Communicating risk — and the risk of communicating

Abstract

Sue Bowler, Editor Whatever the eventual outcome of the judicial process following the L’Aquila earthquake, the conviction of six scientists and one government official for manslaughter has rung alarm bells in all areas of science where researchers are expected to forecast events and assess risk. And, of course, these are the areas where much of the science within the remit of the RAS have the greatest economic impact. It is not just earthquakes, but forecasts of natural hazards, environmental change and space weather are increasingly in demand from government and industry. The last thing we need is for researchers to steer away from working in these commercially and socially significant fields, for fear of arrest. Many of the events that researchers are seeking to understand and, where possible, to forecast, are low probability, high risk events. The effectiveness of forecasts can be assessed only by making the forecasts in real time, and comparing the outcomes with the real world. Many forecasts will be wrong, to a large or small degree, but avoiding making them avoids the opportunity to learn how to improve them. One of the lessons that has come out of scientific riskassessment of natural hazards so far is that rare events happen. In 1981 Mt St Helens erupted in a powerful lateral blast caused by a landslip that took observers by surprise, not because it had not been forecast, but because it was given a probability of just 5% by volcanologists. A big part of the problem is the gap between careful scientific assessment of risk, and the public dissemination of that assessment. Better communication about the problems involved from everyone in this process – scientists, the public, local and national officials – would be a good first step. s.bowler@leeds.ac.uk Editorial NEws