Advertisement

Managing Risks of the Unknown

  • Sven Ove Hansson
Part of the Risk, Governance and Society book series (RISKGOSO, volume 19)

Abstract

Traditional probabilistic risk assessment needs to be supplemented in at least two ways: We need ways to analyze risks for which no meaningful probability assessments are available, and we need to take into account ethical issues such as voluntariness, intentions, consent and equity. In this contribution three tools for such an extended risk assessment are presented with a particular emphasis on how they can be used to deal with risks that have large components of natural causes: Possibility analysis deals with “mere possibility arguments”, i.e. risks that we know very little about. The three-party model is a framework for analyzing the ethics of risk. Hypothetical retrospection is a method for overall assessment of risks in non-numerical terms. These tools are all constructed to introduce important considerations into risk assessment that tend to be excluded or neglected in the traditional approaches. This widening of the scope of risk assessment does not make the assessment easier, but it can contribute to making its output more useful and more responsive to social needs.

Keywords

Counter-affected Ethical risk assessment Great uncertainty Hypothetical retrospection Mere possibility arguments Natural risks Possibility analysis Probabilistic risk assessment Stakeholder Symmetry tests Three-party model 

References

  1. Ball P (2008) Of myths and men. Nat News (2 May 2008). http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080502/full/news.2008.797.html. Accessed 6 Oct 2010
  2. Berg P, Singer MF (1995) The recombinant DNA controversy: twenty years later. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92(20):9011–9013PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg P et al (1974) Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Science 185(4148):303CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyle P (1997) Cancer, cigarette smoking and premature death in Europe: a review including the Recommendations of European Cancer Experts Consensus Meeting, Helsinki, October 1996. Lung Cancer 17(1):1–60MathSciNetCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Douglas I et al (2008) Unjust waters: climate change, flooding and the urban poor in Africa. Environ Urban 2008(1):187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ellis J, Giudice G, Mangano M, Tkachev I, Wiedemann U (2008) Review of the safety of LHC collisions. J Phys G: Nucl Part Phys 35(11):115004CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  7. Franklin B (1970) The writings of Benjamin Franklin, vol 5, 1767–1772. In: Smyth AH (ed) Haskell House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardoni P, Murphy C (2014) A scale of risk. Risk Anal 34(7):1208–1227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Godman M, Hansson SO (2009) European public advice on nanobiotechnology – four convergence seminars. Nanoethics 3(1):43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grunwald A (2010) From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. Nanoethics 4(2):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hansson SO (1989) Dimensions of risk. Risk Anal 9(1):107–112MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansson SO (1996) Decision-making under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci 26(3):369–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansson SO (2003) Are natural risks less dangerous than technological risks? Philos Nat 40(1):43–54Google Scholar
  14. Hansson SO (2004a) Great uncertainty about small things. Techne 8(2):26–35 (Reprinted In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) (2006) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 315–325)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. Hansson SO (2004b) Weighing risks and benefits. Topoi 23:145–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansson SO (2004c) Philosophical perspectives on risk. Techne 8(1):10–35Google Scholar
  17. Hansson SO (2005) Extended antipaternalism. J Med Ethics 31(12):97–100PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansson SO (2007a) Hypothetical retrospection. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 10(2):145–157MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansson SO (2007b) Risk, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/risk/
  20. Hansson SO (2011) Coping with the unpredictable effects of future technologies. Philos Technol 24(2):137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hansson SO (2013) The ethics of risk. Ethical Analysis in an uncertain world. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Hartesveldt RJ (1964) Fire ecology of the giant sequoias: controlled fires may be one solution to survival of the species. Nat Hist Mag 73(10):12–19Google Scholar
  23. Hermansson H, Hansson SO (2007) A three party model tool for ethical risk analysis. Risk Manage 9(3):129–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jasanoff S (1988) The Bhopal disaster and the right to know. Soc Sci Med 27(10):1113–1123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Jebari K, Hansson SO (2013) European public deliberation on brain machine interface technology: five convergence seminars. Sci Eng Ethics 19(3):1071–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2007) Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. PNAS 104(24):9949–9954PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar
  27. Messing RH, Wright MG (2006) Biological control of invasive species: solution or pollution? Front Ecol Environ 4(3):132–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore FN (2002) Implications of nanotechnology applications: using genetics as a lesson. Health Law Rev 10(3):9–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Murphy C, Gardoni P (2011) Evaluating the source of the risks associated with natural events. Res Publica 17(2):125–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 1(1):31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4(5):273–274CrossRefPubMedADSGoogle Scholar
  32. Öberg M, Jaakkola MS, Woodward A, Peruga A, Prüss-Ustün A (2011) Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries. Lancet 377(9760):139–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Okereke C (2010) Climate justice and the international regime. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(3):462–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Overbye D (2008) Gauging a collider's odds of creating a black hole. N Y Times (Apr 15). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15risk.html. Accessed 6 Oct 2010
  35. Romme WH, Knight DH (1981) Fire frequency and subalpine forest succession along a topographic gradient in Wyoming. Ecology 62(2):319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ruthen R (1993) Strange matters. Can advanced accelerators initiate runaway reactions? Sci Am August, 17Google Scholar
  37. Sand PH (2011) The right to know: freedom of environmental information in comparative and international law. Tulane J Int Comp Law 20:203–232Google Scholar
  38. Tabuchi H (2012) Inquiry declares Fukushima crisis a man-made disaster. N Y Times (July 5). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/asia/fukushimanuclear-crisis-a-man-made-disaster-report-says.html?−r=2&pagewanted=all&
  39. Turner MG, Romme WH (1994) Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems. Landsc Ecol 9(1):59–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wolff J (2010) Five types of risky situation. Law, Innov Technol 2(2):151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Institute of Technology (KTH)StockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations