Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 1983 Nov;80(22):7027–7038. doi: 10.1073/pnas.80.22.7027

Comparative risk analysis of technological hazards (a review).

R W Kates, J X Kasperson
PMCID: PMC390121  PMID: 6580625

Abstract

Hazards are threats to people and what they value and risks are measures of hazards. Comparative analyses of the risks and hazards of technology can be dated to Starr's 1969 paper [Starr, C. (1969) Science 165, 1232-1238] but are rooted in recent trends in the evolution of technology, the identification of hazard, the perception of risk, and the activities of society. These trends have spawned an interdisciplinary quasi profession with new terminology, methodology, and literature. A review of 54 English-language monographs and book-length collections, published between 1970 and 1983, identified seven recurring themes: (i) overviews of the field of risk assessment, (ii) efforts to estimate and quantify risk, (iii) discussions of risk acceptability, (iv) perception, (v) analyses of regulation, (vi) case studies of specific technological hazards, and (vii) agenda for research. Within this field, science occupies a unique niche, for many technological hazards transcend the realm of ordinary experience and require expert study. Scientists can make unique contributions to each area of hazard management but their primary contribution is the practice of basic science. Beyond that, science needs to further risk assessment by understanding the more subtle processes of hazard creation and by establishing conventions for estimating risk and for presenting and handling uncertainty. Scientists can enlighten the discussion of tolerable risk by setting risks into comparative contexts, by studying the process of evaluation, and by participating as knowledgeable individuals, but they cannot decide the issue. Science can inform the hazard management process by broadening the range of alternative control actions and modes of implementation and by devising methods to evaluate their effectiveness.

Full text

PDF
7027

Selected References

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

  1. Bazelon D. L. Risk and responsibility. Science. 1979 Jul 20;205(4403):277–280. doi: 10.1126/science.451598. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brooks Harvey. Technology and values: new ethical issues raised by technological progress. Zygon. 1973 Mar;8(1):17–35. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9744.1973.tb00212.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Cohen B. L., Lee I. S. A catalog of risks. Health Phys. 1979 Jun;36(6):707–722. doi: 10.1097/00004032-197906000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Comar C. L. Risk: a pragmatic de minimis approach. Science. 1979 Jan 26;203(4378):319–319. doi: 10.1126/science.203.4378.319. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Frei E., 3rd The National Cancer Chemotherapy Program. Science. 1982 Aug 13;217(4560):600–606. doi: 10.1126/science.7046055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Gori G. B. The regulation of carcinogenic hazards. Science. 1980 Apr 18;208(4441):256–261. doi: 10.1126/science.6768129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hammond K. R., Adelman L. Science, values, and human judgment. Science. 1976 Oct 22;194(4263):389–396. doi: 10.1126/science.194.4263.389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hohenemser C., Kates R. W., Slovic P. The nature of technological hazard. Science. 1983 Apr 22;220(4595):378–384. doi: 10.1126/science.6836279. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Kelman S. Cost-benefit analysis: an ethical critique. Regulation. 1981 Jan-Feb;5(1):33–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. La Porte T. R., Metlay D. Technology observed: attitudes of a wary public. Science. 1975 Apr 11;188(4184):121–127. doi: 10.1126/science.188.4184.121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Slovic P., Fischhoff B., Lichtenstein S. Informing the public about the risks from ionizing radiation. Health Phys. 1981 Oct;41(4):589–598. doi: 10.1097/00004032-198110000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Starr C. Social benefit versus technological risk. Science. 1969 Sep 19;165(3899):1232–1238. doi: 10.1126/science.165.3899.1232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Thomas K., Swaton E., Fishbein M., Otway H. J. Nuclear energy: The accuracy of policy makers' perceptions of public beliefs. Behav Sci. 1980 Sep;25(5):332–344. doi: 10.1002/bs.3830250503. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES