Assessing Risk: Science or Art?

Professor Derek Burke [rtf version]

Abstract of a presentation to the 2003 Christians in Science Sheffield Conference.

There was an excellent Science Minister a few years ago who wanted a 'Richter scale of risk'; an agreed figure that we scientists could give him that would accurately represent risk, and which would be accepted by all. This was an impossible dream. Why? After all, once upon a time, all we scientists had to do was to decide whether a novel food, a novel medicine, a novel technology was safe or not and the public would accept what we, the experts said. We knew best. But times have changed. Because of BSE, because of nuclear power station accidents, because of damage to the environment, science and scientists are no longer trusted as they were. What has happened? Is there anything that we can we do about it? In particular what have we to offer as Christians?

At one time, all we thought we had to do was a technocratic assessment of risk: a purely technical process that arrived at a figure, often a negative power of ten, and expressed all risks on the same scale We very soon discovered that the way that we scientists see risk was different from the way the consumer sees risk, for example over so called GM foods. Value systems are different and since we cannot make decisions for the consumer; we had to widen the regulatory process; consumers had to be involved and were.

Then there were ethical issues. We very quickly found that some risks which seemed perfectly acceptable to scientists were unacceptable to consumers because of ethical concerns. Ways of identifying and dealing with such concerns had to be found, and were.

The next development was the use of the precautionary principle, but the problem there is that it can be interpreted in so many different ways. At its most extreme, it means that no risk however small is acceptable, and that of course means that we would never introduce any new technology. So how do we weigh risks which are as yet undefined? What about "unknowns" and "unknown unknowns"? And how do we weigh risks against benefits?

Finally, we now have to recognize societal influences, so we are in the process of opening up the risk assessment process, widening membership of committees, publishing the agenda, publishing Minutes, meeting in public, using much wider consultation about difficult issues, all to rebuild confidence in the outcome. The process is not easy to work.

Finally what are we to say as Christians? Many of the concerns that face new technologies arise because people think they are "unnatural". There is in society a widespread romantic view of nature which sees everything "natural" as good and any thing tampered with by man as bad. I think that this is because, in an age of widespread unbelief, what is "natural" becomes the "good". We worship the Creator of the natural.

Finally what are we to about the loss of trust - in science and scientists? Society cannot function without some trust. Trust too is central to Christian faith: trust in God and trust in each other is a pillar of faith. We who live in a cynical society have to demonstrate that trust is still reasonable and workable, and live lives of integrity.