Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:04:03.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What's Really Wrong with Quantitative Risk Assessment?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Helen E. Longino
Helen E. Longino*
Affiliation:
Mills College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Risk assessment is one part of the multistage process of determining the acceptability of risks. Risk assessment, as I understand it, and as I think Dale Hattis is talking about it (Hattis, 1986), is the estimation of the hazards likely to be incurred by proceeding with a given course of action—adopting a new pesticide, using a sugar substitute in processing foods, employing some method of generating energy, installing a toxic or radioactive waste disposal system in a particular location. The hazards in question are generally health hazards as distinct from economic costs, although many critics of current technology assessment (or non-assessment) programs might well argue that this is too limited a conception of hazard—that there may be social and political effects of a technology's adoption that are not encompassed in calculations of biological risk or economic cost. Risk evaluation generally refers to the procedures for deciding whether to employ a particular technology, chemical, etc. i.e. whether to accept the risks involved or not.

Type
Part X. Methodology
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1986 , Issue 2: Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers 1986 , 1986 , pp. 376 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

An earlier version of portions of this commentary appeared in Longino (1985).

References

Bella, David A. and Tabesh, Taraneh. (1986) “Cancer, Carcinogens and Dispersal: A Disciplinary Dysfunction.” Journal of Environmental Systems. 15: 211-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation. (1980) The Effects on Populations of Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: 1980. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Gofman, John. (1981) Radiation and Human Health. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1981.Google Scholar
Hattis, Dale and Smith, John A. Jr. (1986). “What's Wrong With Quantitative Risk Assessment”. In Biomedical Ethics Reviews, 1986. Edited by Almeder, Robert F. and Humber, James M.. Clifton, NJ: The Humana Press, Inc. pp. 57-105.Google Scholar
Longino, Helen. (1985) “Hazardous Technologies: How Are the Hazards Measured?” In Research in Philosophy and Technology, Volume 8. Edited by Durbin, Paul T.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc. pp. 177-188.Google Scholar
Marshall, Eliot. (1981a) “New A-Bomb Studies Alter Radiation Estimates.” Science 212: 900-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Eliot. (1981b) “New A-Bomb Data Shown to Radiation Experts.” Science 212: 1364-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Eliot. (1981c) “Japanese A-Bomb Data Will Be Revised,” Science 214: 31-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar