Contemplating Risk Assessment: A Critique of NRC (1983, 1996)

Abstract

Assessing risks involves developing predictive mathematical models, using interpretations of data that are based on scientific assumptions or theories and knowledge of how the data were created. The predictions are used for developing strategies that affect many people in society. Often, it is sufficient that the models that are used are justifiable by a well-accepted set of assumptions or theories, reflecting the state-of-the art science at the time. However, this does not ensure that the “best” decision would be made, nor does it ensure that the decision processes would be fair by ensuring that concerned and affected individuals would be able to participate, effectively presenting arguments on their own behalf. Because of these concerns, procedures of risk analysis, including the management of the process, have been written about, for example, in a National Research Council (NRC 1996) publication, with the intention of getting stakeholders (interested participants) more involved in the risk analysis process. This publication suggests that Risk Characterization be expanded to include an active participation of stakeholders. Such an expansion would affect the risk assessor's approach toward science compared to the present approach, as implied in the seminal NRC (1983) publication. Both of these NRC publications have had great influence on the development of risk analysis management and policy in the United States and elsewhere. Subsequent risk assessment guidance documents have generally relied heavily on these publications, but have focused mainly on managerial attitudes (or policy) toward the uncertainty that is inherent in risk assessment and in communicating to the public the risk assessment conclusions and decisions made from them. Subsequent documents have not, unlike NRC (1996), focused on the risk assessors' attitude toward science inference that would better help ensure that risk assessments contain the type of information that could be used to empower stakeholders. Thus, in this Perspective article I focus on the two NRC “foundation documents,” identifying and contrasting two types of approaches toward science, one narrow and the other expansive. The latter approach is designed to increase stakeholders' involvement more than the former. The features of the expansive approach include a contemplative method toward science, where the risk assessor does not express opinions or take a stand regarding the scientific material, but rather considers many possibilities, presents discussions that include direct challenges to assumptions, and uses falsification principles for excluding theories.