Science, Risk, and Public Policy

Abstract

A climate of fear now dominates the discussion of environmental issues. The scientific community can help alleviate this fear by making a greater effort to explain to the public the uncertainties involved in estimates of risk. Current statutory mandates designed to protect public health both demand levels of protection that technology cannot achieve and are uncoordinated across government agencies. A common statutory framework for dealing with environmental risks is needed. In addition, care must be taken to separate the scientific process of assessing risk from the use of such assessments, together with economic and policy considerations, in the management of risks through regulatory action.

Treatment of risk in environmental impact assessment

“…Although most risk assessments to date have addressed human health concerns, environmental concerns must now be addressed in the same terms (Gil- ford 1985). The characterization and quantification of uncertainty have been identified as major components of risk assessment (Ruckelshaus 1983). We believe that the emphasis on uncertainty in risk assessment represents a significant conceptual advance over conventional approaches to environmental impact assessment.…”

Science and values in risk assessment: The case of deliberate release of genetically engineered organisms

“…The separation of the assessment and management of risks was motivated by the desire to protect science from policy and to prevent a takeover of the decision making procedure by an elite of experts (Silbergeld, 1991: 102-104). Ruckelshaus, the former director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) urgently argued for the separation because "suspicion that policy considerations have been allowed to influence the assessment of risk" would erode public confidence in policy (Ruckelshaus, 1983).…”

“…To define the role and place of science in decision-making, the distinction between "assessment of risk" on the one hand, and "management of risk" on the other was introduced (Lowrance, 1976;Ruckelshaus, 1983;Russell and Gruber, 1987). According to the theory behind this distinction risk assessment is the first phase of the procedure.…”

Causation in forest decline

“…However, epidemiological techniques can, as Koch's postulates cannot, provide involved people with welldocumented and adequately supported probability estimates ( I 7, 18). Although subject to modification as additional information becomes available, such probability estimates can be used as a base for critical decisions (19)(20)(21). Proposing that decisions be postponed until Koch's postulates are fulfilled is logically doomed to fail.…”