Risk research is a complex social enterprise, reflecting the beliefs and values of those closest to its creation. For public values to be expressed in risk research, the public needs the same access as those who conduct and directly sponsor that research. Providing that access requires more open research management and more responsive research methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. National Research Council, Criteria for Federal Research and Development (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995).
2.
2. Norman McCormick, Risk Assessment (New York: John Wiley, 1981).
Silvio Funtowicz and Jeremy Ravetz, Uncertainty and Quality in Science (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990).
5.
John Campen , Benefit, Cost and Beyond (Boston: South End Press, 1988).
6.
Donald T. Hornstein , “Reclaiming Environmental Law,”Columbia Law Review, 92:562-598 (1992).
7.
Mary O'Brien , A Proposal to Address, Rather than Rank, Environmental Problems (Missoula: University of Montana, Institute for Environmental Studies, 1993).
8.
National Research Council , Improving Risk Communication (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989).
9.
9. Some cynics claim that incoherence is the goal of these bills, whose proponents hope to gum up the works, slowing the pace of government action.
10.
Baruch Fischhoff , “Giving Advice: Decision Theory Perspectives on Sexual Assault,”American Psychologist, 47:577-588 (1992).
11.
11. James Reason, Human Error (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
12.
Baruch Fischhoff , “Value Elicitation: Is There Anything in There?”American Psychologist, 46:835-847 (1991).
13.
13. Robert K. Merton, “The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups,”Public Opinion Quarterly, 51:541-557 (1987).
14.
14. John Dryzek, Rational Ecology (Boston: Basil Blackwell, 1987).
15.
15. Timothy Earle and George Cvetkovich, Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995).
16.
16. Roger E. Kasperson and Jeanne X. Kasperson, “The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
17.
17. William Leiss, “Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
18.
18. National Research Council, Priority Mechanisms for Toxic Chemicals (Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1983).
20. B. Fischhoff, “What Do Psychologists Want?” in Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods, ed. N. Schwarz and R. Kopp (New York: Plenum, forthcoming).
21.
See Jon Merzet al., “Decision-Analytic Approach to Developing Standards of Disclosure for Medical Informed Consent,”Journal of Toxics and Liability, 15:191-215 (1993).
