Framing Scientific Analyses for Risk Management of Environmental Hazards by Communities: Case Studies with Seafood Safety Issues

Abstract

Risk management provides a context for addressing environmental health hazards. Critical to this approach is the identification of key opportunities for participation. We applied a framework based on the National Research Council’s (NRC) analytic–deliberative risk management dialogue model that illustrates two main iterative processes: informing and framing. The informing process involves conveying information from analyses of risk issues, often scientific, to all parties so they can participate in deliberation. In the framing process, ideas and concerns from stakeholder deliberations help determine what and how scientific analyses will be carried out. There are few activities through which affected parties can convey their ideas from deliberative processes for framing scientific analyses. The absence of participation results in one-way communication. The analytic–deliberative dialogue, as envisioned by the NRC and promoted by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), underscores the importance of two-way communication. In this article we present case studies of three groups—an Asian and Pacific Islander community coalition and two Native American Tribes—active in framing scientific analyses of health risks related to contaminated seafood. Contacts with these organizations were established or enhanced through a regional NIEHS town meeting. The reasons for concern, participation, approaches, and funding sources were different for each group. Benefits from their activities include increased community involvement and ownership, better focusing of analytical processes, and improved accuracy and appropriateness of risk management. These examples present a spectrum of options for increasing community involvement in framing analyses and highlight the need for increased support of such activities.

The Challenges of Collaboration for Academic and Community Partners in a Research Partnership: Points to Consider

“…When data analysis reveals unflattering findings about a community, the academic researcher may experience pushback from her community partners regarding her plans to disseminate the findings. How the data are framed may have social implications for the group (Nicholson et al, 2008; Sanders, 1997; Smith, 2007) and for public policymakers and the public-at-large (Fox, 2005; Judd et al, 2005). Both the academic researcher and the community may make claims to “ownership” of the data and rights to its use.…”

Biological invasions and biocultural diversity: linking ecological and cultural systems

“…Molluscs have provided American tribes with food and shells for ornamental and ceremonial ware for centuries. Shellfish harvesting continues by tribes (such as the Passamaquoddy, Suquamish, Swinomish and the Penobscot Nation) and immigrant communities (Asian and Pacific Islander) on reservation and public lands in the Great Lakes basin and the Atlantic and Pacific coastlines, but tribes are deeply concerned about invasive species and heavy metal contamination (Fried 1998;Judd et al 2005).…”

Scoping a Public Health Impact Assessment of Aquaculture with Particular Reference to Tilapia in the UK

“…Effective risk management of environmental health hazards should include participation of all those stakeholders involved [10]. Whilst we have not used frameworks like those based on the US National Research Council work, we have been informed by producers, retailers, and consumers and, in turn, helped to inform them about issues raised by tilapia farming, all of which have helped in the development of the PHIA.…”

“…Approaches used include Life Cycle Analyses (LCAs), matrices, cost and risk benefit analyses, and models of analytic-deliberative-risk-management frameworks running through to impact analyses [2,10].…”