Some Pitfalls of an Overemphasis on Science in Environmental Risk Management Decisions

This paper addresses the question whether calls for “more” and “better” science will have the intended effect of improving the quality of decisions about environmental risks. There are reasons to be skeptical: key judgment tasks that fundamentally shape many aspects of decisions about environmental risk management lie outside the domain of science. These tasks include making value judgments explicit, integrating facts and values to create innovative alternatives, and constructively addressing conflicts about uncertainty. To bring new specificity to an old debate, we highlight six pitfalls in environmental risk decisions that can occur as the result of an overemphasis on science as the basis for management choices.

[1]  R. Gregory,et al.  Integrating science and local knowledge in environmental risk management: A decision-focused approach , 2007 .

[2]  Brad Hawkes,et al.  Multi-attribute evaluation of landscape-level fuel management to reduce wildfire risk , 2006 .

[3]  J. Walls,et al.  Seeking Citizens' Views on GM Crops: Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand , 2005 .

[4]  Baruch Fischhoff,et al.  Acceptable Input: Using Decision Analysis to Guide Public Policy Deliberations , 2005, Decis. Anal..

[5]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives , 2005, Oper. Res..

[6]  Glyn A. Holton.  Defining Risk , 2004 .

[7]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Systemic risks: a new challenge for risk management , 2004, EMBO reports.

[8]  Graham T. F. Horn,et al.  Using Expert Judgment and Stakeholder Values to Evaluate Adaptive Management Options , 2004 .

[9]  James Wilsdon,et al.  See-Through Science : Why Public Engagement Needs to Move Upstream , 2004 .

[10]  Cary Coglianese,et al.  Shifting Sands: The Limits of Science in Setting Risk Standards , 2004 .

[11]  R. Gregory,et al.  Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[12]  Adrienne Martin,et al.  Methods and issues in exploring local knowledge of soils , 2003 .

[13]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  Risk Analysis and Society: The Challenge of Integrating Deliberation and Expertise: Participation and Discourse in Risk Management , 2003 .

[14]  D. Ball.  Environmental risk assessment and the intrusion of bias. , 2002, Environment international.

[15]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  MAKING SMARTER ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS , 2002 .

[16]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Using decision analysis to encourage sound deliberation: water use planning in British Columbia, Canada , 2002 .

[17]  S. Fuller.  Governing science: a reply to critics , 2002 .

[18]  Michael Power,et al.  Trends in the Development of Ecological Risk Assessment and Management Frameworks , 2002 .

[19]  Refractor.  Uncertainty , 2001, The Lancet.

[20]  S. Funtowicz,et al.  Science for the PostNormal Age , 2001 .

[21]  R. Wallace.  Is this a practical approach? , 2001, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[22]  D. Martinez,et al.  Traditional Ecological Knowledge, Ecosystem Science, and Environmental Management , 2000 .

[23]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Using Stakeholder Values to Make Smarter Environmental Decisions , 2000 .

[24]  N. Loder.  UK scientists under pressure to please , 2000, Nature.

[25]  I. Cartuja.  ON SCIENCE AND PRECAUTION IN THE MANAGEMENT OF TECHNOLOGICAL RISK , 2000 .

[26]  I. Hacking.  The Social Construction of What , 2000 .

[27]  Sharon A. Jones,et al.  Evaluating the Science-Policy Interface for Climate Change Research , 1999 .

[28]  P. Slovic.  Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield , 1999, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[29]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Democratizing Risk Management: Successful Public Involvement in Local Water Management Decisions , 1999 .

[30]  F. Berkes.  Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Resource Management , 1999 .

[31]  Ortwin Renn,et al.  On science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk - An ESTO Project Report - Prepared for the European Commission - JRC Institute Prospective Technological Studies Seville , 1999 .

[32]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Book Reviews : Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improv ing Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health. Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998, 136 pages, $26.00 , 1998 .

[33]  J. Lubchenco.  Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science , 1998 .

[34]  M. Morris.  Understanding Risk - Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1997 .

[35]  T. Kuhn.  The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. , 1996 .

[36]  H. Fineberg,et al.  Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society , 1996 .

[37]  Wendy E. Wagner,et al.  The Science Charade in Toxic Risk Regulation , 1995 .

[38]  R. Gregory,et al.  Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values , 1994 .

[39]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking , 1992 .

[40]  M. Maxey.  Managing environmental risks , 1992 .

[41]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Eliciting probabilities from experts in complex technical problems , 1991 .

[42]  M. Bazerman.  Judgment in Managerial Decision Making , 1990 .

[43]  J. Kagan,et al.  Rational choice in an uncertain world , 1988 .

[44]  Lester B. Lave,et al.  Managing Environmental Risks , 1988 .

[45]  P. Slovic.  Perception of risk. , 1987, Science.

[46]  Division on Earth.  Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process , 1983 .

[47]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Availability , 1982 .

[48]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under uncertainty: Frontmatter , 1982 .

[49]  John Radovich,et al.  The Collapse of the California Sardine Fishery What Have We learned , 1982 .

[50]  B. Massumi,et al.  The postmodern condition : a report on knowledge , 1979 .

[51]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[52]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .