Abstract
Traditional probabilistic risk assessment needs to be supplemented in at least two ways: We need ways to analyze risks for which no meaningful probability assessments are available, and we need to take into account ethical issues such as voluntariness, intentions, consent and equity. In this contribution three tools for such an extended risk assessment are presented with a particular emphasis on how they can be used to deal with risks that have large components of natural causes: Possibility analysis deals with “mere possibility arguments”, i.e. risks that we know very little about. The three-party model is a framework for analyzing the ethics of risk. Hypothetical retrospection is a method for overall assessment of risks in non-numerical terms. These tools are all constructed to introduce important considerations into risk assessment that tend to be excluded or neglected in the traditional approaches. This widening of the scope of risk assessment does not make the assessment easier, but it can contribute to making its output more useful and more responsive to social needs.
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
Notes
- 1.
The government-appointed Investigation Committee on the Accident at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Stations (ICANPS) sided with the latter view and described the accident as “man-made” (Tabuchi 2012).
- 2.
This test was called the “test of alternative effects” in Hansson (2004a).
- 3.
The procedure is related to Benjamin Franklin’s method to deal with complex decisions: Make lists of the arguments in both directions and strike out opposing arguments that have equal weight (Franklin 1970, pp. 437–438).
- 4.
The model is also extensively discussed in Wolff (2010).
- 5.
Note that hypothetical retrospection does not lead to a maximin solution. In this example the maximin decision rule would require that the sprinkler system be installed.
- 6.
Note that this criterion does not coincide with regret avoidance or minimization. Regret is a psychological reaction, not an argued moral standpoint. Our moral aim when planning for the future is not to avoid a particular psychological reaction (that may in many cases be unavoidable). Instead it is to avoid future situations in which it will be our considered judgment that we have done wrong. Such a situations are often accompanied by regret, but it is not regret that we have a moral reason to avoid.
References
Ball P (2008) Of myths and men. Nat News (2 May 2008). http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080502/full/news.2008.797.html. Accessed 6 Oct 2010
Berg P, Singer MF (1995) The recombinant DNA controversy: twenty years later. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 92(20):9011–9013
Berg P et al (1974) Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules. Science 185(4148):303
Boyle P (1997) Cancer, cigarette smoking and premature death in Europe: a review including the Recommendations of European Cancer Experts Consensus Meeting, Helsinki, October 1996. Lung Cancer 17(1):1–60
Douglas I et al (2008) Unjust waters: climate change, flooding and the urban poor in Africa. Environ Urban 2008(1):187–205
Ellis J, Giudice G, Mangano M, Tkachev I, Wiedemann U (2008) Review of the safety of LHC collisions. J Phys G: Nucl Part Phys 35(11):115004
Franklin B (1970) The writings of Benjamin Franklin, vol 5, 1767–1772. In: Smyth AH (ed) Haskell House, New York
Gardoni P, Murphy C (2014) A scale of risk. Risk Anal 34(7):1208–1227
Godman M, Hansson SO (2009) European public advice on nanobiotechnology – four convergence seminars. Nanoethics 3(1):43–59
Grunwald A (2010) From speculative nanoethics to explorative philosophy of nanotechnology. Nanoethics 4(2):91–101
Hansson SO (1989) Dimensions of risk. Risk Anal 9(1):107–112
Hansson SO (1996) Decision-making under great uncertainty. Philos Soc Sci 26(3):369–386
Hansson SO (2003) Are natural risks less dangerous than technological risks? Philos Nat 40(1):43–54
Hansson SO (2004a) Great uncertainty about small things. Techne 8(2):26–35 (Reprinted In: Schummer J, Baird D (eds) (2006) Nanotechnology challenges: implications for philosophy, ethics and society. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore, pp 315–325)
Hansson SO (2004b) Weighing risks and benefits. Topoi 23:145–152
Hansson SO (2004c) Philosophical perspectives on risk. Techne 8(1):10–35
Hansson SO (2005) Extended antipaternalism. J Med Ethics 31(12):97–100
Hansson SO (2007a) Hypothetical retrospection. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 10(2):145–157
Hansson SO (2007b) Risk, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/risk/
Hansson SO (2011) Coping with the unpredictable effects of future technologies. Philos Technol 24(2):137–149
Hansson SO (2013) The ethics of risk. Ethical Analysis in an uncertain world. Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Hartesveldt RJ (1964) Fire ecology of the giant sequoias: controlled fires may be one solution to survival of the species. Nat Hist Mag 73(10):12–19
Hermansson H, Hansson SO (2007) A three party model tool for ethical risk analysis. Risk Manage 9(3):129–144
Jasanoff S (1988) The Bhopal disaster and the right to know. Soc Sci Med 27(10):1113–1123
Jebari K, Hansson SO (2013) European public deliberation on brain machine interface technology: five convergence seminars. Sci Eng Ethics 19(3):1071–1086
Matthews HD, Caldeira K (2007) Transient climate-carbon simulations of planetary geoengineering. PNAS 104(24):9949–9954
Messing RH, Wright MG (2006) Biological control of invasive species: solution or pollution? Front Ecol Environ 4(3):132–140
Moore FN (2002) Implications of nanotechnology applications: using genetics as a lesson. Health Law Rev 10(3):9–15
Murphy C, Gardoni P (2011) Evaluating the source of the risks associated with natural events. Res Publica 17(2):125–140
Nordmann A (2007) If and then: a critique of speculative nanoethics. Nanoethics 1(1):31–46
Nordmann A, Rip A (2009) Mind the gap revisited. Nat Nanotechnol 4(5):273–274
Öberg M, Jaakkola MS, Woodward A, Peruga A, Prüss-Ustün A (2011) Worldwide burden of disease from exposure to second-hand smoke: a retrospective analysis of data from 192 countries. Lancet 377(9760):139–146
Okereke C (2010) Climate justice and the international regime. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1(3):462–474
Overbye D (2008) Gauging a collider's odds of creating a black hole. N Y Times (Apr 15). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15risk.html. Accessed 6 Oct 2010
Romme WH, Knight DH (1981) Fire frequency and subalpine forest succession along a topographic gradient in Wyoming. Ecology 62(2):319–326
Ruthen R (1993) Strange matters. Can advanced accelerators initiate runaway reactions? Sci Am August, 17
Sand PH (2011) The right to know: freedom of environmental information in comparative and international law. Tulane J Int Comp Law 20:203–232
Tabuchi H (2012) Inquiry declares Fukushima crisis a man-made disaster. N Y Times (July 5). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/06/world/asia/fukushimanuclear-crisis-a-man-made-disaster-report-says.html?−r=2&pagewanted=all&
Turner MG, Romme WH (1994) Landscape dynamics in crown fire ecosystems. Landsc Ecol 9(1):59–77
Wolff J (2010) Five types of risky situation. Law, Innov Technol 2(2):151–163
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hansson, S.O. (2016). Managing Risks of the Unknown. In: Gardoni, P., Murphy, C., Rowell, A. (eds) Risk Analysis of Natural Hazards. Risk, Governance and Society, vol 19. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22126-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22126-7_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22125-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22126-7
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)