Seven Myths of Risk. Hansson, S. O. 7(2):7–17.
Seven Myths of Risk [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Communication between experts and the public has turned out to be unusually difficult in the field of risk research. These difficulties are closely connected to a series of recalcitrant misconceptions of risk and its social preconditions. In this paper, seven of the most pernicious myths of risk are exposed, namely: first, that 'risk' must have a single, well-defined meaning; second, that the severity of risks should be judged according to probability-weighted averages of the severity of their outcomes; third, that decisions on risk should be made by weighing total risks against total benefits; fourth, that decisions on risk should be taken by experts rather than by laymen; fifth, that risk-reducing measures in all sectors of society should be decided according to the same standards; sixth, that risk assessments should be based only on well-established scientific facts; and seventh, that if there is a serious risk, then scientists will find it if they look for it.
@article{hanssonSevenMythsRisk2005,
  title = {Seven Myths of Risk},
  author = {Hansson, Sven O.},
  date = {2005-04},
  journaltitle = {Risk Management},
  volume = {7},
  pages = {7--17},
  issn = {1460-3799},
  doi = {10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240209},
  url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/10558046},
  abstract = {Communication between experts and the public has turned out to be unusually difficult in the field of risk research. These difficulties are closely connected to a series of recalcitrant misconceptions of risk and its social preconditions. In this paper, seven of the most pernicious myths of risk are exposed, namely: first, that 'risk' must have a single, well-defined meaning; second, that the severity of risks should be judged according to probability-weighted averages of the severity of their outcomes; third, that decisions on risk should be made by weighing total risks against total benefits; fourth, that decisions on risk should be taken by experts rather than by laymen; fifth, that risk-reducing measures in all sectors of society should be decided according to the same standards; sixth, that risk assessments should be based only on well-established scientific facts; and seventh, that if there is a serious risk, then scientists will find it if they look for it.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-10558046,~to-add-doi-URL,definition,epistemology,ethics,post-normal-science,precaution,precaution-principle,probability-vs-possibility,risk-assessment,science-ethics,science-policy-interface,science-society-interface},
  number = {2}
}
Downloads: 0