Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tim's avatar

Thanks Melanie. You might be interested in a book I read a while back - "On Immunity" by Eula Biss. It's a history along similar lines, about the social history and autonomy implications of inoculation - you might enjoy it, if you haven't already 😉

Expand full comment
Ernie Kee's avatar

"At their core, they relate to how people perceive risk – what seems dangerous and what seems safe. It’s a topic which has long fascinated me – I worked in biosecurity risk assessment for 16 years, and even before that I was involved in both risk assessment and risk communication."

There are some interesting nuances related to risk and risk perception that are often overlooked. One is that risk lives in the future in citizens' minds:

“Risk is a concept we utilize for coping with the myriad of logically possible future states of affairs. This means that risk does not have an objective existence per se, and that all risk assessments are subjective or relative.” (Solberg, 2012)

When considering whether or not to engage or not engage in an activity, citizens like me might ask themselves some basic "risk perception" questions:

1. Will consequences be realized in a short time frame?

2. Will I have control over engaging in the activity?

3. Will everyone exposed be in the same place?

That is, my opinion is that risk perception is governed by: time, control, and proximity.

It should be understood as well that science is often misleading if the extent of the data used is not well understood. For example, when low probability, high consequence scenarios are in play, the amount of data required is often well beyond anyone's reach. Nevertheless, "science" is often cited as having a certainty for a consequence when in fact the certainty should be very low indeed.

Adding to confusion, risk has many meanings that can confuse even sophisticated analyses. In my opinion, a particularly informative treatise on the subject is found in: Lewens, Tim, ed. Risk: philosophical perspectives. Routledge, 2007. Again in my opinion, presuming that science can "correctly" inform citizens on risk is unreasonable at best and dangerous at worst. Science is best used to inform policy makers what data have been accumulated on scenarios that have been studied. Scientific data are only a small part of the "risk" decision-making that must be accomplished to set public policy. Good decision-making is -- should be? -- centered around respectful debate in the citizenry.

Looking forward to your next post on the subject of risk, risk perception, and decision-making.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts