Risk Analysis
The Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) was established in 1980,
three years before the NRC (1983) Redbook.
While the founding constitution
and bylaws were
modified from those of the Society of Toxicology, the vision statement reads as
follows:
The Society for Risk Analysis is a multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, scholarly, international society that provides an open forum for all those who are interested in risk analysis. Risk analysis is broadly defined to include risk assessment, risk characterization, risk communication, risk management, and policy relating to risk, in the context of risks of concern to individuals, to public- and private-sector organizations, and to society at a local, regional, national, or global level.
There are two aspects of SRA that stand out. First, the primary goal is synthesis. Instead of creating a new independent field
of study, it draws from other fields. In
fact, risk analysis draws from just about every field of study known to man, including
biology, chemistry, economics, epidemiology, law, mathematics, philosophy,
physics, psychology, public policy, and statistics. As might be expected, the actual academic disciplines
involved vary with the actual issue, which leads to the other distinction: Risk
Analysis is an applied field that deals with issues that are of current
interest.
The Third Wheel and the Big Wheel
In the Redbook Risk Assessment Paradigm, all the various
disciplines boil down to two main areas of discourse: Risk Assessment and Risk Management. The scientific and mathematical disciplinesthat
are concerned with what we know all figure into risk assessment in some
way. On the other hand, any field that is concerned
with what ought to be done pertain to risk management. That certainly includes the study of public
policy. But interdisciplinary arguments can arise over
what’s what. For example, I think of economics
or any other exercise that assigns values to outcomes as being largely associated
with risk management, but many economists will argue that they are pursuing the
objective truth of the value of currency.
Some disciplines, like risk
analysis, are naturally concerned with the interaction between risk assessment
and risk management. Philosophy is a
prime example; while metaphysics and epistemology are concerned with what we
know, ethics is part of the “ought” dialog.
But the generally accepted view of Risk Analysis for food
safety these days is that there is a third main component comprised of Risk
Communication (e.g. USDA and USFDA,
and FAO):
Since the whole point of SRA is to facilitate communication
between different disciplines, identifying Communication as a separate endeavor
is quite odd. Interdisciplinary or interagency
communication is not easy. There is
indeed an abundance of technical and bureaucratic jargon to wade through. The employment of different concepts of
probability (Kaplan, 1997) can quickly turn a discussion about risk into the Tower
of Babel. A very talented multi
linguist who is familiar with all of the subjects could surely could facilitate
public policy debates involving highly technical subjects:
But, that’s not it. More
often than not, what Risk Communication is really about is communicating with
the public (WHO, 2005). That could mean
a dialog where the public is educated about the technical issues and included
in the public policy discussion. But,
that’s usually not quite it either. As an
academic field risk communication is a branch of psychology that studies
consumer response to various messages about risk (Slovic, 2006). As an applied field, risk communication is a
form of political propaganda.
Politics
Make no mistake, risk analysis at a regulatory agency is
political. In fact, the main function of
risk management is political resolution of the value judgements involved in
making a decision. As a separate
process, risk communication is a process for promoting the decision after it
has been made. But, at least in a
democracy, good risk management can’t work that way. Being aware of how the public will react
needs to be an integral part of the decision process, rather than something that
is tacked on later. So, at best, Risk
Communication is an integral part of Risk Management – which means is doesn’t
need to be a third category all by itself.
So, why is it? Here are two
potential bad reasons:
- The Public is Being Sold a Bad Decision. Nobody needs trust more than someone who doesn’t deserve it. This may involve hiding a risk, selling a risk that really isn’t there (e.g. a weapon of mass destruction) or hiding ineffective risk management. Or, it may involve hiding the fact that no one considered the interest of the public at all. The latter possibility is especially likely when the agency decision process is formulaic.
- The Decision is Still Being Made. Here, the risk communication exercise really is the risk management process. Except for the pretense of risk management that really hasn’t happened yet, this reason isn’t so bad. Like reason #1, this is symptomatic of an irrational or inefficient bureaucracy, but at least there is some semblance of responsibility for a decision. Late is indeed better than never.
Risk Paralysis
Left unchecked, an exclusive emphasis on politically
effective messaging can result in the evil twins of risk analysis:
- Risk Manglement. Answer no questions; tell no lies.
- Risk Caressment/Harassment. Persuade the analysis to support the message, or at least provide a technical distraction. If a carrot doesn’t work, use a stick or hire another consultant.
The cure for that is dialogue. One of the problems with the Redbook (NRC,
1983) formulation of the risk assessment paradigm is that it depicted the
process as a monologue, where the risk assessor identified the problem, carries
out the assessment, and informs the risk manager about the risk. But, it doesn’t really work that way. Risk analysis is iterative process that
begins subjectively, and risk managers are always a part of it. Formal analysis tends to bring more people,
with an interest in the issue (“stakeholders”) into the decision process,
including laypeople who may also vote.
In fact, that is a main reason for doing it. So, yes, communication is very important every
step of the way, but it needs to be a conversation. Monologues can kill a conversation, and they can
also kill a risk analysis.
References
Kaplan, S (1997). The
Words of Risk Analysis. Risk Anal
17:407-411.
Slovic, P (2006). Risk
Perception and Affect. Current Directions in Psychological Science 15:
322-325.
World Health Organization (2005). Effective
Media Communication during Public Health Emergencies. A WHO Handbook.
Official Post Soundtrack
Post Notes.
Thesis Post #38, on the Risk Assessment Paradigm thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment