Environmental Risk Assessors as Honest Brokers or Stealth Advocates

Risk Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 11, 2014, Pages 1972-1977

  Calow, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

Science and public policy; Value bias; Value relevance

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; PUBLIC POLICY; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS; RISK MANAGER; SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY; VALUE RELEVANCES; VALUE-BIAS;

RISK MANAGEMENT;

EID: 84919873021     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/risa.12225     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Pielke RA. The Honest Broker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
2. Jasanoff S. The Fifth Branch. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.
3. Sarewitz D. Beware the creeping cracks of bias. Nature, 2012; 485:149.
4. Calow P, Forbes VE. Making the relationship between risk assessment and risk management more intimate. Environmental Science &Technology, 2013; 47:8095-8096.
5. Ziman J. Real Science: What It Is and What It Means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
6. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1996.
7. Popper KR. Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1963.
8. Cho A. Once again, physicists debunk faster-than-light neutrinos. Science Insider, 2012; 8 June.
9. Amelino-Camelia G. No theory is too special to question. Nature, 2012; 483:125.
10. Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch ME, Wajcman J. (eds). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2007.
11. Groffman PM, Stylinski C, Nisbet MC, Duarte CM, Jordan R, Burgin A, Previtali MA, Coloso J. Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology, 2010; 8:284-291.
12. EU Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) and Establishing a European Chemicals Agency. Brussels: European Commission, 2006.
13. US Executive Order. Improving regulation and regulatory review. Executive Order 13563 of Jan 18, 2011. Federal Register, 2011; 3821-3823.
14. Pearce D. Cost benefit analysis and environmental policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 1998; 14:84-100.
15. Calow P, Forbes VE. Ecological risk assessment should be value-relevant but not value-biased. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2010; 6:784-785
16. Forbes VE, Calow P. Use of the ecosystem services concept in ecological risk assessment of chemicals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2013; 9:269-275.
17. NRC. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government. Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1983.
18. NRC. Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1993.
19. NRC. Understanding Risk. Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1996.
20. NRC. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 2009.
21. SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety). Making Risk Assessment More Relevant for Risk Management. Brussels: European Commission, 2013.
22. Power M, McCarty LS. Trends in the development of ecological risk assessment and management frameworks. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 2002; 8:7-18.
23. Jasanoff S. Designs on Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005.