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 😉
Excellent piece. What I wonder about is why those responsible - the white collar criminals responsible for the behaviour of companies - seem to walk away scot free. Certainty of substantial and debilitating punishment would change this as they’re risk adverse and will make those calculations. But it rarely happens, and even if caught the punishment is very light.
Thanks Melanie, this is excellent. It's heartbreaking to see how corporations have deliberately destroyed the credibility of science so that they can continue sacrificing public health in the name of profit. It's the crime of the century for the second century in a row.
"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.
It is a scarey subject . Thanks Melanie . I am grateful to have avoided any such disasters so far ( born in 1961 !!) . The TV series 'Call the Midwife' touched on the polio and thalidomide issues .
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 😉
Excellent piece. What I wonder about is why those responsible - the white collar criminals responsible for the behaviour of companies - seem to walk away scot free. Certainty of substantial and debilitating punishment would change this as they’re risk adverse and will make those calculations. But it rarely happens, and even if caught the punishment is very light.
Thanks Melanie, this is excellent. It's heartbreaking to see how corporations have deliberately destroyed the credibility of science so that they can continue sacrificing public health in the name of profit. It's the crime of the century for the second century in a row.
Thank you for this. I was glued in till the last word. I will definitely check out the "Dark Remedy" book.
"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.
It is a scarey subject . Thanks Melanie . I am grateful to have avoided any such disasters so far ( born in 1961 !!) . The TV series 'Call the Midwife' touched on the polio and thalidomide issues .
The guilt felt by mother's must be dreadful .