Scientists’ risk perceptions play a critical role in determining the risks that they are willing to accept in their work. This study investigates academic bioscientists’ risk perceptions by examining the judgments working scientists employ in day-to-day research decisions. The study draws from theoretical and methodological underpinnings of Sociology of Science and Risk Analysis. Using data gathered from 694 survey responses of bioscientists at a land grant research university in the U.S. Midwest, this study identifies four dimensions of perceived risk (i.e., intellectual challenges, competition, career risks, and societal risks) and demonstrates how these dimensions are associated with a series of demographic, life-course, and contextual factors. Findings indicate that university bioscientists’ subjective risk judgments are shaped by their professional experience, sources of funding, research orientation, professional networks, and perceived significance of research, which in turn may affect their research decisions.
AghionP.DewatripontM.SteinJ. C. (2008). Academic freedom, private-sector focus, and the process of innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 39, 617-635.
2.
AlperJ. (1993). The pipeline is leaking women all the way along. Science, 260, 409-411.
3.
AzoulayP.DingW.StuartT. (2007). The determinants of faculty patenting behavior: Demographics or opportunities?Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 63, 599-623.
4.
BarkeR.Jenkins-SmithH.SlovicP. (1997). Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 167-176.
5.
BercovitzJ.FeldmanM. (2008). Academic entrepreneurs: Organizational change at the individual level. Organization Science, 19, 69-89.
6.
BuccolaS.ErvinD.YangH. (2009). Research choice and finance in university bioscience. Southern Economic Journal, 75, 1238-1255.
7.
BuschL.LaceyW. B. (1983). Science, agriculture, and the politics of research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
8.
ByrnesJ. P.MillerD. C.SchafnerW. D. (1999). Gender differences in risk-taking: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 367-383.
9.
CampbellE. G.BlumenthalD. (2000). Academic industry relationships in biotechnology: A primer on policy and practice. Cloning, 2, 129-136.
10.
CampbellR. A. (2003). Preparing the next generation of scientists: The social process of managing students. Social Studies of Science, 33, 897-927.
11.
ChenX.FrankK. A.DietzT.LiuJ. (2012). Weak ties, labor migration, and environmental impacts. Organization and Environment, 25, 3-24.
12.
CohnL. D.MacfarlaneS.YanezC.ImaiW. K. (1995). Risk-perception: Differences between adolescents and adults. Health Psychology, 14, 217-222.
13.
ColeS. (1979). Age and scientific performance. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 958-977.
14.
CollinsD. (2003). Pretesting survey instruments: An overview of cognitive methods. Quality of Life Research, 12, 229-238.
15.
CollinsH. M. (1974). The TEA set: Tacit knowledge and scientific networks. Science Studies, 4, 165-185.
16.
CollinsH. M. (1998). The meaning of data: Open and closed evidential cultures in the search for gravitational waves. American Journal of Sociology, 104, 293-338.
17.
CooperM. H. (2009). Commercialization of the university and problem choice by academic biological scientists. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 34, 629-653.
18.
DelamontS.AtkinsonP. (2001). Doctoring uncertainty: Mastering craft knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 31, 87-107.
19.
DillmanD. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York, NY: Wiley.
20.
EhrenbergR. G.ZhangL. (2005). Do tenure and tenure-track faculty matter?Journal of Human Resources, 40, 647-695.
21.
EtzkowitzH.KemelgorC.UzziB. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
22.
EvansJ. A. (2010). Industry induces academic science to know less about more. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 389-452.
23.
FinucaneM. L.SlovicP.MertzC. K.FlynnJ.SatterfieldT. A. (2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The “white male” effect. Health, Risk & Society, 2, 159-172.
24.
FischhoffB.SlovicP.LichtensteinS. (1985). Weighing the risks. In KatesR. W.HohenemserC.KaspersonJ. X. (Eds.), Perilous progress: Managing the hazards of technology (pp. 265-283). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
25.
FlynnJ.SlovicP.MertzC. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13, 643-648.
26.
FlynnJ.SlovicP.MertzC. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14, 1101-1108.
27.
GierlachE.BelsherB. E.BeutlerL. E. (2010). Cross-cultural differences in risk perceptions of disasters. Risk Analysis, 30, 1539-1549.
28.
GierynT. F. (1978). Problem retention and problem change in science. In GansonJ. (Ed.), Sociology of science (1st ed., pp. 96-115). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
GlennaL. L.WelshR.ErvinD.LacyW. B.BiscottiD. (2011). Commercial science, scientists’ values, and university biotechnology research agendas. Research Policy, 40, 957-968.
30.
HackettE. J. (2005). Essential tensions: Identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science, 35, 787-826.
31.
HarrisP. (1996). Scientific grounds for optimism? The relationship between perceived controllability and optimistic bias. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 9-52.
32.
HullD. L.TessnerP. D.DiamondA. M. (1978). Planck’s principle. Science, 202, 717-723.
33.
KahanD. M.BramanD.SlovicP.GastilJ.CohenG. (2008). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 1-4.
34.
KaspersonJ. X.KaspersonR. E.PidgeonN.SlovicP. (2003). The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In PidgeonN.KaspersonR. E.SlovicP. (Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 13-46). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
35.
KaspersonR. E. (1992). The social amplification of risk: Progress in developing an integrative framework in social theories of risk. In KrimskyS.GoldingD. (Eds.), Social theories of risk (pp. 53-178). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
36.
KaspersonR. E.RennO.SlovicP.BrownH. S.EmelJ.GobleR.. . . RatickS. (1988). The social amplification of risk: A conceptual framework. Risk Analysis, 8, 177-187.
37.
KellerE. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
38.
KempnerJ.MerzJ. F.BoskC. L. (2011). Forbidden knowledge: Public controversy and the production of nonknowledge. Sociological Forum, 26, 475-500.
39.
KezarA.GehrkeS. (2014). Why are we hiring so many non-tenure-track faculty?Liberal Education, 100(1), 44-51.
40.
KleinC.Helweg-LarsenM. (2002). Perceived control and the optimistic bias: A meta-analytic review. Psychology and Health, 17, 437-446.
41.
KleinmanD. L. (2003). Impure cultures: University biology and the world of commerce. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
42.
KleinmanD. L.VallasS. (2001). Science, capitalism, and the rise of the “knowledge worker”: The changing structure of knowledge production in the United States. Theory and Society, 30, 451-492.
43.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. (2005). The fabrication of facts: Toward a microsociology of scientific knowledge. In StehrN.MejaV. (Eds.), Society and knowledge (1st ed., pp. 175-195). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
45.
KuhnT. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
46.
LahsenM. (2008). Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist “trio” supporting the backlash against global warming. Global Environmental Change, 18, 204-219.
47.
LamA. (2010). From “ivory tower traditionalists” to “entrepreneurial scientists”? Academic scientists in fuzzy university-industry boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 40, 307-340.
48.
LatourB. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
LuhmannN. (1993). Risk: A sociological theory. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
50.
MacGregorD. G.SlovicP.RaceM. S. (1998). Lay and expert perceptions of planetary protection (Report No. 98-2). Eugene, OR: Decision Research.
51.
MaxC. (1982). Career paths for women in physics. In HumphreysS. M. (Ed.), Women and minorities in science: Strategies for increasing participation (1st ed., pp. 99-118). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
52.
MertonR. K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In MertonR. K. (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 267-273). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
53.
MertzC. K.SlovicP.PurchaseI. F. H. (1998). Judgments of chemical risks: Comparison among senior managers, toxicologists, and the public. Risk Analysis, 18, 391-404.
54.
MesseriP. (1988). Age differences in the reception of new scientific theories: The case of plate tectonics theory. Social Studies of Science, 18, 91-112.
RennO. (2008). Concepts of risk: An interdisciplinary review. Part 1: Disciplinary risk concepts. GAiA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 17, 50-66.
57.
RierD. A. (2003). Gender, lifecourse and publication decisions in toxic-exposure epidemiology: “Now!” versus “Wait a minute!”Social Studies of Science, 33, 269-300.
58.
RothW.BowenG. M. (2001). “Creative solutions” and “fibbing results”: Enculturation in field Ecology. Social Studies of Science, 31, 533-556.
59.
SavadoriL.SavioS.NicotraE.RumiatiR.FinucaneM.SlovicP. (2004). Expert and public perception of risk from biotechnology. Risk Analysis, 24, 1289-1299.
60.
SchiebingerL. (1999). Has feminism changed science?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
61.
ShepperdJ.MaloneW.SweeneyK. (2008). Exploring causes of the self-serving bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 895-908.
62.
ShihT.FanX. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249-271.
63.
SjobergL. (1999). Risk perception in Western Europe. Ambio, 28, 543-549.
64.
SjobergL. (2008). Genetically modified food in the eye of the public and experts. Risk Management, 10, 168-193.
65.
SlovicP.FinucaneM. L.PetersE.MacGregorD. G. (2002). Rational actors or rational fools: Implications of the affect heuristic for behavioral economics. Journal of Socio-Economics, 31, 329-342.
66.
SlovicP.FischhoffB.LichtensteinS. (1979). Rating the risks: The structure of expert and lay perceptions. Environment, 21, 14-20.
StephanP. (2012). How economics shapes science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69.
StokesD. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution: Washington, DC.
70.
StuartT. E.DingW. W. (2006). When do scientists become entrepreneurs? The social structural antecedents of commercial activity in the academic life sciences. American Journal of Sociology, 112, 97-144.
71.
VaughanE.NordenstamB. (1991). The perception of environmental risks among ethnically diverse groups. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 29-60.
72.
WeinsteinN. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 306-320.
73.
WeinsteinN. D.KleinW. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 1-8.
74.
WidnallS. E. (1988). AAAS presidential lecture: Voices from the pipeline. Science, 241, 1740-1745.
75.
WrayK. B. (2003). Is science really a young man’s game?Social Studies of Science, 33, 137-149. doi:10.1177/0306312703033001961
76.
XieY.KillewaldA. A. (2012). Is American science in decline?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
77.
ZenzenM.RestivoS. (1982). The mysterious morphology of immiscible liquids: A study of scientific practice. Social Science Information, 21, 447-473.
78.
ZuckermanH. (1996). Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
