Otway H, von Winterfeldt D
Health and Safety Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico 87544.
Risk Anal. 1992 Mar;12(1):83-93. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01310.x.
The regulation and management of hazardous industrial activities increasingly rely on formal expert judgment processes to provide wisdom in areas of science and technology where traditional "good science" is, in practice, unable to supply unambiguous "facts." Expert judgment has always played a significant, if often unrecognized, role in analysis; however, recent trends are to make it formal, explicit, and documented so it can be identified and reviewed by others. We propose four categories of expert judgment and present three case studies which illustrate some of the pitfalls commonly encountered in its use. We conclude that there will be an expanding policy role for formal expert judgment and that the openness, transparency, and documentation that it requires have implications for enhanced public involvement in scientific and technical affairs.
危险工业活动的监管和管理越来越依赖于正式的专家判断过程，以便在传统的“良好科学”在实践中无法提供明确“事实”的科学技术领域提供智慧。专家判断在分析中一直发挥着重要作用，尽管常常未被认识到；然而，最近的趋势是使其正式化、明确化并记录在案，以便其他人能够识别和审查。我们提出了四类专家判断，并展示了三个案例研究，这些案例说明了在使用专家判断时常见的一些陷阱。我们得出结论，正式专家判断在政策方面的作用将不断扩大，其所需的开放性、透明度和文件记录对加强公众参与科学技术事务具有影响。
