play in future policy decisions in both North America and other parts of the world where shale development is at a much earlier stage. We review 58 articles pertaining to perceptions, published between 2009 and 2015. Studies report mixed levels of awareness of shale operations, tending toward higher awareness in areas with existing development. While individuals tend to have negative associations with the term ‘fracking,’ views on shale development are mixed as to whether benefits outweigh risks or vice versa: perceived benefits tend to be economic (e.g., job creation and boosts to local economies) and risks more commonly environmental and/or social (e.g., impacts on water and increased traffic). Some papers point to ethical issues (e.g., inequitable risk/benefit distribution and procedural justice) and widespread distrust of responsible parties, stemming from perceived unfairness, heavy‐handed corporate tactics, and lack of transparency. These findings point to the contested, political character of much of the debate about hydraulic fracturing, and raise questions of what constitutes ‘acceptable’ risk in this context. We compare these results with research emerging in the UK over the same period. Future research should focus on nuanced inquiry, a range of methodologies and explore perceptions in varied social and geographical contexts. Both this and future research hold the potential to enhance public debates and decisions about shale gas and oil development. WIREs Clim Change 2017, 8:e450. doi: 10.1002/wcc.450 This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Perceptions of Climate Change The Carbon Economy and Climate Mitigation > Policies, Instruments, Lifestyles, Behavior

No abstract

A growing area of research has addressed public perception of unconventional oil and natural gas development via hydraulic fracturing ("fracking"). We extend this research by examining how geographic proximity to such extraction interacts with political ideology to influence issue support. Regression analysis of data from a fall 2013 national telephone survey of United States residents reveals that as respondents' geographic distance from areas experiencing significant development increases, political ideology becomes more strongly associated with issue support, with the liberal-partisan divide widening. Our findings support construal level theory's central premise: that people use more abstract considerations (like political ideology) the more geographically removed they are from an issue. We discuss implications for studying public opinion of energy development as well as for risk communication.

No abstract