Everyone recognizes substantial discrepancies between the public's rankings of hazards and those of the experts. For example, experts at the Environmental Protection Agency think that hazardous-waste sites pose "mediumto-low" risks to the public, while indoor air pollution poses a "high" risk; yet public perceptions have driven policy to focus on hazardous-waste sites rather than on indoor air quality (Stephen Breyer, 1993 pp. 19-20). Whose beliefs should determine government policy when the public's beliefs differ from those of the experts? The problem evaporates if the public, perhaps recognizing its inability to deal with complex technical issues, entrusts risk assessment to the government and its experts. But what if the public, perhaps distrusting government and experts, is unwilling to leave risk assessment to the experts?' Paul Portney (1992 p. 131) posed a version of this "Whose beliefs?" question succinctly in his fable, "Trouble in Happyville":
[1]
Howard Margolis,et al.
Dealing with risk : why the public and the experts disagree on environmental issues
,
1997
.
[2]
Andrew Pickering,et al.
The mangle of practice : time, agency, and science
,
1997
.
[3]
M. Norton Wise,et al.
Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life@@@The Values of Precision
,
1996
.
[4]
S. Breyer.
Breaking the Vicious Circle
,
1993
.
[5]
A. Pickering.
Science as practice and culture
,
1992
.
[6]
M. Douglas.
Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences
,
1986
.