Abstract
A pathological debate has evolved on the appropriate role of risk analysis at the federal level in the US. On one hand, substantial academic, public and private sector efforts have developed techniques and justifications for incorporating risk analytical information into “risk rationalizing” decisions. At the same time, a normative critique has jelled around the inadequacy of risk analysis methods to fully describe, and thus to compare, risks (the “holistic” complaint) and the exclusive nature of the risk assessment process (the “anti-democratic” complaint). The past decade has also seen another substantial trend in risk analysis research: improved understanding, description and management of uncertainty. Unfortunately, inadequate attention has been given to merging the normative and technical trends. This has led to several undesirable consequences in the US, Europe, and other developed countries, consequences that include the potential for systematically arbitrary decisions, undermined credibility of risk analysis as a decision input, and pathological debate about the appropriate role of risk information in the risk regulatory debate. This suggests some lessons for developing countries as they adopt risk analytical methods, and undertake risk comparison exercises. In particular, careful attention to uncertainties and the technical debate may provide an opportunity to broach the current normative stalemate in countries that rely extensively on risk data, and to avoid that stalemate in developing countries.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Breyer, S. (1993) Breaking the Vicious Circle. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Durodié, Bill (2003) “Letter to the Editor Regarding Chemical White Paper Special Issue.” Risk Analysis 23(3): 427–428.
Jasanoff, S. (1994) “The dilemmas of risk regulation.” Issues in Science and Technology Policy 10(3): 79–81.
Shrader-Frechette, K. S. (1995) “Comparative Risk Assessment and the Naturalistic Fallacy.” Trends in Ecology & Evolution 10(1): 50–50.
Finkel, A. M. (1996) “Comparing Risks Thoughtfully.” Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 17(Fall).
Jasanoff, S. (1996) “Bridging the Gap between the two risk cultures.” Risk Analysis.
Viscusi, K (1998) Rational Risk Policy. Oxford University Press, NY NY.
Sunstein, C. (2002) Risk and Reason: Safety, Law and the Environment. Cambridge University Press, NY NY.
Luken, R. A. (1990) “Setting National standards for inorganic arsenic emissions from primary copper smelters.” In Valuing Health Risks, Costs and Benefits for Environmental Decision Making. P. B. Hammond and R. Coppock (eds.) Washington DC, National Academy Press.
Montague, P. (1999) “The waning days of risk assessment.” Rachel’s Environmental Weekly. 1999.
Heinzerling, L. (2002) “Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Misuse in the Debate over Regulatory Reform.” Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 13(1/2): 151–175.
Heinzerling, L. (1998) “Regulatory Costs of Mythic Proportions.” Yale Law Review 107: 1981–2070.
Tengs, T. O., M. E. Adams, et al. (1995) “Five-Hundred Life-Saving Interventions and Their Cost-Effectiveness.” Risk Analysis 15(3): 369–390.
Graham, J. (1995). Written Testimony of John D. Graham, Ph.D. Harvard School of Public Health: Hearings before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. Boston, MA, Harvard School of Public Health.
Hammitt, J. K. (2002) “QALY’s Versus WTP” Risk Analysis 22(5): 985–1002.
Hassenzahl, D. M. (forthcoming). “The effect of uncertainty on ‘risk rationalizing’ decisions.” Journal of Risk Research.
Thompson, K., Segui-Gomez, M and Graham, J. D. (2002) “Validating Benefits and Cost Estimates: the Case of Airbag Regulation.” Risk Analysis 22:4 (803–812).
Andrews, C. J. (2002) Humble Analysis: The Practice of Joint Fact-Finding. Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut.
Beierle, T. (2002) “The Quality of Stakeholder-Based Decisions.” Risk Analysis 22(4): 739–750.
Kelly, L. A., Taylor, M. A. and Wooldridge, J. A. (2003) “Estimating the Predicted Environmental Concentration of Residues of Veterinary Medicines: Should Uncertainty and Variability be Ignored.” Risk Analysis 23(3) 489–495.
Busenberg, G. J. (1999) “Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy.” Policy Sciences 32(1): 1–11
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers
About this paper
Cite this paper
Hassenzahl, D. (2004). Uncertainty as a Resource in Risk Comparisons. In: Linkov, I., Ramadan, A.B. (eds) Comparative Risk Assessment and Environmental Decision Making. Nato Science Series: IV: Earth and Environmental Sciences, vol 38. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2243-3_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2243-3_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1895-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-2243-2
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)