PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ortwin Renn

Publications and source records attributed to Ortwin Renn.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2004

Perception of risks.

Health and environmental scientists, professional risk managers and the general public strongly disagree about the seriousness of many risks. Most members of the public are concerned about long-term effects of risks, equity and fairness issues, lack of personal control, and the pace of technological diffusion into their cultural environment, whereas professional toxicologists and risk managers focus on the task to minimize the probability of adverse effects caused by a potentially hazardous agent or activity. To bridge the gap between the professional mandate and the public perception of risk, two-way communication has to be initiated between scientists, risk managers, interest groups, and representatives of the affected public. This dialogue should serve three major functions:to facilitate understanding of different risk perspectives among scientists, regulators and stakeholders as well as groups of the public; to enlighten all these constituencies about different rationales for dealing with toxicological risks; to develop appropriate procedures for conflict resolution. A prerequisite for a successful communication is the willingness of each group to respect the perspective of all the other participating groups and to include their concerns into the decision making process. The conference paper reviews the literature on the three main functions of risk communication: message recognition, mutual understanding and respect as a prerequisite for trust building and resolution of risk-related conflicts. The paper discusses the structure of the communication process from a descriptive and a normative point of view and draws on empirical studies about risk perception and communication. The argument will be made that risk cannot be understood as a monolithic concept that penetrates different research disciplines and risk management camps. Risk should rather be seen as a mental instrument that allows prediction of future hazards and facilitates risk reduction measures. Due to the inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of conceptualizing risk, different concepts of risk compete with each other and rely on different rationales. The main goal of risk communication is, therefore, integration of different concepts of risks, in particular with respect to setting priorities in risk reduction and mitigation. The author will introduce a recent initiative by the OECD Chemical Risk Group to accomplish this goal.

Humans↗
PubMed2003

Hormesis and risk communication.

Hormesis has been defined as a dose-response relationship in which there is a stimulatory response at low doses, but an inhibiting response at high doses, resulting in a U- or inverted U-shaped dose response. Toxic agents that are detrimental to human health above certain threshold levels may induce positive effects at a dose that is significantly lower than the NOAEL level. In spite of the evidence for hormesis effects, the topic is still a matter of high controversy among toxicologists. Facing this ambiguity, the article raises the question: how should risk communication be arranged in a situation of high ambiguity, lack of empirical certainty about the effects, major policy dilemmas and significant equity problems? The article summarizes the main results of risk communication research and applies these results to the question of hormesis. First, it explains the main context variables that impact on the success or failure of any risk communication program. These refer to i) the levels of the risk debate, ii) the socio-political style of regulation, iii) different types of audiences, and iv) subcultural prototypes. Secondly, the paper addresses the major functions of risk communication: i) dealing with public perception; ii) gaining trust and credibility; iii) involving stakeholders in the communication process. The last section draws some conclusions for improving risk communication on issues of hormesis.

Animals↗
PubMed2002

A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies.

Our concept of nine risk evaluation criteria, six risk classes, a decision tree, and three management categories was developed to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and political feasibility of risk management procedures. The main task of risk evaluation and management is to develop adequate tools for dealing with the problems of complexity, uncertainty. and ambiguity. Based on the characteristics of different risk types and these three major problems, we distinguished three types of management--risk-based, precaution-based, and discourse-based strategies. The risk-based strategy--is the common solution to risk problems. Once the probabilities and their corresponding damage potentials are calculated, risk managers are required to set priorities according to the severity of the risk, which may be operationalized as a linear combination of damage and probability or as a weighted combination thereof. Within our new risk classification, the two central components have been augmented with other physical and social criteria that still demand risk-based strategies as long as uncertainty is low and ambiguity absent. Risk-based strategies are best solutions to problems of complexity and some components of uncertainty, for example, variation among individuals. If the two most important risk criteria, probability of occurrence and extent of damage, are relatively well known and little uncertainty is left, the traditional risk-based approach seems reasonable. If uncertainty plays a large role, in particular, indeterminacy or lack of knowledge, the risk-based approach becomes counterproductive. Judging the relative severity of risks on the basis of uncertain parameters does not make much sense. Under these circumstances, management strategies belonging to the precautionary management style are required. The precautionary approach has been the basis for much of the European environmental and health protection legislation and regulation. Our own approach to risk management has been guided by the proposition that any conceptualization of the precautionary principle should be (1) in line with established methods of scientific risk assessments, (2) consistent and discriminatory (avoiding arbitrary results) when it comes to prioritization, and (3) at the same time, specific with respect to precautionary measures, such as ALARA or BACT, or the strategy of containing risks in time and space. This suggestion does, however, entail a major problem: looking only to the uncertainties does not provide risk managers with a clue about where to set priorities for risk reduction. Risks vary in their degree of remaining uncertainties. How can one judge the severity of a situation when the potential damage and its probability are unknown or contested? In this dilemma, we advise risk managers to use additional criteria of hazardousness, such as "ubiquity versibility," and "pervasiveness over time," as proxies for judging severity. Our approach also distinguishes clearly between uncertainty and ambiguity. Uncertainty refers to a situation of being unclear about factual statements; ambiguity to a situation of contested views about the desirability or severity of a given hazard. Uncertainty can be resolved in principle by more cognitive advances (with the exception of indeterminacy). ambiguity only by discourse. Discursive procedures include legal deliberations as well as novel participatory approaches. In addition, discursive methods of planning and conflict resolution can be used. If ambiguities are associated with a risk problem, it is not enough to demonstrate that risk regulators are open to public concerns and address the issues that many people wish them to take care ot The process of risk evaluation itself needs to be open to public input and new forms of deliberation. We have recommended a tested set of deliberative processes that are, at least in principle, capable of resolving ambiguities in risk debates (for a review, see Renn, Webler, & Wiedemaun. 1995). Deliberative processes are needed, however, for ail three types of management. Risk-based management relies on epistemiological, uncertainty-based management on reflective, and discourse-based management on participatory discourse forms. These three types of discourse could be labeled as an analytic-deliberative procedure for risk evaluation and management. We see the advantage of a deliberative style of regulation and management in a dynamic balance between procedure and outcome. Procedure should not have priority over the outcome; outcome should not have priority over the procedure. An intelligent combination of both can elaborate the required prerequisites of democratic deliberation and its substantial outcomes to enhance the legitimacy of political decisions (Guttman & Thompson, 1996; Bohman, 1997. 1998).

Journal Article↗