Kasperson R E
Environ Health Perspect. 1983 Oct;52:15-20. doi: 10.1289/ehp.835215.
This paper has three objectives: to explore the nature of the problem implicit in the term "risk acceptability," to examine the possible contributions of scientific information to risk standard-setting, and to argue that societal response is best guided by considerations of process rather than formal methods of analysis. Most technological risks are not accepted but are imposed. There is also little reason to expect consensus among individuals on their tolerance of risk. Moreover, debates about risk levels are often at base debates over the adequacy of the institutions which manage the risks. Scientific information can contribute three broad types of analyses to risk-setting deliberations: contextual analysis, equity assessment, and public preference analysis. More effective risk-setting decisions will involve attention to the process used, particularly in regard to the requirements of procedural justice and democratic responsibility.
探究“风险可接受性”这一术语所隐含问题的本质，审视科学信息对风险标准设定的可能贡献，并论证社会应对最好由过程考量而非正式分析方法来引导。大多数技术风险并非被接受而是被强加的。也没有什么理由期望个体在风险容忍度上达成共识。此外，关于风险水平的辩论往往归根结底是关于管理风险的机构是否充分的辩论。科学信息可为风险设定审议提供三种广泛类型的分析：情境分析、公平评估和公众偏好分析。更有效的风险设定决策将涉及对所采用过程的关注，特别是在程序正义和民主责任要求方面。
