Reconciling scientists' beliefs about radiation risks and social norms: Explaining preferred radiation protection standards

Risk Analysis

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 755-773

  Silva, Carol L ^a   Jenkins Smith, Hank C ^a   Barke, Richard P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Policy choice; Precautionary principle; Radiation; Risk perception; Scientific judgment

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS; POLICY CHOICE; PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE; SAFETY STANDARDS; SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENT;

MATHEMATICAL MODELS; PUBLIC POLICY; RADIATION PROTECTION; STANDARDS;

RISK PERCEPTION;

CANCER; DISEASE INCIDENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH RISK; HEALTH SURVEY; NUMERICAL MODEL; POLICY MAKING; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RISK PERCEPTION;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER INCIDENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EPISTEMOLOGY; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; NORMAL HUMAN; POLICY; POLITICS; RADIATION DOSE; RADIATION HAZARD; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENTIST; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIOLOGY;

DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; HUMANS; NEOPLASMS, RADIATION-INDUCED; PUBLIC POLICY; QUESTIONNAIRES; RADIATION PROTECTION; RISK; SOCIAL VALUES; UNITED STATES;

EID: 34447322351     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00919.x     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Balogh, B 1991). Chain Reaction: Expert Debate and Public Participation in American Commercial Nuclear Power (pp. 1945 1975). Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University Press.
2. Barke, R. P. (2005). Balancing uncertain risks and benefits in human subjects research. Presented at Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, WA.
3. Barke, R. P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Politics and scientific expertise: Scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy. Risk Analysis, 13, 425 439.
4. Barke, R. P., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Slovic, P 1997). Risk perceptions of men and women scientists. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 167 176.
5. Beck, U 1992). Risk Society: Toward a New Modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.
6. Dake, K 1991). Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61 82.
7. Dake, K 1992). Myths of nature: Culture and the social construction of risk. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 21 37.
8. Dake, K., & Wildavsky, A 1990). Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus (Spring 41 60.
9. Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A 1982). Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers. Berkeley : University of California Press.
10. Ellis, R., Wildavsky, A., & Thompson, M 1990). Cultural Theory. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.
11. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Social Cognition. New York : McGraw-Hill.
12. Flynn, J. F., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1993). Decidedly different: Expert and public views of risks from a radioactive waste repository. Risk Analysis, 13, 643 648.
13. Flynn, J. F., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, Race, and Perception of Environmental Health Risks Report No. 94-1) Decision Research, Eugene, OR.
14. Franklin, J. (Ed 1998). The Politics of Risk Society. Cambridge, UK : Polity Press.
15. Haas, P 1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and mediterranean pollution control. International Organization, 43 (3 377 403.
16. Haas, P 2006). Reconstructing epistemic communities. Workshop on Science, Knowledge Communities and Environmental Governance: Global-Local Linkages Center for Global Change and Governance, May 4, 2006, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.
17. Health Physics Society 2001). Radiation Risk in Perspective. Available at http://www.hps.org.
18. Hendee, W. R. (1992). Estimation of radiation risks: BEIR V and its significance for medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 268, 620 624.
19. Herrmann, R. K., Tetlock, P. E., & Visser, P. S. (1999). Mass public decisions on going to war: A cognitive-interactionist framework. American Political Science Review, 93, 553 573.
20. Hively, W 1988). Union of concerned scientists. American Scientist, 76, 18.
21. Holden, C 1992). Scientists' campaign to save earth. Science, 258, 1433.
22. Hurwitz, J., Peffley, M. A., & Seligson, M 1993). Foreign policy belief systems in comparative perspective: The United States and Costa Rica. International Studies Quarterly, 37, 245 270
23. Inglehart, R 1989). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
24. Inglehart, R 1997). Modernization and Post-Modernization. Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press.
25. Jacobson, L 2002). Rocky Flat's road to recovery. National Journal, 25 (2 116 117.
26. Jasanoff, S 1990). The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
27. Jenkins-Smith, H., & Smith, W 1994). Ideology, culture and risk perception. In D. Coyle & R. Ellis (Eds Politics, Policy and Culture. Boulder, CO : Westview Press.
28. Kahan, D. M., Slovic, P., Braman, D., & Gastil, J 2006). Fear of democracy: A cultural evaluation of sunstein on risk. Harvard Law Review, 199, 1071 1109.
29. Kocher, D. C. (1991). Perspective on the historical development of radiation standards. Health Physics, 61.
30. Kuhn, T 1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
31. Kuklinski, J., Metlay, D., & Kay, W. (1982). Citizen knowledge and choices in the complex issue of nuclear energy. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 615 642.
32. Lakatos, I 1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press.
33. Margolis, H 1996). Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
34. Mazur, A 1981). The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington, DC : Communications Press.
35. McGarity, T. O. (1979). Substantive and procedural discretion in administration resolution of science policy questions: Regulating carcinogens in EPA and OSHA. Georgetown Law Journal, 67, 729 809.
36. Mettler, F. A., & Moseley, R. D. (1985). Medical Effects of Ionizing Radiation. Orlando, FL : Grune and Stratton.
37. Mooney, C 2005). The Republican War of Science. Cambridge, MA : Basic Books.
38. Moore, L 2002). Lowering the bar. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (May/June 28 37.
39. National Academy of Sciences 2005). Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation. Washington : National Academies Press.
40. NCRP (National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) 1987). Ionizing Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States. NCRP Report 93. Bethesda, MD : NCRP.
41. Piller, C 1991). The Fail-Safe Society: Community Defiance and the End of American Technological Optimism. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press.
42. Plutzer, E., Maney, A., & O'Connor, R. (1998). Ideology and elites' perceptions of the safety of new technologies. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 190 209.
43. Popper, K 1992). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York : Routledge Press.
44. Press, D 1994). Democratic Dilemmas in the Age of Ecology: Trees and Toxics in the American West. Duke Durham, NC : University Press.
45. Revkin, A. C. (2004). Bush vs. the Laureates: How science became a partisan issue. New York Times. Available at http://www.nytimes.com.
46. Rothman, S., & Lichter, S. (1987). Elite ideology and risk perception in nuclear energy policy. American Political Science Review, 81, 383 404.
47. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H 1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder : Westview Press.
48. Sabatier, P., & Zafonte, M 1999). Are bureaucrats and Scientists members of advocacy coalitions? Evidence from an intergovermental water policy subsystem. Paper presented at the 1999 Workshop in the Environmental Policy and Economics Workshop Series sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Economy and Environment, Office of Research and Development and Region.
49. Salter, L 1988). Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards. Boston : Kluwer.
50. Schwartz, S. (Ed 1998). Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. Washington, DC : Brookings.
51. Sjöberg, L., & Drottz-Sjöberg, B-M. (1991). Knowledge and risk perception among nuclear power plant employees. Risk Analysis, 11, 607 618.
52. Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intuitive toxicology II: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15 (6 661 675.
53. Slovic, P., & Peters, E. (1998). The importance of worldviews in risk perception. Risk Decision and Policy, 3 (2 165 170.
54. Smith, D. B., & Watzke, J. R. (1990). Perception of safety hazards across the adult life-span. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Orlando (pp. 141-145).
55. Steger, M. A., & Witt, S. L. (1989). Gender differences in environmental orientations: A comparison of publics and activists in Canada and the U.S. Western Political Quarterly, 42, 627 649.
56. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. New York : Cambridge University Press.
57. Svenson, O., & Karlsson, G 1989). Decision-making, time horizons, and risk in the very long-term perspective. Risk Analysis, 9, 385 399.
58. Tickner, J. A. (2002). Developing scientific and policy methods that support precautionary action in the face of uncertainty. Public Health Reports, 117, 534 545.
59. Tickner, J. A., Raffensperger, C., & Myers, N 1999). The Precautionary Principle in Action: A Handbook. Windsor, ND : Science and Environmental Health Network.
60. U. S. General Accounting Office 1994). Consensus on Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking. GAO/RCED-94-190.
61. U. S. General Accounting Office 2000). Radiation Standards: Scientific Basis Inconclusive, and EPA and NRC Disagreement Continues. GAO/RCED-00-152.
62. Wager, J. S. (1994). Union of concerned scientists. Environment, 36, 4 5.
63. Watson, T 1992). Petition warns of pending global environmental crisis. Nature, 360, 200.
64. Weible, C. W., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 33, 181 201.
65. Weinberg, A 1972). Science and trans-science. Minerva, 10, 209 222.
66. Wildavsky, A. (1991). The Rise of Radical Egalitarianism. Lanham, MD : University Press of America.