We begin with a letter to the editor by Duncan Mara commenting on Bernard Goldstein's perspective in the last issue “If it Ain't Broke … ”.(1) Mara raises the issue of how much money should be spent to manage risks, a topic and debate that has a long history in this journal,(2) and is the core of our virtual issue about Professor Lester Lave.(3) Mara's letter sets a tone for what is an issue that is largely about the role of uncertainty in decision making. The first article is by Terje Aven, supported by the Research Council of Norway, in which he addresses the much-debated precautionary principle. Aven asserts that evoking the principle requires a much clearer definition of uncertainty, and he suggests focusing the application around several key components of the risk assessment process, most notably the difficulty of predicting consequences. Commentaries by Warner North, Tony Cox, and Charles Vlek follow, along with a response from Aven. Two articles in this issue present dose-response models for potential biological agents. Both studies were funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Sushil B. Tamrakar and Charles Haas developed a dose-response model for Rickettsia rickettsii, which causes Rocky Mountain spotted fever. Normally, the disease is transmitted through tick bites, but other pathways are possible, including some cases of aerosol transmission. The authors found that the beta-poisson model provided the best fit to the dose-response data of aerosol-exposed rhesus monkeys, and intradermally inoculated humans (morbidity as end point of response). In the second article, Sondra Teske et al. develop several dose-response models for animals and humans for types of Brucellosis, which is one of the most common zoonotic diseases worldwide and for which there is no human vaccine. Disease transmission frequently occurs through the handling of domestic livestock, as well as ingestion of unpasteurized milk and cheese, but also can be aerosolized. The authors found that a beta-poisson model was again the best fit to pooled data and management of uncertainty. Kan Shao and Mitchell Small consider another interesting uncertainty-related question: What is the value of additional dose studies prior to calculating dose-response models? They conclude that a second analysis, especially a high dose study, reduced uncertainty. V. J. Roelofs and M. C. Kennedy examine the thorny issue of estimating tails of risk distributions. The authors introduce a method that combines extreme value theory with Bayesian tools, and they demonstrate that this approach increases the efficiency of the modeling process. Supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rachael Jones and Elodie Adida use both uncertainty analysis and Monte Carlo simulations to try to isolate the predominate exposure route for spreading influenza. The authors conclude that virus concentration in expiratory particles of different sizes, frequency of expiratory events, and infectivity at different locations in the respiratory tract are the key components for additional work aimed at reducing uncertainty. Funded by the Crystalline Silica Panel of the American Chemistry Council, Anthony Cox explores mechanisms that increase the probability of crystalline silica causing lung cancer. The author describes an inflammatory process of action with positive feedback loops that lead to fibrosis and increase lung cancer risk, and finds that there is a tipping point beyond which the disease is much more likely to occur. Pieter van Broekhuizen and Lucas Reijnders articulate a pubic policy position assumed by union-affiliated groups in Europe that they characterize as part of the precautionary approach to the use of nanomaterials. The position is that in the face of substantial uncertainty, there should be required reporting of the type and content of nanoparticles applied in products, a register of workers possibly exposed to nanoparticles, and other steps to monitor exposure and outcomes. During the last few years we have begun to publish more articles that explore attacker and defender strategies for homeland security applications. Gregory Levitin and Kjell Hausken examine the use of resources by attackers and defenders, posing and testing different strategies with hypothetical examples. Finally, this issue contains two articles about risk perception and communication studies that emphasize the need to better understand uncertain public responses to events and communications. Teun Terpstra examined influences on public flood preparedness intentions in the Netherlands. The author found that both negative emotions and cognitive processes contributed, and that actual events as well as near misses and threats also influence perception. This article reinforces the contribution of the affect heuristic and trust in public risk beliefs and actions. How can people be persuaded to participate in programs that will reduce their exposures to the effects of hurricane winds? Funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation, Yue Ge, Walter Gillis Peacock, and Michael Lindell explored answers to this question in hurricane-prone Florida. They conclude that participation increases when people are repeatedly reminded about hurricane consequences.
Read full abstract
Feb 1, 2012
M Gierlik + 5
Open Access