Uncertainty as a Resource in Risk Comparisons

Abstract

A pathological debate has evolved on the appropriate role of risk analysis at the federal level in the US. On one hand, substantial academic, public and private sector efforts have developed techniques and justifications for incorporating risk analytical information into “risk rationalizing” decisions. At the same time, a normative critique has jelled around the inadequacy of risk analysis methods to fully describe, and thus to compare, risks (the “holistic” complaint) and the exclusive nature of the risk assessment process (the “anti-democratic” complaint). The past decade has also seen another substantial trend in risk analysis research: improved understanding, description and management of uncertainty. Unfortunately, inadequate attention has been given to merging the normative and technical trends. This has led to several undesirable consequences in the US, Europe, and other developed countries, consequences that include the potential for systematically arbitrary decisions, undermined credibility of risk analysis as a decision input, and pathological debate about the appropriate role of risk information in the risk regulatory debate. This suggests some lessons for developing countries as they adopt risk analytical methods, and undertake risk comparison exercises. In particular, careful attention to uncertainties and the technical debate may provide an opportunity to broach the current normative stalemate in countries that rely extensively on risk data, and to avoid that stalemate in developing countries.