Witches, Floods, and Wonder Drugs: Historical Perspectives on Risk Management
Risk is a people problem, and people have been contending with it for a very long time indeed. I extract some lessons from this historical record and explore their implications for current and future practice of risk management.
Socially relevant risk is not uncertainty of outcome, or violence of event, or toxicity of substance, or anything of the sort. Rather, it is a perceived inability to cope satisfactorily with the world around us. Improving our ability to cope is essentially a management problem: a problem of identifying and carrying out the actions which will change the rules of the game so that the game becomes more to our liking.
To cope better is to better understand the nature of risks and how they develop. It is naive and destructive to pretend that such understanding can carry with it the certainties and completeness of traditional science. Risk management lies in the realm of trans-science, of ill-structured problems, of messes. In analyzing risk messes, the central need is to evaluate, order, and structure inevitably incomplete and conflicting knowledge so that the management acts can be chosen with the best possible understanding of current knowledge, its limitations, and its implications. This requires an undertaking in policy analysis, rather than science.
One product of such analyses is a better conceptualization of “feasibility” in risk management. Past and present efforts have too often and too uncritically equated the feasible with the desirable. Results have been both frustrating and wasteful.
Another is an emphasis on the design of resilient or “soft-fail” coping strategies. The essential issue is not optimality or efficiency, but robustness to the unknowns on which actual coping performance is contingent.
The most important lesson of both experience and analysis is that societies’ abilities to cope with the unknown depend on the flexibility of their institutions and individuals, and on their capability to experiment freely with alternative forms of adaptation to the risks which threaten them.
Neither the witch hunting hysterics nor the mindlessly rigid regulations characterizing so much of our present chapter in the history of risk management say much for our ability to learn from the past.
KeywordsRisk Management Policy Analysis Medical Drug Professional Interest Grand Jury
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.H. R. Trevor-Roper, The European Witch Craze of the 16th and 17th Centuries and Other Essays, Harper and Row, New York, 1968.Google Scholar
- 2.M. Harris, Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches, Vintage, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
- 3.H. P. Duerr, Traumzeit: uber die Grenze zwischen Wildnis und Zivilisation, Syndicat, Frankfurt am Main, 1978.Google Scholar
- 4.M. Summers, Malleus Maleficarum (trans.), London, 1928.Google Scholar
- 5.A. Wildavsky, “No Risk is the Highest Risk of All,” American Scientist, 67:32–37, 1979.Google Scholar
- 6.R. W. Kates, ed., Managing Technological Hazard, Institute of Behavioral Sciences, Boulder, Colorado, 1978.Google Scholar
- 7.K. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge Keegan Paul, London, 1963.Google Scholar
- 8.P. Feyeraband, Against Method, New Left Books, London, 1975.Google Scholar
- 9.T. S. Kuhn, “ Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1-23, 1970.Google Scholar
- 10.E. W. Lawless, Technology and Social Shock, Rutgers University Press, 1977. 1974.Google Scholar
- 11.C. S. Holling, C. J. Walters, and D. Ludwig, “Surprise in Resource and Environmental Management,” unpublished manuscript, 1979.Google Scholar
- 12.C. S. Holling, ed., Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1978.Google Scholar
- 13.I. Burton, R. W. Kates, and G. F. White, The Environment as Hazard, Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
- 14.I. Burton, R. W. Kates, and G. F. White, The Human Ecology of Extreme Geophysical Events, University of Toronto, Department of Geography, Natural Hazards Working Paper 1, 1968.Google Scholar
- 16.R. A. Rappoport, Pigs for Ancestors, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1968.Google Scholar
- 17.M. Sahlins, Stone Age Economics, Aldine, Chicago, 1972.Google Scholar
- 18.G. F. White, et al., Changes in Urban Occupance of Flood Plains in the United States, University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Working Paper 57, 1958.Google Scholar
- 20.W. C. Clark, D. D. Jones, and C. S. Holling, “Lessons for Ecological Policy Design: A Case Study of Ecosystem Management,” Ecological Modelling, 7:1-53.Google Scholar
- 21.W. H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples, Anchor Press, Garden City, 1976.Google Scholar
- 22.C. S. Holling, “Forest Insects, Forest Fires, and Resilience,” in Fire Regimes and Ecosystem Properties, H. A. Mooney, J. M. Bonnicksen, N. L. Christensen, J. E. Lotan, and W. A. Reiners, eds., USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, Washington, D.C., in press.Google Scholar
- 23.National Academy of Science (USA), Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crops, NAS, Washington, 1972.Google Scholar
- 25.National Academy of Science, How Safe is Safe? The Design of Policy on Drugs and Food Additives, NAS, Washington, B.C., 1974.Google Scholar
- 26.W. M. Wardell and L. Lasagna, Regulation and Drug Development, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., 1975.Google Scholar
- 27.W. M. Wardell, “The Drug Lag Revisited,” in Clinical Pharmacology Therapeutics, 24: 499–524, 1978.Google Scholar
- 29.S. Peltzman, Regulation of Pharmaceutical Innovation: The 1962 Amendments, American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., 1974.Google Scholar
- 30.J. S. Turner, “A Consumer’s Viewpoint,” in  13-22.Google Scholar
- 31.J. Lederberg, “A Systems-Analytic Viewpoint,” in  66-94.Google Scholar
- 32.R. G. Noll, “Breaking Out of the Regulatory Dilemma: Alternatives to the Sterile Choice,” Indiana Law Journal, 51: 686–699, 1976.Google Scholar
- 33.F. R. Stockton, The Lady or the Tiger and Other Stories, Schribner’s, New York, 1884.Google Scholar
- 34.W. C. Clark, “Managing the Unknown,” in R. W. Kates, ed., Managing Technological Hazard, Inst. Behav. Sci., Colorado, 109-142, 1977.Google Scholar
- 36.D. D. Hester and J. Tobin, eds., Risk Aversion and Portfolio Choice, Cowles Foundation Monograph 19, New Haven, 1957.Google Scholar
- 37.P. F. Drucker, Management, Harper and Row, New York, 125, 1973.Google Scholar
- 38.R. Dubos, quoted in W. C. Wescoe, “A Producer’s Viewpoint,” in  28.Google Scholar
- 39.J. W. Gardner, The Recovery of Confidence, W. W. Norton, New York, 1970.Google Scholar
- 40.P. B. Hutt, “A Regulator’s Viewpoint,” in  116-131.Google Scholar
- 41.C. E. Lindblom, Politics and Markets, Basic Books, New York, 1977.Google Scholar
- 42.C. E. Lindblom and D. K. Cohen, Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1979.Google Scholar
- 44.P. Feyerabend, Science in a Free Society, New Left Books, London, 1978.Google Scholar
- 45.J. R. Ravetz, Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971.Google Scholar
- 47.H. Brooks, “Expertise and Politics: Problems and Tensions,” Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 119: 257–261, 1975.Google Scholar
- 49.L. Branscomb, ed., Science, Technology, and Society. A Prospective Look, National Academy of Science, Washington, D. C, 1976.Google Scholar
- 50.A. Kantrowitz, “The Science Court Experiment: Criticisms and Responses,” Bull. Atom. Sci., 33: 43–50, 1977.Google Scholar
- 52.G. Majone, “The Uses of Policy Analysis,” Russell Sage Foundation Annual Report for 1977, 201-220, 1977.Google Scholar
- 53.A. Wildavsky, Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis, Little Brown Co., Boston, 1979.Google Scholar
- 54.C. E. Lindblom, The Policy Making Process, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
- 55.E. S. Quade, Analysis for Public Decisions, Elsevier, New York, 1975.Google Scholar
- 56.K. E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1969s.Google Scholar
- 57.A. Alchian, “Uncertainty, Evolution, and Economic Theory,” J. Pol. Econ. 1950: 211–221, 1950.Google Scholar
- 58.I. Lakatos, “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstruction,” in R. Buck and R. Cohen, eds., Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8: 92–122, 1971.Google Scholar
- 59.M. Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1964.Google Scholar
- 60.D. N. Michael, On Learning to Plan — and Planning to Learn, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1978.Google Scholar
- 62.G. Majone, “Standard Setting and the Theory of Institutional Choice,” Policy and Politics, 5: 35–50, 1977.Google Scholar
- 63.G. Majone, “Technology Assessment in a Dialectic Key,” Int. Inst. Applied Systems Analysis PP-77-1, Laxenberg, Austria, 1977.Google Scholar
- 65.N. E. Abrams and R. S. Berry, “Mediation: A Better Alternative to Science Courts,” Bull. Atom. Sci., 33: 50–53, 1977.Google Scholar