Search Images Maps Play YouTube News Gmail Drive More »
My library | Help | Advanced Book Search | Web History | Sign in

Books

Dealing with Risk:

Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues
Front Cover
0 Reviews
University of Chicago Press, 1996 - Nature - 238 pages
For decades, both policymakers and analysts have been frustrated by sharp and stubborn conflicts between expert and lay perceptions on issues of environmental risk. For example, most experts - even those opposed to nuclear power on other grounds - would see precautions like those now in place as adequate to protect against risks from nuclear waste. But the public finds that very hard to believe. Similar sharp conflicts of expert/lay intuition are evident on a wide range of risk issues, from the safety of bendictin as a treatment for morning sickness to the safety of irradiation of food to destroy microorganisms. In Dealing with Risk, Howard Margolis explores the expert/lay rift surrounding such contentious issues and provides a provocative new account. The usual explanation of expert/lay conflicts is that experts are focused only on a narrow notion of risk - such as potential fatalities - but lay intuition is concerned about a wide range of further concerns, such as fairness and voluntariness of exposure. Margolis argues that this "rival rationalities" view in a fundamental way misses the point of these controversies, since the additional dimensions of lay concern often are more plausibly interpreted as reflections of lay concern than as causes. Margolis argues that risk assessment typically involves weighing a broad range of often complicated trade-offs between costs and benefits. As laypersons, however, we are by definition forced to make judgments on complex matters beyond the scope of our normal experience. Especially in cases involving potential danger, we frequently discount nuance and respond more viscerally. Cognitively we fall back on default responses, all-purpose intuitionssuch as "better safe than sorry" or "nothing ventured, nothing gained." Such intuitions don't admit of careful balancing of pros and cons, and lay opinion consequently becomes polarized and at odds with the expert view.
  

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Related books

Contents

III
7
IV
21
V
49
VI
71
VII
99
VIII
121
IX
145
X
165
XI
191
XII
207
XIII
216
XIV
222
Copyright

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

References to this book

From other books

Risk, media and stigma: understanding public challenges to modern science ...
The Medical Malpractice Myth
All Book Search results »

From Google Scholar

Ethical analysis in public health
Marc J Roberts, Michael R Reich - 2002 - The Lancet
Public perception of the risk ofblood transfusion
ML Finucane, P Slovic, CK Mertz - 2000 - Transfusion
Trust, the Asymmetry Principle, and the Role of Prior Beliefs
Wouter Poortinga, Nick F Pidgeon - 2004 - Risk Analysis
The Political Environment and Citizen Competence
James H Kuklinski, Paul J Quirk, Jennifer Jerit, Robert F Rich - 2001 - American Journal of Political Science
All Scholar search results »

References from web pages

Dealing With Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on ...
Dealing With Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. Richard Wakeford 1998 J. Radiol. Prot. 18 doi:10.1088/0952-4746/18/3/023 ...
www.iop.org/ EJ/ abstract/ 0952-4746/ 18/ 3/ 023

JSTOR: Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree ...
Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Pp. 227. $27.50 (cloth). ...
links.jstor.org/ sici?sici=0014-1704(199807)108%3A4%3C830%3ADWRWTP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-E

Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on ...
Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on. Environmental Issues. by Sheldon Krimsky. © COPYRIGHT 1997 Sage Publications Inc. ...
www.tufts.edu/ ~skrimsky/ PDF/ dealing.PDF

Dealing with risk: Why the public and the experts disagree on ...
Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental. Issues, by Howard Margolis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996, 236 ...
doi.wiley.com/ 10.1002/ (SICI)1520-6688(199723)16:4%3C654::AID-PAM12%3E3.0.CO;2-E

Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on ...
Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues.(Review) (book review) from American Political Science Review in ...
findarticles.com/ p/ articles/ mi_hb3159/ is_199909/ ai_n7840875

@article {Margolis:March 1998:0898-1221:134, author = "Margolis H ...
@article {Margolis:March 1998:0898-1221:134, author = "Margolis H.", title = "Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental ...
www.ingentaconnect.com/ content/ els/ 08981221/ 1998/ 00000035/ 00000005/ art80237;jsessionid=lysxi7q47g1w.alice?format=bib

【楽天市場】Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts ...
タイトル:Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues:DEALING W/RISK. この商品の関連ジャンルです。 ...
item.rakuten.co.jp/ book/ 4743942/

Findbook > 商品簡介> Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the ...
Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. Howard Margolis , University Of Chicago Press , 1996-08-01 ...
findbook.tw/ book/ 9780226505251/ basic

Margolis, Howard: Dealing with Risk
Margolis, Howard Dealing with Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues. 238 p., 1 halftone, 6 line drawings, 1 tables. ...
www.press.uchicago.edu/ cgi-bin/ hfs.cgi/ 00/ 13067.ctl

book dealing with risk : why the public and the experts disagree ...
Dealing with risk : why the public and the experts disagree on environmental issues. Author(s) : MARGOLIS Howard Publication date : 12-1997 ...
www.lavoisier.fr/ notice/ gbFNO63AOIAXW33O.html

About the author (1996)

Howard Margolis has held research and teaching appointments at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Russell Sage Foundation, the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton, and the University of California, Irvine.

Bibliographic information