Skip to main content
Environmental Health Perspectives logoLink to Environmental Health Perspectives
. 2003 Oct;111(13):1577–1581. doi: 10.1289/ehp.6224

Risk management and precaution: insights on the cautious use of evidence.

Steve E Hrudey 1, William Leiss 1
PMCID: PMC1241677  PMID: 14527835

Abstract

Risk management, done well, should be inherently precautionary. Adopting an appropriate degree of precaution with respect to feared health and environmental hazards is fundamental to risk management. The real problem is in deciding how precautionary to be in the face of inevitable uncertainties, demanding that we understand the equally inevitable false positives and false negatives from screening evidence. We consider a framework for detection and judgment of evidence of well-characterized hazards, using the concepts of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value that are well established for medical diagnosis. Our confidence in predicting the likelihood of a true danger inevitably will be poor for rare hazards because of the predominance of false positives; failing to detect a true danger is less likely because false negatives must be rarer than the danger itself. Because most controversial environmental hazards arise infrequently, this truth poses a dilemma for risk management.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (142.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Balding D. J., Donnelly P. How convincing is DNA evidence? Nature. 1994 Mar 24;368(6469):285–286. doi: 10.1038/368285a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Goldstein B. D. The precautionary principle and scientific research are not antithetical. Environ Health Perspect. 1999 Dec;107(12):A594–A595. doi: 10.1289/ehp.99107a594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Hoffrage U., Lindsey S., Hertwig R., Gigerenzer G. Medicine. Communicating statistical information. Science. 2000 Dec 22;290(5500):2261–2262. doi: 10.1126/science.290.5500.2261. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Hofstetter Patrick, Bare Jane C., Hammitt James K., Murphy Patricia A., Rice Glenn E. Tools for comparative analysis of alternatives: competing or complementary perspectives? Risk Anal. 2002 Oct;22(5):833–851. doi: 10.1111/1539-6924.00255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hrudey Steve E., Hrudey Elizabeth J. Walkerton and North Battleford--key lessons for public health professionals. Can J Public Health. 2002 Sep-Oct;93(5):332–333. doi: 10.1007/BF03404562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Meyer J. E., Eberlein T. J., Stomper P. C., Sonnenfeld M. R. Biopsy of occult breast lesions. Analysis of 1261 abnormalities. JAMA. 1990 May 2;263(17):2341–2343. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Environmental Health Perspectives are provided here courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences

RESOURCES