Heuristics structure and pervade formal risk assessment

Risk Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 771-787

  Macgillivray, Brian H ^a,b  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Governance; Inference rules; Model evaluation; Risk regulation; Science policy

Indexed keywords

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; RISK PERCEPTION;

GOVERNANCE; INFERENCE RULES; MODEL EVALUATION; RISK REGULATION; SCIENCE POLICIES;

RISK ASSESSMENT;

CHEMICAL SUBSTANCE; HEURISTICS; NUMERICAL MODEL; PERCEPTION; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIAL POLICY;

EID: 84897994194     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12136     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Sunstein CR. Adolescent risk-taking and social meaning: A commentary. Developmental Review, 2008; 28(1):145-152.
2. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 1974; 185(4157):1124-1131.
3. Peters E, Slovic, P. The role of affect and worldviews as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1996; 26(16):1427-1453.
4. Sunstein CR. Laws of fear: The perception of risk. Harvard Law Review, 2002; 115(4):1119-1168.
5. Gigerenzer G, Goldstein DG. Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 1996; 103(4):650-669.
6. Noll RG, Krier JE. Some implications of cognitive psychology for risk regulation. Journal of Legal Studies, 1990; 19(2):747-779.
7. Jolls C, Sunstein CR, Thaler R. A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 1998; 50(5):1471-1550.
8. Kuran T, Sunstein, CR. Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 1999; 51(4):683-768.
9. Eskridge WN, Ferejohn J. Structuring law making to reduce cognitive bias: A critical view. Cornell Law Review, 2002; 87(2):616-647.
10. Breyer SG. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
11. Graham JD, Wiener JB. Risk Versus Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
12. Sunstein CR. Laws of Fear: Beyond the Precautionary Principle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
13. Baron J. Judgment Misguided: Intuition and Error in Public Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
14. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.
15. Shrader-Frechette KS. Evaluating the expertise of experts. Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 1995; 6:1115-1126.
16. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J. Fear of democracy: A cultural evaluation of Sunstein on risk. Harvard Law Review, 2006; 119(4):1071-1109.
17. Posner RA. Rational choice, behavioral economics, and the law. Stanford Law Review, 1998; 50(5):1551-1575.
18. Greenland S. Intuitions, simulations, theorems: The role and limits of methodology. Epidemiology, 2012; 23(3):440-442.
19. Polya G. How to Solve It. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.
20. Simon HA, Newell A. Heuristic problem solving: The next advance in operations research. Operations Research, 1958; 6(1):1-10.
21. Pearl J. Heuristics: Intelligent Search Strategies for Computer Problem Solving. Wesley, MA: Addison, 1984.
22. Lenat DB. The nature of heuristics. Artificial Intelligence, 1982; 19:189-249.
23. WJ Clancey. Heuristic classification. Artificial Intelligence, 1985; 27:289-350.
24. EPA. TSCA New Chemicals Program (NCP): Chemical Categories, 2010. Available at: http://epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/npcchemicalcategories.pdf, Accessed June 2012.
25. Federal Register. Vol. 67, No. 250, December 30, 2002. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/12--02-frnotice.pdf, Accessed June 2012.
26. Elkins CL. Chemicals Manufacturers Association Letter, 1988. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/cmaxpltr.htm, Accessed June 2012.
27. McGeer JC, Brix KV, Skeaff JM, DeForest DK, Brigham SI, Adams WJ, Green A. Inverse relationship between bioconcentration factor and exposure concentration for metals: Implications for hazard assessment of metals in the aquatic environment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2003; 22(5):1017-1037.
28. Arnot JA, Mackay, D. Policies for chemical hazard and risk priority setting: Can persistence, bioaccumulation, toxicity, and quantity information be combined?Environmental Science and Technology, 2008; 42(13):4648-4654.
29. EPA. Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, 2005. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/CANCER_GUIDELINES_FINAL_3-25-05.PDF, Accessed June 2012.
30. EPA. EPA Authorities Under TSCA, 2005. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/npptac/pubs/tscaauthorities71105.pdf, Accessed June 2012.
31. EPA. Memorandum: Interpretation of the Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) Guideline, GLP Regulations Advisory no. 36, 1991. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/monitoring/fifra/glp/advisory36.pdf, Accessed June 2012.
32. Myers JP, vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, Arizono K, Belcher S, Colborn T, Chahoud I, Crain DA, Farabollini F, Guillette LJ, Hassold T, Ho S-M, Hunt PA, Iguchi T, Jobling S, Kanno J, Laufer H, Marcus M, McLachlan JA, Nadal A, Oehlmann J, Olea N, Palanza P, Parmigiani S, Rubin BS, Schonfelder G, Sonnenschein C, Soto AM, Talsness CE, Taylor JA, Vandenberg LN, Vandenbergh JG, Vogel S, Watson CS, Welshons WV, Zoeller RT. Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: The case of bisphenol A. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2009; 117(3):309-315.
33. Alcock RE, MacGillivray BH, Busby JS. Understanding the mismatch between the demands of risk assessment and practice of scientists-The case of Deca-BDE. Environment International, 2011; 37(1):226-235.
34. Tyl RW. Basic exploratory research versus guideline-compliant studies used for hazard evaluation and risk assessment: Bisphenol A as a case study. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2009; 117:1644-1651.
35. EPA. An Examination of EPA Risk Assessment Principles and Practices, 2004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf, Accessed June 2012.
36. EPA. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment, 1992. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=15263, Accessed June 2012.
37. Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, Lemons J, Levins R, Loechler EL, Quinn M, Rudel R, Schettler T, Stoto M. The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2001; 109(9):871-876.
38. Suter GW. Abuse of hypothesis testing statistics in ecological risk assessment. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2001; 2(2):331-347.
39. McCarty LS, Borgert CJ, Mihaich EM. Information quality in regulatory decision-making. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2012; 120:927-934.
40. EPA. Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment, 1986. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/mmoaframework/pdfs/MUTAGEN2.PDF, Accessed June 2012.
41. Doull J, Borzelleca JF, Becker R, Daston G, DeSesso J, Fan A, Fenner-Crisp P, Holsapple M, Holson J, Llewellyn GC, MacGregor J, Seed J, Walls I, Woo Y, Olin S. Framework for use of toxicity screening tools in context-based decision-making. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 2007; 45(5):759-796.
42. Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee (EDSTAC) Final Report, Chapter 5: Screening and Testing, 1998. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/edstac/chap5v14.pdf, Accessed June 2012.
43. National Research Council. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1994.
44. National Research Council. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2009.
45. National Research Council. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 1983.
46. Rhomberg LR, Lewandowski TA. Methods for Identifying a Default Cross-Species Scaling Factor, Report for EPA, 2004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/pdfs/RHOMBERGSPAPER.PDF, Accessed June 2012.
47. Chou C-HSJ, Holler J, De Rosa CT. Minimal risk levels (MRLs) for hazardous substances. Journal of Clean Technology Environmental Toxicology, 1998; 7(1):1-24.
48. Belkebir E, Roussellea C, Duboudinb C, Bodina L, Bonvallot N. Haber's rule duration adjustments should not be used systematically for risk assessment in public health decision-making. Toxicology Letters, 2011; 204(2-3):148-155.
49. Atherley G. A critical review of time-weighted average as an index of exposure and dose, and of its key elements. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 1985; 46(9):481-487.
50. EPA. Benchmark Dose Technical Guidance Document, 2012. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/raf/publications/benchmark_dose_guidance.pdf, Accessed June 2012.
51. Calabrese EJ. The road to linearity: Why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment. Archives of Toxicology, 2009; 83:203-225.
52. EPA. A Review of the Reference Dose and Reference Concentration Processes, 2002. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/osa/pdfs/ratf-final.pdf, Accessed June 2012.
53. National Research Council. Health Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2006.
54. Institute of Medicine.Environmental Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2013.
55. Nichols AL, Zeckhuaser RJ. The perils of prudence: How conservative risk assessments distort regulation. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 1998; 8:61-75.
56. Clancey WJ. The epistemology of a rule-based expert system-A framework for explanation. Artificial Intelligence, 1983; 20:215-251.
57. Crump KS, Howe RB. A review of methods for calculating statistical confidence limits in low dose extrapolation. Pp. in 187-204 in Clayson DB, Krewski D, Munro I (eds). Toxicological Risk Assessment: Vol 1. Biological and Statistical Criteria. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1985.
58. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Nature, 2003; 421(6294):691-692.
59. Welshons WV, Thayer KA, Judy BM, Taylor JA, Curran EM, vom Saal FS. Large effects from small exposures. I. Mechanisms for endocrine-disrupting chemicals with estrogenic activity. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2003; 111(8):994-1006.
60. Jasanoff S. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisors as Policy Makers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.
61. Wynne B. Carving out science (and politics) in the regulatory jungle. Social Studies of Science, 1992; 22(4):745-758.
62. Langlotz CP, Shortliffe EH, Fagan LM. Using decision theory to justify heuristics. Pp. 215-219 in Proceedings of AAAI, Philadelphia, 1986.
63. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, ABC Research Group. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999.
64. Feigenbaum E. Knowledge engineering: The applied side of artificial intelligence. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1984; 426:91-107.