Society For Risk Analysis Annual Meeting 2017
Session Schedule & Abstracts
* Disclaimer: All presentations represent the views of the authors, and not the organizations that support their research. Please apply the standard disclaimer that any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations in abstracts, posters, and presentations at the meeting are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of any other organization or agency. Meeting attendees and authors should be aware that this disclaimer is intended to apply to all abstracts contained in this document. Authors who wish to emphasize this disclaimer should do so in their presentation or poster. In an effort to make the abstracts as concise as possible and easy for meeting participants to read, the abstracts have been formatted such that they exclude references to papers, affiliations, and/or funding sources. Authors who wish to provide attendees with this information should do so in their presentation or poster.
|Chair(s): Chuck Haas, Sharon Friedman email@example.com
Sponsored by Risk Communication Specialty Group
|Victor Hugo once said: â€śScience says the first word on everything, and the last word on nothing.â€ť While many factors influence how citizens and political leaders respond to controversial risk issues, why is it that scientific evidence is often downplayed or even disbelieved by many? Examples of such risk issues include climate change, childhood vaccines, genetically modified foods and nuclear waste, among many others. The paradox of Americans saying in public opinion polls that they have a great deal of confidence in science while intensely questioning scientific evidence, led to a recent newspaper headline: â€śPeople trust science. So why donâ€™t they believe it?â€ť Perhaps some of the answers lie in the complex risk communication patterns that evolve around controversial scientific issues, including conflicting roles played by scientists and scientific societies, the mass and social media, government officials, and lobbying and nonprofit organizations. This roundtable proposes to explore various issues related to communicating about scientific evidence and risks. Can scientific evidence about risks provide rapid and timely responses to important risk questions as they arise in the public? Does engaging the public directly in town halls, science juries or other events facilitate better acceptance of risk science? Can scientific uncertainty be presented to the public as an acceptable response, particularly when evidence is changing rapidly? Can risk evidence be presented without also presenting a point of view? Is there any form of risk communication that can overcome deeply held public views about a risk controversy?|
Sharon Friedman, George Gray, Michael Greenberg, Roger Kasperson, Katherine McComas and Kim Thompson.
[back to schedule]