Adjusting scientific practices to the precautionary principle

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA)

Volumn 5, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 909-921

  Hansson, Sven Ove ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Burden of proof; Cautiousness; Detection level; Expected utility; Precautionary Principle

Indexed keywords

EID: 22844457328     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807039991289194     Document Type: Review

References (22)

1. Christensen-Szalanski. J.J.J. and Bushyhead, J.B. 1981. Physicians use of probabilistic information in a real clinical setting. J. Exp. Psychol. Human Percept. Perform. 7, 928-935.
2. Finkel, A. M. 1994. The case of 'Plausible Conservatism' in Choosing and Altering Defaults. In: Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment (National Research Council), pp. 601-627, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
3. Fischhoff, B. and Beyth, R. 1975. 'I knew it would happen' remembered probabilities of once-future things. Organizat. Behav. Hum. Perform. 13, 1-16.
4. Fischhoff, B. and MacGregor, D. 1982. Subjective Confidence in Forecasts. J. Forecast. 1, 155-172.
5. Hansson, S. O. 1993a.The false promises of risk analysis. Ratio 6, 16-26, 1993.
6. Hansson, S. O. 1993b. Entscheidungsfindung bei Uneinigkeit der Experten, In: Die Modernisierung der Demokratie, Internationale Ansätze, pp 87-96. (Zilleßen, H., C. Dienel, P. C., and Strubelt, W., Eds.). Westdeutscher Verlag, 1993.
7. Hansson, S. O. 1995. The Detection Level. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 22, 103-109.
8. Hansson, S. O. 1996. What is Philosophy of Risk?, Theoria 62, 169-186.
9. Hansson, S. O. 1998. Setting the Limit. Occupational Health Standards and the Limits of Science. Oxford University Press, 1998.
10. Hansson, S. O. and Johannesson, M. 1997. Decision-Theoretic Approaches to Global Climate Change. In: The Politics of Climate Change, pp. 153-178 (Fermann, G., Ed.). Scandinavian University Press.
11. Hileman, B. 1998. Precautionary Principle, Chemical and Engineering News, February 9, pp. 16-18.
12. Hoerl, A. H. and Fallin, H. K. 1974. Reliability of Subjective Evaluations in a High Incentive Situation, J. R. Statist. Soc. 137 (Part 2), 227-230.
13. Hynes, M. and Vanmarcke, E. 1976. Reliability of embankment performance predictions, Proceedings of the ASCE Engineering Mechanics Division, Specialty Conference, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, University of Waterloo Press, 1976.
14. Krewski, D., Goddard, M. J., and Murdoch D. 1989. Statistical Considerations in the Interpretation of Negative Carcinogenicity Data, Regul. Toxicol. Phannacol. 9, 5-22.
15. Leisenring, W. and Ryan, L. 1992. Statistical Properties of the NOAEL, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 15, 161-171.
16. Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., and Phillips, L. D. 1982. Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In: Judgment Under Uncertainty, Heuristics and Biases, pp. 306-334 (Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., Eds.).
17. Murphy, A. H. and Winkler, R. L. 1984. Probability forecasting in meteorology. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79, 489-500.
18. NRC (National Research Council). 1994, Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
19. Ronis, D. L. and Yates, J. F. 1987. Components of Probability Judgment Accuracy: Individual Consistency and Effects of Subject Matter and Assessment Method. Organizat. Behav. Hum. Decision Proces. 40, 193-218.
20. Rudner, R. 1953. The scientist qua scientist makes value judgments. Philos. Sci. 20, 1-6.
21. Sandin, P. 1999 Dimensions of the Precautionary Principle, Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. 5, 889-907.
22. Schoemaker, P. J. H. 1982. The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations. J. Econ. Lit. 20, 529-563.