Abstract
Several cliches disguise a serious structural weakness in the process by which society makes regulatory decisions. First, regulatory decisions are multi-disciplinary. Science and law are critically involved. Next, these decisions are highly uncertain. This cliche has a different operational meaning for each of the two disciplines. Finally, dissatisfaction with the regulatory process raises a question of whether greater reliance upon analytical techniques can help.
In this paper we investigate the use of analytical techniques and suggest that an inherent divergence exists in the way scientific and legal minds approach uncertainty. This divergence may lead to regulatory conclusions assured to dissatisfy one or the other discipline. On one hand, a typical scientific assessor’s approach to handling uncertainty, such as error propagation, compounds various weaknesses in the data base. Any final decision should comprehend this increased awareness of overall uncertainty. On the other hand, legal analysis, patterned on the judicial handling of circumstantial evidence, weaves together various uncertain elements to reach a determination from which overall uncertainty has been suppressed. Thus, a decision could be reached in which, from the perspective of the scientist, uncertainty apparently increases, whereas the legal profession apparently sees uncertainty as being removed. In short, each discipline has different structural concepts of uncertainty, and incommensurate ways to analyze and express uncertainty. One approach to resolving conflicting views of uncertainty lies in the area of risk management. The legalistic approach of imposing “convict/exonerate” outcomes on the regulatory process might give way to broadening the range of possible outcomes so that the degree of certainty can be related to the stringency of regulatory action.
This paper does not necessarily represent the positions of either the American Petroleum Institute or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
D.C. Cox and P. Baybutt, Methods for Uncertainty Analysis: A Comparative Survey. Risk Analysis, 1: 251–258 (1981).
R. Cullison, Probability Analysis of Judicial Fact-Finding: A Preliminary Outline of the Subjective Approach, 19 U. Tol. L. Rev. 538 (1969).
L. Tribe, Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 1329 (1971).
L. Brilmayer and L. Kornhauser, Review: Quantitative Methods and Legal Decisions, 46 U. Chi. L. Rev. 116 (1978).
D. Kay, The Laws of Probability and the Law of the Land, 47 U. Chi. L. Rev. 34 (1979).
M.G. Finkelstein, Quantitative Methods in Law. Free Press, New York (1978).
National Research Council, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. (1983).
J. Jeffreys, Scientific Inference. Cambridge University Press, London (1973).
Brow v. West Riverside Coal Co., 143 Iowa 662; 120 NW 732.
Butt vs. State, 81 ARK 173, 98 SW 723; State vs. Alcorn, 7 Idaho 559, 64 P 1014.
J.U. Delong, Informal Rulemaking and the Integration of Law and Policy, 65 Va. L. Rev. 258 (1979).
Blacks Law Dictionary, (4th Edition) West Publishing Company, St. Paul, MI, (1968).
State v. Cohen, 168 Iowa 208, 78 NW 857, State v. Vestring, 144 KAN 167, 58 P. 2d 1087.
Commonwealth v. Polian, 288 Mass 494, 193 NE 68.
N.L.R.B. v. Lightener Pub. Corp. of Illinois, C.A. 7, 113 F. 2d 621.
Deena Products Company v. N.L.R.B., 73 S.Ct. 29, 344 U.S. 827, 97 L.Ed. 644.
Kay, Ibid., P. 40.
M. Henrion, The Value of Knowing How Little You Know: The Advantages of a Probabilistic Treatment of Uncertainty in Policy Analysis. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie-Mellon University.
J.C. Davis, F. Irwin and S. Gusman, Determining Unreasonable Risk Under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C. (1979).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1987 Plenum Press, New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Gawlak, W.M., Byrd, D.M. (1987). Divergent Approaches to Uncertainty in Risk Assessment: Mathematical Expression Compared to Circumstantial Evidence. In: Covello, V.T., Lave, L.B., Moghissi, A., Uppuluri, V.R.R. (eds) Uncertainty in Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Decision Making. Advances in Risk Analysis, vol 4. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5317-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-5317-1_3
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4684-5319-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-4684-5317-1
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive