Abstract
The 2000 BSE Inquiry report points out that the most serious failure of the UK Government was one of risk communication. This paper argues that the government''s failure to communicate the risks BSE posed to humans to a large degree can be traced back to a lack of transparency in the first risk assessment by the Southwood Working Party. This lack of transparency ensured that the working party''s risk characterization and recommendations were ambiguous and thus hard to interpret. It also meant that uncertainties were not addressed in a satisfactory way. In the recommendations, the attitude to uncertainty was implicit rather than explicit.The risk communication based on the report amplified these flaws. Most importantly, it did not address the uncertainty at all. Apparently, the reason for this was fear of overreaction by the public. However, the result was counter-productive, because the risk communication did not then appear trustworthy. Later risk assessments and risk communication omitted to correct these flaws. Indeed, the fact that, following receipt of new information, advisory experts and policy makers had changed their views of the risk to humans was never clearly communicated to the public. There seemed to be little faith in the public''s ability to reach a balanced judgment regarding the uncertainties.
Keywords normative premises  scientific advice  transparency  trust  uncertainty
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s10806-004-5186-3
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 63,194
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Risk and Responsibility: A Complex and Evolving Relationship.Céline Kermisch - 2012 - Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (1):91-102.
The Ethics of Truth-Telling and the Problem of Risk.Paul B. Thompson - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):489-510.
Antibiotic Resistance Due to Modern Agricultural Practices: An Ethical Perspective. [REVIEW]Joan Duckenfield - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):333-350.
Economic (Ir)Rationality in Risk Analysis.Sven Ove Hansson - 2006 - Economics and Philosophy 22 (2):231-241.
Some Public Policy Problems with the Science of Carcinogen Risk Assessment.Carl F. Cranor - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:467 - 488.
Varieties of Risk Representations.John Kadvany - 1997 - Journal of Social Philosophy 28 (3):123-143.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
17 ( #613,187 of 2,448,310 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #450,727 of 2,448,310 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes