Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

SUMMARY
Pages 1-10

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 1...
... Seen in this light, a risk characterization may fail for two reasons: it may portray the scientific and technical information in a way that leads to an unwise decision, or it may provide scientific and technical information in a way that is not useful for the decision maker. Although such failures do occur, an often overlooked danger to risk decision making is a fundamental misconception about how risk characterization should relate to the overall process of comprehending and dealing with risk.
From page 2...
... The aim of risk characterization, and therefore of the analytic-deliberative process on which it is based, is to describe a potentially hazardous situation in as accurate, thorough, and decision-relevant a manner as possible, addressing the significant concerns of the interested and affected parties, and to make this information understandable and accessible to public officials and to the parties. Although risk characterizations are often completed for the benefit only of an organization's decision maker, it is important to recognize that various other parties use them when they exercise their rights to participate in the decision, either before or after the organization acts.
From page 3...
... Under certain conditions, such as when the stakes are high and trust in the responsible organization is low, the organization may need to make special efforts to ensure that the interested and affected parties accept key underlying assumptions about risk-generating processes and risk estimation methods as reasonable. Adequate risk analysis and characterization thus depend on incorporating the perspectives and knowledge of the interested and affected parties from the earliest phases of the effort to understand the risks.
From page 4...
... Deliberation is important at each step of the process that informs risk decisions, such as deciding which harms to analyze and how to describe scientific uncertainty and disagreement. Appropriately structured deliberation contributes to sound analysis by adding knowledge and perspectives that improve understanding and contributes to the acceptability of risk characterization by addressing potentially sensitive procedural con cerns.
From page 5...
... It must be recognized that even when successful, deliberation cannot be expected to end all controversy. It will not guarantee that decision makers will pay attention to deliberation's outcomes, prevent dissatisfied parties from seeking to delay or override the process, or redress the situation in which legal guidelines mandate that decisions be based on a different set of considerations from those that participants believe appropriate.
From page 6...
... Analysis and deliberation are complementary and must be integrated throughout the process leading to risk characterization: deliberation frames analysis, analysis informs deliberation, and the process benefits from feedback between the two. A recurring criticism of risk characterizations is that the underlying analysis failed to pay adequate attention to questions of central concern to some of the interested and affected parties.
From page 7...
... · Getting the right participation: The analytic-deliberative process has had sufficiently broad participation to ensure that the important, decision-relevant information enters the process, that all important perspectives are considered, and that the parties' legitimate concerns about inclusisreness and openness are met. · Getting the participation right: The analytic-deliberative process satisfies the decision makers and interested and affected parties that it is responsive to their needs: that their information, viewpoints, and concerns have been adequately represented and taken into account; that they have been adequately consulted; and that their participation has been able to affect the way risk problems are defined and understood.
From page 8...
... Diagnosis of risk decision situations should follow eight steps: diagnose the kind of risk and the state of knowledge, describe the legal mandate, describe the purpose of the risk decision, describe the affected parties and anticipate public reactions, estimate resource needs and timetable, plan for organizational needs, develop a preliminary process design, and summarize and discuss the diagnosis within the responsible organization. Diagnosis should result in a commitment within the responsible organization about the nature and level of effort of the analytic-deliberative process leading to a risk characterization.
From page 9...
... This is to be expected in a democracy, although it adds expense and may constrain efforts to involve the full range of interested and affected parties. It is critical for the organizations responsible for characterizing risk to have the capability to organize a full range of analytic-deliberative processes, including the broadly participatory ones that some risk situations warrant.
From page 10...
... Experience shows that analyses, no matter how thorough, that do not address the decision-relevant questions, use reasonable assumptions, and meaningfully include the key affected parties can result in huge expenses and long delays and jeopardize the quality of understanding and the acceptability of the final decisions. These dangers associated with past approaches to risk characterization are sufficient in our judgment to warrant making a serious trial of the broader concept.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.