An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect antibodies against glycoprotein gE of bovine herpesvirus 1 allows differentiation between infected and vaccinated cattle.

J. V. van Oirschot,M. Kaashoek,M. Maris-Veldhuis,K. Weerdmeester,F. Rijsewijk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-0934(97)00073-6

IF: 2.623

1997-08-01

Journal of Virological Methods

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Risk Assessment with Broad Uncertainty and Knowledge Characterisation

Roger Flage,T. Aven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119317906.CH1

2017-12-22

Abstract:This chapter presents a risk assessment of a master’s degree programme in risk management. The assessment is to support decision‐making on how to best develop the programme in the coming years. The aim of the chapter is to perform this case study to show how a risk assessment can be conducted and used when risk perspectives are adopted that highlight knowledge and uncertainty characterisations that go beyond the standard approach based on consequence and probability estimation. Such perspectives have been given considerable attention recently, and real‐life examples have been sought, showing the practical implications of these perspectives. The example is simple and allows for clarifying discussions of critical aspects of the analysis process, including risk conceptualisation and measurement, treatment of uncertainties, characterisation of the knowledge available, accounting for potential surprises, as well as vulnerability, robustness and resilience considerations. It is concluded that with integration of the new ideas from the early planning stages, the risk assessment is not more difficult to run than with the traditional approach; the decision process is, however, in our view substantially improved because the decision makers are better informed on many of the aspects important for the decisions to be made.

Computer Science,Engineering,Environmental Science
A classification system for characterizing the integrity and quality of evidence in risk studies

Shital Thekdi,Terje Aven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14153

Abstract:Risk management requires a balance between knowledge and values. Knowledge consists of justified beliefs and evidence, with evidence including data, assumptions, and models. While quality and integrity of evidence are valued in the sciences, risk science involves uncertainty, which suggests that evidence can be incomplete or imperfect. The use of inappropriate evidence can invalidate risk studies and contribute to misinformation and poor risk management decisions. Additionally, the interpretation of quality and integrity of evidence may vary by the risk study mission, decision-maker values, and stakeholder needs. While risk science has developed standards for risk studies, there remains a lack of clarity for how to demonstrate quality and integrity of evidence, recognizing that evidence can be presented in many formats (e.g., data, ideas, and theories), be leveraged at various stages of a risk study (e.g., hypotheses, analyses, and communication), and involve differing expectations across stakeholders. This study develops and presents a classification system to evaluate quality and integrity of evidence that is based on current risk science guidance, best practices from non-risk disciplines, and lessons learned from recent risk events. The classification system is demonstrated on a cyber-security application. This study will be of interest to risk researchers, risk professionals, and data analysts.
Inactivation of rat liver cytochrome P-450 by the suicide substrates parathion and chloramphenicol.

J. Halpert,R. A. Neal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/03602538108994031

Abstract:
The role of risk perception for risk management

Ortwin Renn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0951-8320(97)00119-1

1998-01-01

Abstract:Are risks social constructions of different societal actors that can be checked at best against standards of consistency, cohesion and internal conventions of deduction, but cannot claim any validity outside of the actor's logical framework? Or are technical estimates of risk representations of real hazards that can and will affect people as predicted by the statistical values, regardless of the beliefs or convictions of those who conduct the assessments? Which of the two sides one takes determines the legitimate function of risk perception for management purposes. The paper argues that both extremes, the constructivist and the realist perspective, miss the point, as risks are always mental representations of threats that are capable of claiming real losses. Over the last two decades, risk analysts have dealt with both sides of risk in an additive fashion. In times in which risk management has been under serious pressure to demonstrate effectiveness and cost-efficiency, the parallel approach of pleasing the technical elite and the public alike has lost legitimacy. In order to integrate risk assessment and perception, the paper analyses the strengths and weaknesses of each approach to risk analysis and highlights the potential contributions that the technical sciences and the social sciences can offer to risk management. Technical assessments provide the best estimate for judging the average probability of an adverse effect linked to an object or activity. First, public perception should govern the selection of criteria on which acceptability or tolerability are to be judged. Second, public input is needed to determine the trade-offs between criteria. Third, public preferences are needed to design resilient strategies for coping with remaining uncertainties. A public participation model is introduced that promises an integration of analytic knowledge and deliberative process involving those who will be affected by the respective risk.

engineering, industrial,operations research & management science
Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield

P Slovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1007041821623

Abstract:Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept "risk" and the inadequacies of the traditional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand. If risk is defined one way, then one option will rise to the top as the most cost-effective or the safest or the best. If it is defined another way, perhaps incorporating qualitative characteristics and other contextual factors, one will likely get a different ordering of action solutions. Defining risk is thus an exercise in power. Scientific literacy and public education are important, but they are not central to risk controversies. The public is not irrational. Their judgments about risk are influenced by emotion and affect in a way that is both simple and sophisticated. The same holds true for scientists. Public views are also influenced by worldviews, ideologies, and values; so are scientists' views, particularly when they are working at the limits of their expertise. The limitations of risk science, the importance and difficulty of maintaining trust, and the complex, sociopolitical nature of risk point to the need for a new approach--one that focuses upon introducing more public participation into both risk assessment and risk decision making in order to make the decision process more democratic, improve the relevance and quality of technical analysis, and increase the legitimacy and public acceptance of the resulting decisions.
Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment

Branden B Johnson,Paul Slovic

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377042

1998-10-01

Journal of Risk Research

Abstract:It has been argued that presenting uncertainty in environmental health risk estimates may increase citizens' risk knowledge and trust in the honesty and competence of the institutions providing such estimates; on the other hand, careless communication could have undesirable results. Reported here is a study of how American laypeople think about uncertainty in risk assessment, and its implications for risk management, extending earlier experimental research (Johnson and Slovic, 1995). A long closedended questionnaire (based in part on qualitative research) was given to 280 Eugene, Oregon, residents (largely college students). Uncertainty was presented in the form of a range of risk estimates, primarily in a hypothetical case of a chemical in drinking water. The findings suggest that it will be a challenge to present uncertainty in environmental health risk estimates to the public in ways that inform, rather than confuse or outrage, this important audience.

social sciences, interdisciplinary
How Uncertainty Matters Under Risk Neutrality

David Glynn,James Lomas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2023.04.008

Abstract:It is typical in cost-effectiveness analysis to invoke a normative decision-making framework that assumes, as a starting point, that "a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a QALY is a QALY." The implication of this assumption is that the decision maker is risk neutral and that expected values could be considered sufficiently informative for a given "approve or reject" decision. Nevertheless, it seems intuitive that less uncertainty should be desirable and this has led some to incorporate "real" risk aversion (RA) into cost-effectiveness analysis. We illustrate in this article that RA is not always necessary to justify choosing more over less certain options. We show that for a risk neutral decision maker, greater uncertainty can make the approval of technology less likely in the presence of (1) model nonlinearities, (2) nonlinear opportunity costs, and (3) irreversible costs. We call these cases of "apparent" RA. Incorporating explicit risk preferences into decision making can be challenging; nevertheless, as we show here, it is not necessary to justify caring about uncertainty in approval decisions.
Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality

Paul Slovic,Melissa L. Finucane,Ellen Peters,Donald G. MacGregor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00433.x

2004-04-01

Risk Analysis

Abstract:Modern theories in cognitive psychology and neuroscience indicate that there are two fundamental ways in which human beings comprehend risk. The "analytic system" uses algorithms and normative rules, such as probability calculus, formal logic, and risk assessment. It is relatively slow, effortful, and requires conscious control. The "experiential system" is intuitive, fast, mostly automatic, and not very accessible to conscious awareness. The experiential system enabled human beings to survive during their long period of evolution and remains today the most natural and most common way to respond to risk. It relies on images and associations, linked by experience to emotion and affect (a feeling that something is good or bad). This system represents risk as a feeling that tells us whether it is safe to walk down this dark street or drink this strange-smelling water. Proponents of formal risk analysis tend to view affective responses to risk as irrational. Current wisdom disputes this view. The rational and the experiential systems operate in parallel and each seems to depend on the other for guidance. Studies have demonstrated that analytic reasoning cannot be effective unless it is guided by emotion and affect. Rational decision making requires proper integration of both modes of thought. Both systems have their advantages, biases, and limitations. Now that we are beginning to understand the complex interplay between emotion and reason that is essential to rational behavior, the challenge before us is to think creatively about what this means for managing risk. On the one hand, how do we apply reason to temper the strong emotions engendered by some risk events? On the other hand, how do we infuse needed "doses of feeling" into circumstances where lack of experience may otherwise leave us too "coldly rational"? This article addresses these important questions.

public, environmental & occupational health,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications,social sciences, mathematical methods
Risk literacy: Foundational issues and its connection to risk science

Terje Aven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14223

Abstract:A new research area is developing, risk literacy. The term "risk literacy" basically refers to one's ability to understand and evaluate risk, in order to support and make appropriate decisions. In this article, we discuss how risk literacy relates to risk analysis/science with its topics of risk fundamentals (concepts), risk understanding, risk assessments, risk characterizations, risk perception, risk communication, and risk handling (covering risk management, risk governance, and policies on risk). We question how issues and research topics addressed in risk literacy relate to risk analysis/science knowledge, particularly on risk understanding. The main conclusion of the article is that risk literacy addresses an important topic-from both a theoretical and a practical societal relevancy perspective-and brings the potential for many additional developments and further insights if the topic is better integrated with risk science knowledge more broadly.
Risk management during times of health uncertainty in Spain: A qualitative analysis of ethical challenges

Ignacio Macpherson,Juan J. Guardia,Isabel Morales,Belén Zárate,Ignasi Belda,Wendy R. Simon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17638

2024-09-02

Risk Analysis

Abstract:The study examines the reflections of various experts in risk management when asked about uncertainty generated by a health threat and the response to such a threat: what criteria should guide action when potential harm is anticipated, but not known with certainty? The objective of the research is to obtain a holistic perspective of ethical conflicts in risk management, based on experts' accounts within the Spanish territory. A qualitative study was conducted through semi‐structured interviews with 27 experts from various fields related to health risk management and its ethical implications, following the grounded theory method. The method includes theory generation through an inductive approach, based on the identified categories. The 27 narratives obtained revealed a variety of fundamental issues grouped into 8 subcategories and subsequently grouped into three main categories. The first category focuses on human vulnerability in health matters. The second category explores the agents and instruments for decision‐making that arise from uncertain or traumatic social events. The third category refers to the need for common ethical paradigms for all humanity that implement justice over universal values. A main theory was suggested on the concept of responsibility in a global common good. There is an urgent need to assume this integrative responsibility as an inherent strategy in decision‐making. To achieve this, the involved actors must acquire specific humanistic training, conceptualizing fundamental ethical principles, and emphasizing skills more related to humanistic virtues than technical knowledge.

public, environmental & occupational health,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications,social sciences, mathematical methods
Assumptions, uncertainty, and catastrophic/existential risk: National risk assessments need improved methods and stakeholder engagement

Matt Boyd,Nick Wilson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14123

2023-03-14

Risk Analysis

Abstract:Two key shortcomings of national risk assessments (NRAs) are: (1) lack of justification and transparency around important foundational assumptions of the process, (2) omission of almost all the largest scale risks. Using a demonstration set of risks, we illustrate how NRA process assumptions around time horizon, discount rate, scenario choice, and decision rule impact on risk characterization and therefore any subsequent ranking. We then identify a neglected set of large‐scale risks that are seldom included in NRAs, namely global catastrophic risks and existential threats to humanity. Under a highly conservative approach that considers only simple probability and impact metrics, the use of significant discount rates, and harms only to those currently alive at the time, we find these risks have likely salience far greater than their omission from national risk registers might suggest. We highlight the substantial uncertainty inherent in NRAs and argue that this is reason for more engagement with stakeholders and experts. Widespread engagement with an informed public and experts would legitimize key assumptions, encourage critique of knowledge, and ease shortcomings of NRAs. We advocate for a deliberative public tool that can support informed two‐way communication between stakeholders and governments. We outline the first component of such a tool for communication and exploration of risks and assumptions. The most important factors for an "all hazards" approach to NRA are ensuring license for key assumptions and that all the salient risks are included before proceeding to ranking of risks and considering resource allocation and value.

public, environmental & occupational health,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications,social sciences, mathematical methods
Public understanding of risk and risk governance

Andreas Klinke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1750464

2020-04-21

Journal of Risk Research

Abstract:The general public often fears the wrong risks and has a blind spot when it comes to global existential risks. People have divergent and emotive attitudes to risk rather than rational understanding. For this reason, public understanding of risk and risk governance promotes a non-tendentious and theory-neutral approach designed in a way so that laypersons can become aware of, make sound judgments about and take action in terms of risk. Public understanding refers to the creation of scientific literacy, sagacity, and decisional competence within a broad public. The public understanding encompasses two primary dimensions: knowledge and rationality. They empower the public's ability to adopt an impartial perspective which is essential to ensure the democratic formation of public opinion and political will. I argue that the public understanding can be established through the engagement of the public. I explore and conceptualize the generation and propagation of the public understanding of risk and risk governance through three elements of understanding: epistemic, ontological, and teleological. These elements constituting public understanding are produced by a tripartite functional differentiation of deliberative production, namely an interplay between scientific, associational and public deliberation within risk governance.

social sciences, interdisciplinary
Risk Management and Governance

Terje Aven,Ortwin Renn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-13926-0

2010-01-01

Abstract:Risk is a popular topic in many sciences - in natural, medical, statistical, engineering, social, economic and legal disciplines. Yet, no single discipline can grasp the full meaning of risk. Investigating risk requires a multidisciplinary approach. The authors, coming from two very different disciplinary traditions, meet this challenge by building bridges between the engineering, the statistical and the social science perspectives. The book provides a comprehensive, accessible and concise guide to risk assessment, management and governance. It includes formal approaches to risk analysis without assuming a high level of mathematical proficiency but it also offers reflection and deliberation about the socio-political context in which risk issues are embedded. A basic pillar for the book is the risk governance framework proposed by the International Risk Governance Council (IRGC). This framework offers a comprehensive means of integrating risk identification, assessment, management and communication. The authors develop and explain new insights and add substance to the various elements of the framework. The theoretical analysis is illustrated by several examples from different areas of applications.
Democratising Risk: In Search of a Methodology to Study Existential Risk

Carla Zoe Cremer,Luke Kemp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.11214

2021-12-27

Abstract:Studying potential global catastrophes is vital. The high stakes of existential risk studies (ERS) necessitate serious scrutiny and self-reflection. We argue that existing approaches to studying existential risk are not yet fit for purpose, and perhaps even run the risk of increasing harm. We highlight general challenges in ERS: accommodating value pluralism, crafting precise definitions, developing comprehensive tools for risk assessment, dealing with uncertainty, and accounting for the dangers associated with taking exceptional actions to mitigate or prevent catastrophes. The most influential framework for ERS, the 'techno-utopian approach' (TUA), struggles with these issues and has a unique set of additional problems: it unnecessarily combines the study of longtermism and longtermist ethics with the study of extinction, relies on a non-representative moral worldview, uses ambiguous and inadequate definitions, fails to incorporate insights from risk assessment in relevant fields, chooses arbitrary categorisations of risk, and advocates for dangerous mitigation strategies. Its moral and empirical assumptions might be particularly vulnerable to securitisation and misuse. We suggest several key improvements: separating the study of extinction ethics (ethical implications of extinction) and existential ethics (the ethical implications of different societal forms), from the analysis of human extinction and global catastrophe; drawing on the latest developments in risk assessment literature; diversifying the field, and; democratising its policy recommendations.

General Economics
Out of sight but still in mind: Developing an expectation for surprises by formalizing unknowledge in a contemporary risk‐assessment framework

James Derbyshire,Terje Aven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.17661

2024-10-10

Risk Analysis

Abstract:Extreme events like the credit crunch, the September 11th attacks, the coronavirus pandemic, and Hamas' attack on Israel each have in common that they should not have come as a surprise, yet still did. One reason surprises happen is that a risk assessment reflects the knowledge of the assessors, yet risk also includes uncertainties that extend beyond this knowledge. A risk assessment is thus susceptible to surprises as it focuses attention on what is known. Developing an expectation for surprises is key to their avoidance and requires that risk assessors specifically consider their "unknowledge"—that is, what they do not presently know about an event, outcome, or activity and its potential consequences and triggers. One way to emphasize the need for risk assessors to consider unknowledge is to explicitly include it as a separate component in risk‐assessment frameworks. This article formalizes the inclusion of unknowledge in a contemporary risk‐assessment framework.

public, environmental & occupational health,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications,social sciences, mathematical methods
Uncertainty Principles in Risk Finance

Michael R. Powers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/15265941011043620

2010-01-01

Abstract:PurposeThe purpose of this editorial is to consider the existence and implications of epistemological constraints in the field of risk finance arising from statistical inequalities similar to the Cramér‐Rao lower bound (CRLB) of statistical estimation theory and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (HUP) of quantum physics.Design/methodology/approachThe conceptual equivalence of the CRLB to the HUP suggests that certain statistical inequalities in the field of risk finance might imply practical constraints on knowledge analogous to those encountered in the measurement of subatomic particles. To explore this possibility, the editorial first considers the tradeoff between the variability of an estimator and the variability of the score of the associated joint probability distribution, and then interpret the latter quantity in a manner permitting the identification of real‐world counterparts.FindingsUnder certain simple assumptions, the editorial finds that the estimation of two fundamental actuarial quantities of property‐liability insurance – the expected individual loss amount and the expected discounted total claim payments – is subject to a type of uncertainty principle in that a high degree of accuracy in measuring one quantity implies a low degree of accuracy in measuring the other, and vice versa. Since the principle holds in the limit only as one, but not both, of the two quantities is measured with certainty, the editorial characterizes it as a semi‐uncertainty principle. This principle is likely to result in certain economic behaviors by insurance companies that may be verified empirically.Originality/valueThe editorial provides a concrete example of two‐financial quantities whose estimation is governed by a type of uncertainty principle similar to Heisenbergs.
A risk science perspective on the discussion concerning Safety I, Safety II and Safety III

Terje Aven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.108077

2022-01-01

Abstract:Recently, there has been a discussion in the safety science community concerning the validity of basic approaches to safety, referred to as Safety I, Safety II and Safety III, with Erik Hollnagel and Nancy Leveson in leading roles. The present paper seeks to obtain new knowledge concerning the issues raised, by adding a contemporary risk science perspective to the discussion. Risk is, to a limited degree, addressed in the literature presenting and studying these three approaches; however, as argued in the paper, the concept of risk and risk analysis and management principles and methods are highly relevant and useful for understanding the three safety approaches, deciding on their suitability, and eventually applying them. The paper underlines the importance of an integration of the safety and risk sciences, to further enhance concepts, approaches, principles, methods and models for understanding, assessing, communicating and managing system performance.

engineering, industrial,operations research & management science
TDDB in the presence of interface states: Implications for the PMOS reliability margin

T. Nigam,P. Peumans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/IEDM.2008.4796814

2008-12-01

Abstract:The reduced voltage scaling parameter for PMOS TDDB at low voltages is a concern for ultra-thin gate oxides. We show that it is caused by a change in breakdown statistics due to additional interface defects generated by cold holes. This has important implications for product lifetime at low failure fractions and large areas.
Risk and Uncertainty in the Insurance Industry

Rainer Sachs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92478-6_15

2018-01-01

Abstract:Understanding risk is the foundation of the insurance industry. The industry has developed practices and methods for risk transfer and risk management. The development process started with rather intuitive, experience-based methods. Over time more and more risks could also be quantified, and highly sophisticated mathematical models were developed. After several decades of successful applications, the industry starts to realize the limitation of these models. Looking for new business opportunities and being confronted with an increasingly interconnected risk landscape, the industry sees the need for complementary methods to assess both risk and uncertainty. Using emerging risks and complex risks as examples for non-quantifiable risks, the challenges and possible solutions are explained.
On the meaning of uncertainty for ethical AI: philosophy and practice

Cassandra Bird,Daniel Williamson,Sabina Leonelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2309.05529

2023-09-11

Abstract:Whether and how data scientists, statisticians and modellers should be accountable for the AI systems they develop remains a controversial and highly debated topic, especially given the complexity of AI systems and the difficulties in comparing and synthesising competing claims arising from their deployment for data analysis. This paper proposes to address this issue by decreasing the opacity and heightening the accountability of decision making using AI systems, through the explicit acknowledgement of the statistical foundations that underpin their development and the ways in which these dictate how their results should be interpreted and acted upon by users. In turn, this enhances (1) the responsiveness of the models to feedback, (2) the quality and meaning of uncertainty on their outputs and (3) their transparency to evaluation. To exemplify this approach, we extend Posterior Belief Assessment to offer a route to belief ownership from complex and competing AI structures. We argue that this is a significant way to bring ethical considerations into mathematical reasoning, and to implement ethical AI in statistical practice. We demonstrate these ideas within the context of competing models used to advise the UK government on the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 during December 2021.

Artificial Intelligence,Statistics Theory

An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to detect antibodies against glycoprotein gE of bovine herpesvirus 1 allows differentiation between infected and vaccinated cattle.

Risk Assessment with Broad Uncertainty and Knowledge Characterisation

A classification system for characterizing the integrity and quality of evidence in risk studies

Inactivation of rat liver cytochrome P-450 by the suicide substrates parathion and chloramphenicol.

The role of risk perception for risk management

Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield

Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment

How Uncertainty Matters Under Risk Neutrality

Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality

Risk literacy: Foundational issues and its connection to risk science

Risk management during times of health uncertainty in Spain: A qualitative analysis of ethical challenges

Assumptions, uncertainty, and catastrophic/existential risk: National risk assessments need improved methods and stakeholder engagement

Public understanding of risk and risk governance

Risk Management and Governance

Democratising Risk: In Search of a Methodology to Study Existential Risk

Out of sight but still in mind: Developing an expectation for surprises by formalizing unknowledge in a contemporary risk‐assessment framework

Uncertainty Principles in Risk Finance

A risk science perspective on the discussion concerning Safety I, Safety II and Safety III

TDDB in the presence of interface states: Implications for the PMOS reliability margin

Risk and Uncertainty in the Insurance Industry

On the meaning of uncertainty for ethical AI: philosophy and practice