@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}
}

{"_id":"Fsurs8HA87PYQcbfL","bibbaseid":"hansson-sevenmythsofrisk","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Hansson, S. O."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Seven Myths of Risk","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Hansson"],"firstnames":["Sven","O."],"suffixes":[]}],"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","bibtex":"@article{hanssonSevenMythsRisk2005,\n title = {Seven Myths of Risk},\n author = {Hansson, Sven O.},\n date = {2005-04},\n journaltitle = {Risk Management},\n volume = {7},\n pages = {7--17},\n issn = {1460-3799},\n doi = {10.1057/palgrave.rm.8240209},\n url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/10558046},\n 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.},\n 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},\n number = {2}\n}\n\n","author_short":["Hansson, S. O."],"key":"hanssonSevenMythsRisk2005","id":"hanssonSevenMythsRisk2005","bibbaseid":"hansson-sevenmythsofrisk","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/10558046"},"keyword":["*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"],"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"https://tmpfiles.org/dl/58794/INRMM.bib","creationDate":"2020-07-02T22:41:08.994Z","downloads":0,"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"],"search_terms":["seven","myths","risk","hansson"],"title":"Seven Myths of Risk","year":null,"dataSources":["DXuKbcZTirdigFKPF"]}