Skip to main content
Log in

Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty

  • Published:
Environment Systems and Decisions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several decades after the mechanics of quantitative uncertainty analysis (QUA) for risk assessment and regulatory cost analysis were developed and refined, QUA still rarely reaches the minds of decision-makers. The most common justification for this situation is that “decision-makers want a number, not a set of statistical distributions.” This may be an accurate assessment of their druthers, but one obvious though perhaps impractical retort is to say that if decision-makers insist on misleading point estimates, then we need new and better decision-makers. This article offers a way out of this dilemma. Decision-makers do not have to understand (or even receive) all the information contained in a complete QUA, but they do have to drive the QUA. They need to instruct analysts how to approach the phenomena they analyze (parameter uncertainty, model uncertainty, interindividual variability, offsetting and second-order effects, and the monetary value of future uncertainty reductions), they need to insist that uncertainties in cost be treated a priori as exactly as important as uncertainties in risk, and—even more importantly—they need to instruct analysts which estimator(s) to seek, report, and explain. Here we offer 10 detailed principles to guide decision-makers into a new relationship with risk and cost analysts—10 observations about how “eyes wide open” point estimates can vastly outperform point estimates handed to the decision-maker without context, justification, or honesty about the value judgments they impose upon the decision. A decision-maker who explains “I chose Option A because its benefits of 2.345 exceed its costs of 1.234” can be replaced by a dollar-store calculator. We need decision-makers who can say “I chose Option A because the spectrum of benefits it likely offers, to these citizens, considering the range of costs it likely imposes, makes it a superior choice to any other.” QUA, performed carefully and following clear policy instructions, can empower decision-makers to earn their influential roles.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bogen KT (1995a) Methods to approximate joint uncertainty and variability in risk. Risk Anal 15(3):411–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bogen KT (1995b) A note on compounded conservatism. Risk Anal 14:379–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgman MA, Keith DA, Walshe TV (1999) Uncertainty in comparative risk analysis for threatened Australian plant species. Risk Anal 19(4):585–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke RM (ed) (2009) Uncertainty modeling in dose response: bench testing environmental toxicity. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox LAT (2012) Confronting deep uncertainties in risk analysis. Risk Anal 32:1607

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullen AC, Frey HC (1999). Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment: a handbook for dealing with variability and uncertainty in models and inputs. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cummings CL, Kuzma J (2017) Societal risk evaluation scheme (SRES): scenario-based multi-criteria evaluation of synthetic biology applications. PLoS ONE 12(1):e0168564

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dudley SE, Gray GM (2012) Improving the use of science to inform environmental regulation. In: Johnston J (ed) Institutions and incentives in regulatory science. Lexington Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel AM (1990a) Confronting uncertainty in risk management: a guide for decision-makers. Resources for the Future, Center for Risk Management monograph, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel AM (1990b) A simple formula for calculating the “mass density” of a lognormally-distributed characteristic: applications to risk analysis. Risk Anal 10(2):291–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel AM (1991) Edifying presentation of risk estimates: not as easy as it seems. J Policy Anal Manag 10(2):296–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel AM (1995) Towards less misleading comparisons of uncertain risks: the example of aflatoxin and alar. Environ Health Perspect 103(4):376–385

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Finkel AM (2014) The cost of nothing trumps the value of everything: the failure of regulatory economics to keep pace with improvements in quantitative risk analysis. Mich J Environ Adm Law 4(1):91–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Finkel AM (2018) Demystifying evidence-based policy analysis by revealing hidden value-laden constraints. In: Governance of emerging technologies: aligning policy analysis with the public’s values. Hastings Center Special Report 48(S1):S21–S49

  • Finkel AM, Evans JS (1987) Evaluating the benefits of uncertainty reduction in environmental health risk management. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 37(10):1164–1171

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg G, Toal BF (2009) Quantitative approach for incorporating methylmercury risks and omega-3 fatty acid benefits in developing species-specific fish consumption advice. Environ Health Perspect 117(2):267–275

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gray GM, Cohen JT (2012) Rethink chemical risk assessment. Nature 489:27–28

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gray GM, Graham JD (1991) Risk assessment and clean air policy. J Policy Anal Manag 10(2):286–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groth E III (2017) Scientific foundations of fish-consumption advice for pregnant women: epidemiological evidence, benefit-risk modeling, and an integrated approach. Environ Res 152:386–406

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hammitt JK, Shlyakhter AI (1999) The expected value of information and the probability of surprise. Risk Anal 19:135–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond JS, Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1998) Smart choices: a practical guide to making better decisions. Harvard Business Review Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington W, Morgenstern RD, Nelson P (2000) On the accuracy of regulatory cost estimates. J Policy Anal Manag 19:297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattis DB, Anderson EL (1999) What should be the implications of uncertainty, variability, and inherent “biases”/“conservatism” for risk management decision-making? Risk Anal 19(1):95–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupnick A et al (2006) Not a sure thing: making regulatory choices under uncertainty. Resources for the Future, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruser JM et al (2017) “Best case/worst case”: training surgeons to use a novel communication tool for high-risk acute surgical problems. J Pain Symptom Manag 53(4):711–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laxminarayan R, Macauley MK (eds) (2012) The value of information: methodological frontiers and new applications in environment and health. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Limpert E, Stahel W (undated) Log-normal distribution: its widespread use and some basic hints for its application. Compendium of weblinks, available at https://stat.ethz.ch/~stahel/lognormal/

  • Linkov I, Trump BD, Wender BA, Seager TP, Kennedy AJ, Keisler JM (2017) Integrate life-cycle assessment and risk analysis results, not methods. Nat Nanotechnol 12(8):740–743

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Malloy T, Trump BD, Linkov I (2016) Risk-based and prevention-based governance for emerging materials. Environ Sci Technol 50(13):6822–6824

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan MG, Henrion M (1992) Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (1994) Science and judgment in risk assessment. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (2008) Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences (2011) Review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft IRIS assessment of formaldehyde. National Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols AL, Zeckhauser RJ (1986) The perils of prudence: how conservative risk assessments distort regulation. Regulation 10:13–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Management (1997) Risk assessment and risk management in regulatory decision-making. Available at https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=55006

  • Robinson LA, Hammitt JK, Zeckhauser RJ (2016) Attention to distribution in US regulatory analyses. Rev Environ Econ Policy 10(2):308–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro S, Fisher E, Wagner W (2012) The enlightenment of administrative law: looking inside the agency for legitimacy. Wake Forest Law Rev 47:463–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Sherman R (2016) Roger Goodell warns fans about risks of watching the Super Bowl. Article in SB Nation, Feb. 5, available at https://www.sbnation.com/2016/2/5/10924418/roger-goodell-concussions-super-bowl-nfl-couches-are-dangerous

  • Shlyakhter AI (1994) An improved framework for uncertainty analysis: accounting for unsuspected errors. Risk Anal 14:441–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Society for Risk Analysis (2016) Technical symposium on “Transparency and uncertainty analysis: benefits and pitfalls.” Abstracts available at http://birenheide.com/sra/2016AM/program/singlesession.php3?sessid=W1-E&order=3#3

  • Stahl CH, Cimorelli AJ (2005) How much uncertainty is too much and how do we know? A case example of the assessment of ozone monitor network options. Risk Anal 25:1109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern A (2015) “Comments on Uncertainty Analysis,” (presentation to the U.S. EPA) available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/session3b_stern_talking_points.pdf

  • Sunstein CR (2002) Risk and reason: safety, law, and the environment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson KM, Graham JD (1996) Going beyond the single number: using probabilistic risk assessment to improve risk management. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 2:1008–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trump B, Cummings C, Kuzma J, Linkov I (2017) A decision analytic model to guide early-stage government regulatory action: applications for synthetic biology. Regul Gov. https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitzman ML (2011) Fat-tailed uncertainty in the economics of catastrophic climate change. Rev Environ Econ Policy 5(2):275–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson R, Crouch EAC, Zeise L (1985) Uncertainty in risk assessment. In: Hoel DG et al, (eds) Risk quantitation and regulatory policy. Cold Spring Harbor

  • Yokota F, Thompson KM (2004) The value of information in environmental health risk management decisions: past, present, future. Risk Anal 24:635–650

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam M. Finkel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Finkel, A.M., Gray, G. Taking the reins: how regulatory decision-makers can stop being hijacked by uncertainty. Environ Syst Decis 38, 230–238 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9681-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-018-9681-x

Keywords

Navigation