1993-95 PRIORITIES REPORT

1993-95 PRIORITIES AND PROGRESS UNDER THE GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY AGREEMENT

Chapter Two:Great Lakes Science Advisory Board

2.3 Weight of Evidence: Approaches to Decisionmaking in the Face of Uncertainty

2.3.5 Synthesis and Findings

Table 3.

Comparison of Assessment and Decision Approaches

Assessment Consideration Scientific Assessment Risk Management
Epidemiological Assessments (Causality) Risk Assessment Consensus Methods Expert Panels Precautionary Principal Civic Science Weigh of Evidence
Components or characteristics of the information Time-order
Consistency
Coherence
Specificity
Strength of association
Prediction of performance
Plausibility Hazard identification
Exposure assessment
(source strength)
Dose-response
(both exp. & epi.)
Risk characterization Uses panel of experts and knowledge of the science Stated risks and public values Values expert judgement and informed public Available data
Users/Audience Mostly scientists Policy/decisionmakers
Bureaucrats/Politicians Policy/decisionmakers Public and policy/decisionmakers Informed public/policy and decisionmakers Commissioners and Parties
Opportunities/Disadvantages Data intensive Data intensive Something we can do now Can be rapidly implemented Long-term consensual process Can be done now
Unifactorial/Multifactorial Often unifactorial Moving to multifactorial Multifactorial Multifactorial Multifactorial Multifactorial
Premise Explicit formulation for identifying associations Explicit formulation for characterizing causal factors Consensual support Necessity for prudence Inclusive decisionmaking All relevant information is weighed
Applicability to different scales Tends to be universal science Designed to be broadly understood and relevant on national and international scale Designed to be broadly understood Designed to include social and long-term effects Inherently large-scale and inclusive Flexible
Residual uncertainty Minimal Large but explicit Large but may be explicit Large and not explicit Large Large or small but it is made explicit
Value judgements Design phase Modifiers of risk factors and studies used Panel selection/biological endpoints Societal values/geographic and temporal limit Professional and disciplinary values Values more transparent
Where do you start? Causal null hypothesis Apparent risk identified to health or welfare Public concern Uncertainty over serious outcomes Interdisciplinary Some data available and action needed

Assessment Consideration	Scientific Assessment			Risk Management
Assessment Consideration	Epidemiological Assessments (Causality)	Risk Assessment	Consensus Methods Expert Panels	Precautionary Principal	Civic Science	Weigh of Evidence
Components or characteristics of the information	Time-order Consistency Coherence Specificity Strength of association Prediction of performance Plausibility	Hazard identification Exposure assessment (source strength) Dose-response (both exp. & epi.) Risk characterization	Uses panel of experts and knowledge of the science	Stated risks and public values	Values expert judgement and informed public	Available data
Users/Audience	Mostly scientists	Policy/decisionmakers Bureaucrats/Politicians	Policy/decisionmakers	Public and policy/decisionmakers	Informed public/policy and decisionmakers	Commissioners and Parties
Opportunities/Disadvantages	Data intensive	Data intensive	Something we can do now	Can be rapidly implemented	Long-term consensual process	Can be done now
Unifactorial/Multifactorial	Often unifactorial	Moving to multifactorial	Multifactorial	Multifactorial	Multifactorial	Multifactorial
Premise	Explicit formulation for identifying associations	Explicit formulation for characterizing causal factors	Consensual support	Necessity for prudence	Inclusive decisionmaking	All relevant information is weighed
Applicability to different scales	Tends to be universal science	Designed to be broadly understood and relevant on national and international scale	Designed to be broadly understood	Designed to include social and long-term effects	Inherently large-scale and inclusive	Flexible
Residual uncertainty	Minimal	Large but explicit	Large but may be explicit	Large and not explicit	Large	Large or small but it is made explicit
Value judgements	Design phase	Modifiers of risk factors and studies used	Panel selection/biological endpoints	Societal values/geographic and temporal limit	Professional and disciplinary values	Values more transparent
Where do you start?	Causal null hypothesis	Apparent risk identified to health or welfare	Public concern	Uncertainty over serious outcomes	Interdisciplinary	Some data available and action needed