W18 - Symposium
Barriers and Bridges for Integrating Science and Risk Analysis into Public PolicyEmerald 10:30 am-Noon
|
| Chair(s): E. Faustman, P. Fischbeck
|
There are growing concerns that the chasm between science and policy is widening. Beyond political or partisan questions about the use of “sound science” in the policy process, a more fundamental concern might be the ability of extant regulatory institutions to assess and manage the next generation of risks. This session uses a number of approaches to explore the problems and prospects of integrating science and risk analysis into public policy. The first objective is to frame some of the fundamental problems of integrating science and risk analysis into the regulatory process. In some cases, rapid advances in science and technology can stress the legal and regulatory capacity to assess and manage the associated risks (e.g., how emerging knowledge of genetic variability will affect the implementation of the Clean Air Act and the Food Quality Protection Act). At the other extreme, there are often public demands for risk management of problems where the underlying science is uncertain or unknown (e.g., setting safe drinking water standards for pollutant mixtures). The second objective is to describe the effects of the use of science and uncertainty during the process of developing risk regulations. This is done with an empirical analysis of the development of regulations governing extraction, distribution, and use of transportation fuels over the past thirty years. A third objective is to explore whether regulatory assessment tools might increase understanding and reduce the barriers of stakeholder deliberation in crafting public policies. An interactive tool that models the effects of future motor vehicle technologies on aggregate emissions, the impact of emissions on air quality, and the impacts of air quality on public health is presented. The final objective is to assess the capacity for stakeholders to influence policy by conducing and communicating scientific research, rather than through other forms of political influence.
|
W18.1 New Technology and Science into Risk Assessment: Why isn't it Making a Difference?. Faustman E.M.*, Cullen A., Griffith W.C., Kramer C.B., Bradley A.M.; University of Washington faustman@u.washington.edu
Abstract: An important challenge for risk assessors and risk managers is the need to incorporate new scientific information into policy. The purpose of this talk is to discuss the impediments and possible approaches for addressing this challenge. To study these issues we have chosen to evaluate the use of genomic information in risk assessment and risk management. Two regulatory contexts were evaluated, pesticide rules and the Clean Air Act. In both cases, relevant new genomic information on susceptibility factors was identified, characterized and evaluated for its potential to impact regulatory action levels. The impact of changing such levels was assessed. In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted to determine at what level significant regulatory impact occurs. The risk assessment paradigm was run in reverse to identify the implications for the quality and quantitative levels of the genomic data. Our evaluation has revealed that not only should there exist a two way exchange between the researchers and the risk assessors, the risk managers must be included in this dialogue in order for them to understand the potential significance of the emerging data and to ensure that there is a place for such new considerations to contribute in the overall assessment framework. The researcher also needs to understand the criteria for data which will impact policy. Supported by NIEHS (P30 ES07033, U10 ES 11387) and Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation at Carnegie Mellon University/University of Washington.
|
W18.2 The Use of Science and Uncertainty to Support the Development of Risk Regulations: An Empirical Analysis of U.S. Transportation Fuels . Stikkers DE, Gerard D*, Fischbeck PS; Government Accountability Office and Carnegie Mellon University dgerard@cmu.edu
Abstract: Conventional wisdom says that “good science” is necessary to formulate risk regulations to protect the environment, public health, and safety. Yet, there have been few attempts to describe or quantify (1) whether and to what extent regulatory agencies incorporate science and risk to support agency rulemaking, and (2) whether the use of science and risk have any systematic effects on which stakeholders participate in the rulemaking process, or the stringency of the final rule. In this paper we address these issues using a unique database of federal regulations governing the extraction, distribution, and use of transportation fuels that have been promulgated over the past 30 years. These include regulations to protect morbidity, mortality (both immediate risks to life and long-term cancer risks), and environmental risks. We compile information on whether agencies quantified (and/or monetized) costs and benefits, considered cost uncertainty or benefit uncertainty, and discussed or quantified risk tradeoffs. For the rules where the agency explicitly calculate a benefit-cost ratio, for example, the range was 0.09 to 292, with a median value of 1.7. We also examine whether the type of analysis used to support agency decision making had any discernable impacts on stakeholder participation and the degree of stringency of the final rules.
|
