Public Values in Risk Research

The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

Volumn 545, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 75-84

  Fischhoff, Baruch ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030553318     PISSN: 00027162     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0002716296545001008     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. National Research Council, Criteria for Federal Research and Development (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1995).
2. Norman McCormick, Risk Assessment (New York: John Wiley, 1981).
3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Reactor Safety Study (Washington, DC: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975).
4. Baruch Fischhoff et al., Acceptable Risk (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981); Silvio Funtowicz and Jeremy Ravetz, Uncertainty and Quality in Science (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1990).
5. Judith Bentkover, Vincent Covello, and Jeryl Mumpower, eds., Benefits Assessment: The State of the Art (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1985); John Campen, Benefit, Cost and Beyond (Boston: South End Press, 1988).
6. Stephen Breyer, Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Regulation (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993); Adam M. Finkel, “A Second Opinion on Environmental Misdiagnosis,” New York University Environmental Law Journal, 3: 295-381 (1994); Donald T. Hornstein, “Reclaiming Environmental Law,” Columbia Law Review, 92: 562-598 (1992).
7. Maya Fischhoff, Ordinary Housewives: Women Activists in the Grassroots Toxics Movement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Department of Social Studies, 1993); Journal of Pesticide Reform, 4(2) (1994); William Leiss and Christina Chociolko, Risk and Responsibility (Montreal and Kingston: McGill and Queen's University Press, 1994); Mary O'Brien, A Proposal to Address, Rather than Rank, Environmental Problems (Missoula: University of Montana, Institute for Environmental Studies, 1993).
8. K. Jenni, M. Merkhofer, and C. Williams, “The Rise and Fall of a Risk-Based Priority System,” Risk Analysis, 15: 397-410 (1995); National Research Council, Improving Risk Communication (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1989).
9. Some cynics claim that incoherence is the goal of these bills, whose proponents hope to gum up the works, slowing the pace of government action.
10. Ann Bostrom, Baruch Fischhoff, and M. Granger Morgan, “Characterizing Mental Models of Hazardous Processes,” Journal of Social Issues, 48: 85-100 (1992); Caren Chess, Karen Salomone, and B. J. Hance, “Managing Risk Communication Agency,” Risk Analysis, 15: 128-136 (1995); Baruch Fischhoff, “Giving Advice: Decision Theory Perspectives on Sexual Assault,” American Psychologist, 47: 577-588 (1992).
11. James Reason, Human Error (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
12. Robin Gregory, Thomas C. Brown, and Jack L. Knetsch, “Valuing Risks to the Environment,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science; J. Burgess and C. M. Harrison, “People, Parks, and the Urban Green,” Urban Studies, 25: 455-473 (1988); Baruch Fischhoff, “Value Elicitation: Is There Anything in There?” American Psychologist, 46: 835-847 (1991).
13. Robert K. Merton, “The Focussed Interview and Focus Groups,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 51: 541-557 (1987).
14. John Dryzek, Rational Ecology (Boston: Basil Blackwell, 1987).
15. Timothy Earle and George Cvetkovich, Social Trust: Toward a Cosmopolitan Society (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995).
16. Roger E. Kasperson and Jeanne X. Kasperson, “The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
17. William Leiss, “Three Phases in the Evolution of Risk Communication Practice,” this issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science.
18. National Research Council, Priority Mechanisms for Toxic Chemicals (Washington, DC: National Research Council, 1983).
19. Environmental Protection Agency, Comparing Risks and Setting Environmental Priorities (Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency, 1993).
20. B. Fischhoff, “What Do Psychologists Want?” in Determining the Value of Non-Marketed Goods, ed. N. Schwarz and R. Kopp (New York: Plenum, forthcoming).
21. B. Fischhoff, “Acceptable Risk: A Conceptual Proposal,” Risk, 5: 1-18 (1994), which argues that a policy is acceptable if it produces acceptable risk-benefit trade-offs for everyone affected by it. See Jon Merz et al., “Decision-Analytic Approach to Developing Standards of Disclosure for Medical Informed Consent,” Journal of Toxics and Liability, 15: 191-215 (1993).