This study is a replication and extension in Canada of a previous study in the United States in which toxicologists and members of the public were surveyed to determine their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding risks from chemicals. This study of "intuitive vs. scientific showed that Canadian toxicologists had far lower perceptions of risk and more favorable attitudes toward chemicals than did the Canadian public. The public's attitudes were quite negative and showed the same lack of dose-response sensitivity found in the earlier U.S. study. Both the public and the toxicologists lacked confidence in the value of animal studies for predicting human health risks. However, the public had great confidence in the validity of animal studies that found evidence of carcinogenicity, whereas such evidence was not considered highly predictive of human health risk by many toxicologists. Technical judgments of toxicologists were found to be associated with factors such as affiliation, gender, and worldviews. Implications of these data for risk communication are briefly discussed.

No abstract

1 Members of the British Toxicology Society partici pated in a survey to determine their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding risks from chemicals. Similar surveys had previously been conducted with toxicologists and members of the general public in the United States and Canada. Data from 312 completed questionnaires were analyzed. 2 In general, the British toxicologists judged risks to be quite low for most hazards, with the exception of cigarette smoking and asbestos. They tended to have quite favorable attitudes toward the use of chemicals and were confident about the adequacy of chemical regulations. 3 As in previous studies of toxicologists, women expressed higher perceptions of risk than did men and had consistently stronger anti-chemical attitudes. 4 Toxicologists working in industry had more favorable attitudes towards chemicals and their use than did those working in academic settings. 5 When asked to evaluate technical summaries of various animal studies there was considerable dis agreement among the respondents about the toxicity of the chemicals involved. 6 In general, British toxicologists were equivocal about the reliability of animal studies in predicting human effects (particularly carcinogenicity) probably be cause of the belief that animal studies overestimate risk. However, they were rather confident that human health risks could be assessed reasonably accurately.

No abstract