Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Figures
Executive Summary
Case Examples in the Mobile Phone Sector
Implications for Human Health
Solutions Adopted, Predicted Results and Reasoning
Results in Practice
References
All Topics
Business and Management
Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Risk and Uncertainty

Profile image of Paddy CoxPaddy Cox

Abstract
sparkles

AI

The paper addresses the increasing visibility of scientific conduct in contemporary society, driven by its implications in controversial political policies, global environmental issues, and a shift in public perception of science. It highlights the complexity of risks and uncertainties linked to mobile phone technology, crop genetic modification, and fish farming, emphasizing the importance of communication, participatory democracy, and sound regulatory practices in managing these risks.

FAQs

sparkles

AI

What are the main uncertainties identified in mobile phone risk management?add

Concerns include the long-term health effects of mobile phone use on youth, with some research suggesting potential adverse outcomes yet to be fully understood.

How do public perceptions influence salmon farming regulatory practices?add

Regulatory responses in Scotland are significantly shaped by historical public health scares and media coverage, leading to stricter controls than in Norway, where industry engagement is more collaborative.

What challenges does the precautionary principle present in crop biotechnology?add

Implementing the precautionary principle in GM crops often leads to public distrust and hampered innovation, as evidenced by reduced perceptions of scientific integrity.

How does community engagement affect mobile communication technology's public acceptance?add

Companies are recognizing the need for transparent community engagement to manage perceptions, which enhances trust and addresses concerns over local environmental impacts of mobile technology.

What role does public dialogue play in the acceptance of genetically modified crops?add

Public dialogues have revealed distrust in GM technologies, with many participants open to the benefits but critical of the regulatory processes and information transparency.

Figures (2)
Figure 1: Risk, ambiguity, uncertainty and ignorance
Figure 1: Risk, ambiguity, uncertainty and ignorance

Related papers

Scientists worry about some risks more than the public
David Guston

Nature Nanotechnology, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
Risk, Uncertainty, and Precaution in Biotechnology
Martin Boeckhout

Citeseer

View PDFchevron_right
Biotechnology, Sustainability and Trust
Rebecca Bratspies

This paper explores the relationship between technology, trust, and sustainability. It will focus on the critical role that a particular form of trustsocial trust-plays in helping societies have a genuine conversation about the many problems they face that are fraught with uncertainty. That role for trust offers a window into how social trust can be a building block for a more resilient society and how it can help societies become more sustainable.

View PDFchevron_right
Public Perceptions of Risk, Science and Governance: Main Findings of a Qualitative Study of Five Risk Cases
Peter Simmons
View PDFchevron_right
Risk, Science and Policy: Definitional Struggles, Information Management, the Media and BSE
David Miller

1999

This article examines the role of de®nitional struggles in the science±policy interface using the example of the cattle disease bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease in the UK. A central contention is that an explicit focus on de®nition illuminates the processes by which scienti®c judgements are made, promoted, communicated, assessed and judged and gives an improved picture of policy making. Neglected areas such as the role of secrecy, public relations and the mass media in the science±policy interface are brought into sharper focus as an intrinsic part of the wider operation of de®nitional struggles. The focus on de®nitional struggles also sheds light on some current work on risk in social theory. It is argued that the neglect of questions of agency which are central to de®nitional struggles has led to some theorists presenting risks as inevitable concomitants of technological and cultural developments leaving them in the grip of political quietism. #

View PDFchevron_right
Debating the risks and ethics of emerging technosciences
Karen Kastenhofer

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2009

View PDFchevron_right
Macnaghten Handbook on Nature Public Engagement with Risk and the Science–Policy Interface
Phil Macnaghten

Handbook on Nature, 2018

View PDFchevron_right
Earning trust and building credibility with a new paradigm for effective scientific risk-benefit communication of biotechnology innovations
Karim Maredia

African Journal of Biotechnology, 2020

Biotechnology has tremendous potential to transform agriculture and contribute significantly to reduce hunger, malnutrition and food insecurity. Many benefits of biotechnology have been recorded over the years, yet the fears surrounding biotechnology adoption persist in the same measure. Unfortunately, the reasons for opposition to biotechnology have remained the same over the years. The developing world has become a battle ground up for grabs by the proponents and opponents of biotechnology adoption for years. Change in public perception and acceptance of biotechnology has been minimal in spite of the strides experienced by some countries in its adoption. The missing ingredient is inadequate targeted communication that relates to the risks and benefits of the technology to sway the decision making processes to accelerate adoption of biotechnology in the developing countries. To do this, a new paradigm that understands the need for effective strategy in and the role of scientists is needed. The new paradigm should also entail embedding of communication in curriculum and training courses. This paper offers the concepts of a new paradigm of risk benefit communication to enhance success of the technology adoption in Kenya and Africa by extension.

View PDFchevron_right
The concept of risk in social sciences
imran shabani
View PDFchevron_right
In the Chamber of Risks: Understanding Risk Controversies
William Leiss

Risk Analysis, 2004

View PDFchevron_right

References (30)

  1. Reflections on Science, Risk, Uncertainty and Precaution .....................................................vii References and Bibliography................................................................................................. 27 References and Bibliography Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission 2001. Crops on Trial. Department of Trade and Industry, London
  2. Cameron, J. 1994. The values of the precautionary principle in international environmental law. In T. O'Riordan and J. Cameron (eds.) Interpreting the Precautionary Principle Earthscan, London 262-290.
  3. Crown Estate, 2000. A Code of Practice to Avoid and Minimise the Impact of Infectious Salmon Anaemia (ISA). SQS, FRS and SERAD.
  4. Department of Health, December 2000. Mobile Phones and Health UK Government advice leaflet.
  5. Douglas, M. 1982 Essays on the Sociology of Perception. Routledge, London.
  6. Douglas, M. and Wildawsky, A. 1983 Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
  7. Faber, D. 1998 The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States. Guildford Press, New York. Federation of the Electronics Industry, December 2000. Consumers could be puzzled by latest government advice on mobile phones. Press release PR2008
  8. Gerrard, S. 2000 Environmental risk management. In T. O'Riordan (ed.) Environmental Science for Environmental Management. Second edition. Prentice Hall, Harlow, UK, 435-469.
  9. Huxham, M. and Summer, D. 2000. Science and Environmental Decision Making. Prentice Hall, Harlow. Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, April 2000. Report of the Stewart Group. UK government.
  10. Jordan, A. and O'Riordan, T. 1999. The precautionary principle in contemporary environmental policy and politics. In C. Raffensperjer and J. Tinker (eds.) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Island Press, New York, 15-35.
  11. Jordan, A. 2001. The precautionary principle in the European Union. In O'Riordan, T., Cameron, J. and Jordan A. (eds.) Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. Cameron May, London, 143-162.
  12. Kaiser, M. May 2000. Social Perceptions and ethics in Aquaculture: Aquaculture as a Responsible Supplier for the New Millennium. The Norwegian National Committee for Research Ethics (NENT) Keynote speech at Aqua2000 conference, Nice.
  13. MacGarvin, M. September 2000. Scotland's Secret? Aquaculture, nutrient pollution, eutrophication and toxic blooms. Modus Vivendi for WWF Scotland.
  14. Naylor, R.L. et al, June 2000. Effect of Aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405 (1017-1024).
  15. O'Riordan, T. and Cameron, J. (eds.) 2001 Reinterpreting the Precautionary Principle. Cameron May, London.
  16. Office of Science and Technology, February 1999. Genetically Modified Foods: Facts, Worries, Policies and Public Confidence. A note by the UK Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Robert May. Office of Science and Technology 2003. GM Science Review. Department of Trade and Industry, London.
  17. Rayner, S. 1992. Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.) Social Theories of Risk. Praeger, New York.
  18. Regency Foundation, 1999. Telecommunications in Action. The International Telecommunication Union and the United Nations Organisation.
  19. Renn, O. 1998 Three decades of risk research: accomplishments and challenges. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 49-72.
  20. Royal Society 1992 Risk Analysis: Perception and Management. London.
  21. Royal Society 1997 Science, Policy and Risk. London.
  22. Scottish Executive Rural Affairs Department, 2000. Policy Guidance Note: Marine Fish Farming. Scottish Executive.
  23. Scottish Natural Heritage, 2000. The Precautionary Principle and the Natural Heritage. Policy Note Series, Number 21.
  24. Strategy Unit 2002. An Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits and GM Crops, Cabinet Office, London.
  25. Stern, P.C. and Fineberg, H.V. (eds.) 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. National Academy of Science, Washington DC.
  26. Vodafone, 2000. Website at http://www.vodaphone.com
  27. Wallace, H.A. Center for Agricultural & Environmental Policy, November 2000. Transgenic Crops: An Environmental Assessment. Winrock International.
  28. Westbrook, S. and Brian Burns Associates, November 1999. The Economic Impact of the Operations of Marine Harvest McConnell in the Highlands of Scotland.
  29. Worcester, R. 2000. Science and society: what scientists and the public can learn from each other. MORI International, London.
  30. World Health Organisation, June 2000. ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AND PUBLIC HEALTH. Mobile Telephones and Their Base Stations. Fact Sheet 193. http://www.who.int/inf- fs/en/fact193.html

Related papers

A Primer on Risk: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Thinking About Public Understanding of Agbiotech
Lee Wilkins

This essay outlines some of the major social-science based understandings in the fields of risk assessment, risk perception, and risk communication emphasizing the theoretical strengths and weaknesses of these various approaches to "thinking about" risk. The essay emphasizes the interdisciplinary nature of the field and the role that scientific expertise about risk should and should not play in democratic societies. It concludes with a brief overview of how these findings might apply to the specific case of agbiotech, particularly in light of cultural understandings about the role of science in modern life.

View PDFchevron_right
Sound science, problematic publics? Contrasting representations of risk and uncertainty
Nick Allum

Politeia, 2001

The recent controversies over genetically modified (GM) foods have served to highlight the gulf between the scientific establishment and the lay public in their views about the potential dangers associated with this new technology. The gulf, it is argued is a consequence of incommensurate ways of representing risks and uncertainty. † The label read: "Made with genetically modified tomatoes. The benefits of using genetically modified tomatoes for this product are less waste and reduced energy in processing".

View PDFchevron_right
Managing risks or stifling innovation? Risk, hazard and uncertainty
Sue Dibb

International Journal of Agricultural Management, 2013

In the UK 1 million people suffer food poisoning, with 20,000 ending up in hospital, at a total cost to the UK of £1.5bn a year. We are not currently putting appropriate time and resources towards addressing the most significant food risks. Science is not absolute. It never 'proves' safety, nor uniquely dictates particular decisions. Rather, it provides crucial indications of risks and uncertainties. Risk assessment does not address difficulties assigning probabilities under states of uncertainty, for example with BSE or with endocrine disrupters. Risk managers need to take account of a wide range of factors when deciding on appropriate courses of action including political, social as well as ethical. The precautionary principle says; 'be careful' when we're unable to determine clear risk assessments under various kinds of incertitude. A risk-based approach can obscure how ethical issues fit into decision making, (like animal welfare, social implications environmental impacts, consumer choice). Much risk controversy is really about the politics of technology. Currently we do not have effective spaces for discussing or deciding ''which way to go?'' The public are typically sophisticated at weighing up risks and benefits with uncertainty and don't expect 'zero risk'. What is needed is a democratic space for deliberating the implications of plural interests and values.

View PDFchevron_right
Science in Dispute: Sound Science and the Conflict over Risk Analysis
Cristiano L Lenzi

Springer eBooks, 2022

This chapter examines the second axis of the conflict involving the commercial release of transgenic soybean in Brazil. It addresses the disputes associated with issues involving scientific uncertainty and risk analysis. This axis of analysis is formed by the conflict between two political alliances that offered different interpretations of these issues. The liberation political alliance is characterized by a minimal precautionary approach in addressing the risks associated with GMOs. In this discourse, the preventive measures that are seen as necessary for the commercial release of RR soybean tend to be reduced, almost exclusively, to the carrying out of an RA. Opposed to this is the precaution political alliance, which is represented especially by civil society organizations. This political alliance offers a discourse that challenges the use of risk analysis in the RR soybean liberation process.

View PDFchevron_right
Managing Scientifi c and Political Uncertainty Environmental Risk Assessment in a Historical Perspective
Soraya Boudia
View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Business Ethics
  • Corporate Social Responsibility
  • Environmental Sustainability
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved