This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Elliott, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Elliott, K. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Respect for lay perceptions of risk in the hormesis case

Department of Philosophy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC

In this essay for this issue, David Ropeik empahasizes that it is important to respect the risk perceptions of laypeople. The present commentary examines Ropeik’s suggestion in more detail. First, it clarifies that the notion of ‘respect’ for lat risk perceptions is ambiguous. For example, one could adopt a fairly technocratic perspective (in which policy decisions are based almost exclusively on the risk perceptions of technical experts) while still claiming to respect laypeople. The second section of the commentary rejects such an appraoch; it provides a four-part argument in favor of giving significant weight to the risk perceptions of the public when making policy decisions. It concludes by arguing that these suggestions could be implemented in the hormesis case by adopting the sorts of analytic-deliberative approaches advocated by the National Research Council report Understanding Risk.

Key Words: analytic-deliberative • deliberation • expert • hormesis • laypole • risk perception

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 28, No. 1, 21-26 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0960327109103522


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?