Suppr超能文献

风险研究中的逻辑与动机:一个核废料的测试案例。

Logic and motivation in risk research: a nuclear waste test case.

作者信息

Brown Rex V

机构信息

School of Public Policy, George Mason University, USA.

出版信息

Risk Anal. 2005 Feb;25(1):125-40. doi: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2005.00572.x.

Abstract

After two decades of massive investigation, federal approval of a nuclear waste site is drawing to a close. Large-scale research to assure that major hazards such as this one are socially acceptable is often highly inefficient, as here. A regulatory remedy would be to require not only that risk currently assessed be acceptable, but also that risk would remain acceptable given any new information. Research to test compliance with these rules has to be cost effective. Research activities should be managed according to an explicit discipline that can be imposed on powerful conflicting interests. They might be required to (1) set targets for the first- and second-order risk assessments, (2) allocate research resources to close any gap between current and target assessments cost effectively, and (3) reallocate resources, as evolving findings dictate. The interests of license applicant (Department of Energy, DOE) and society are distinguished: the former would want the application approved; the latter would want to reject an unacceptable facility.

摘要

经过二十年的大规模调查,联邦政府对一个核废料处理场的审批即将结束。像这样确保重大危害在社会上可接受的大规模研究往往效率极低。一种监管补救措施不仅要求目前评估的风险是可接受的,而且要求在有任何新信息的情况下风险仍保持可接受。测试是否符合这些规则的研究必须具有成本效益。研究活动应按照一种明确的原则进行管理,这种原则可以施加于强大的利益冲突方。可能要求它们:(1)为一级和二级风险评估设定目标;(2)有效地分配研究资源以缩小当前评估与目标评估之间的差距;(3)根据不断变化的研究结果重新分配资源。许可证申请人(能源部,DOE)和社会的利益是有区别的:前者希望申请获得批准;后者则希望拒绝一个不可接受的设施。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验