POLITICS VERSUS SCIENCE: APPORTIONING ... - Buffalo State

Mouth Disease (FMD) is illustrative of this point. The polity clamored for vaccination of
cattle, but scientists warned that vaccination does not guarantee against the spread of
FMD. It is only by having unvaccinated herds that scientists can easily detect the
presence of the organism. Given the low risk of FMD, scientists select not to vaccinate.
There are three issues upon which science and politics regularly disagree: 1) risk
assessment, 2) risk management, and 3) the interconnectedness of risk assessment, risk
communication, and risk management. Risk assessment is sometimes mistakenly thought
to be an uncontroversial exercise of science. Nevertheless, any decision based on
differential risk thresholds will affect those for whom the standards are designed to
protect. Assumptions may be risk-averse, risk-tolerant, and risk-neutral. Scientists, for
instance, might employ a mathematical model (quantitative estimates) or safety factor
(qualitative). Harrison and Hoberg (1994, 27) explain that “mathematical models derive
quantitative estimates of the likelihood of risk experienced by different members of the
population corresponding to the extent of their exposure.” Safety factor is a qualitative
risk assessment in which “those whose exposure is less than the assumed threshold are
considered to face no risk of cancer.” They found, for example, that in the risk
assessment of TCDD (the most toxic dioxin) professionals in the U.S. were more likely to
employ mathematical modeling, while scientists in Canada supported the safety factor
approach. Jasanoff (1990, 61) recounts the observation of a Dow Chemical executive
that “if one wishes to eat fish caught in the Great Lakes, one had better do it in Canada.
The fish is safe across the border, even though the dioxin residues have led U.S.
regulators to label it unfit for human consumption.” Harrison and Holberg (1994, 117)
conclude that the different approaches to risk assessment in the two countries can be
5