Economists count the cost of 'risky' science

Chris Woolston

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00360-w

IF: 64.8

2024-02-07

Nature

Abstract:A survey seeks to define risk in research and how academics approach it in their work. A survey seeks to define risk in research and how academics approach it in their work.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Avoid Entrepreneurial Risks

Xiaozhou Xu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-1839-3_8

2020-01-01

Abstract:In daily life, people are afraid that they can’t avoid the frequently encountered risks. In fact, in economics the word “risk” is a neutral word, instead of a terrifying definition. It is generally believed that the risk is the possibility of losing profit owing to the deviation between the actual result and the forecast. It might be influenced by various complex and variable factors under certain uncontrolled conditions. Once entrepreneurs have clearly mastered market opportunities and competition, the next step they should do is to assess the entrepreneurship risks. A standardized risk assessment is difficult to carry out. A good entrepreneur does not mean that he could risk assessment experts. What is more important than a standardized assessment process is sufficient risk awareness. In other words, entrepreneurs should be able to analyze and recognize the potential risks behind each decision and choose the most appropriate way to dodge and control.
Rationalizing risk aversion in science

Kevin Gross,Carl T. Bergstrom

2024-02-27

Abstract:Scientific research requires taking risks, as the most cautious approaches are unlikely to lead to the most rapid progress. Yet much funded scientific research plays it safe and funding agencies bemoan the difficulty of attracting high-risk, high-return research projects. Why don't the incentives for scientific discovery adequately impel researchers toward such projects? Here we adapt an economic contracting model to explore how the unobservability of risk and effort discourages risky research. The model considers a hidden-action problem, in which the scientific community must reward discoveries in a way that encourages effort and risk-taking while simultaneously protecting researchers' livelihoods against the vicissitudes of scientific chance. Its challenge when doing so is that incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don't move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would. A social planner who prizes scientific productivity above researchers' well-being could remedy the problem by rewarding major discoveries richly enough to induce high-risk research, but scientists would be worse off for it. Because the scientific community is approximately self-governing and constructs its own reward schedule, the incentives that researchers are willing to impose on themselves are inadequate to motivate the scientific risks that would best expedite scientific progress.

Physics and Society
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.
Rationalizing risk aversion in science: Why incentives to work hard clash with incentives to take risks

Kevin Gross,Carl T Bergstrom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002750

2024-08-15

Abstract:Scientific research requires taking risks, as the most cautious approaches are unlikely to lead to the most rapid progress. Yet, much funded scientific research plays it safe and funding agencies bemoan the difficulty of attracting high-risk, high-return research projects. Why don't the incentives for scientific discovery adequately impel researchers toward such projects? Here, we adapt an economic contracting model to explore how the unobservability of risk and effort discourages risky research. The model considers a hidden-action problem, in which the scientific community must reward discoveries in a way that encourages effort and risk-taking while simultaneously protecting researchers' livelihoods against the vicissitudes of scientific chance. Its challenge when doing so is that incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don't move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would. A social planner who prizes scientific productivity above researchers' well-being could remedy the problem by rewarding major discoveries richly enough to induce high-risk research, but in doing so would expose scientists to a degree of livelihood risk that ultimately leaves them worse off. Because the scientific community is approximately self-governing and constructs its own reward schedule, the incentives that researchers are willing to impose on themselves are inadequate to motivate the scientific risks that would best expedite scientific progress.
Surveying the Surveyors to Address Risk Perception and Adaptive Behaviour Cross-study Comparability

Samuel Rufat,Mariana Madruga de Brito,Alexander Fekete,Emeline Comby,Peter J. Robinson,Iuliana Armaș,Wouter J. W. Botzen,Christian Kuhlicke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2021-365

2022-02-02

Abstract:Abstract. One of the key challenges for risk, vulnerability, and resilience research is how to address the role of risk perceptions and how perceptions influence behaviour. It remains unclear why people fail to act adaptively to reduce future losses, even when there is ever richer information available on natural and human-made hazards (flood, drought, etc.). The current fragmentation of the field makes it an uphill battle to cross-validate the results of existing independent case studies. This, in turn, hinders comparability and transferability across scales and contexts and hampers recommendations for policy and risk management. To improve the ability of researchers in the field to work together and build cumulative knowledge, we question whether we could agree on (1) a common list of minimal requirements to compare studies, (2) shared criteria to address context-specific aspects of countries and regions, and (3) a selection of questions allowing for comparability and long-term monitoring. To map current research practices and move in this direction, we conducted an international survey – the Risk Perception and Behaviour Survey of Surveyors (Risk-SoS). We find that most studies are exploratory in nature and often overlook theoretical efforts that would enable the comparison of results and an accumulation of evidence. While the diversity of approaches is an asset, the robustness of methods is an investment. Surveyors report a tendency to reproduce past research design choices but express frustration with this trend, hinting at a turning point. To bridge the persisting gaps, we offer several recommendations for future studies, particularly grounding research design in theory, improving the formalisation of methods, and formally comparing theories and constructs, methods and explanations while collecting the most-in-use themes and variables and controlling for the most-in-use explanations.
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
Understanding the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies

Shital Thekdi,Terje Aven

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14262

Abstract:Risk analysis has existed for thousands of years and will continue to grow in importance across professions and industries. Of special importance is the need to understand and manage risk when there is low knowledge and high uncertainties. Even with pristine and high-quality risk analysis in these situations, integrity and credibility can be questioned, and risk events can happen. Although these issues do not prove some shortcoming in risk analysis and risk management, they can directly impact the risk analyst and decision-makers. The risk literature has addressed the issues of defining and promoting integrity and credibility for risk studies, but there is little existing guidance for the analyst when handling the commonly encountered low knowledge and high uncertainty contexts. In this article, we explore the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies to understand how the risk analyst can acknowledge those features in a risk study, with recognition that those features may be questioned later. The topic of this article will be of interest to risk managers, professionals, and analysts in general who are tasked with analyzing and communicating with studies.
Risk and Scientific Reputation: Lessons from Cold Fusion

Huw Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2201.03776

2022-01-28

Abstract:Many scientists have expressed concerns about potential catastrophic risks associated with new technologies. But expressing concern is one thing, identifying serious candidates another. Such risks are likely to be novel, rare, and difficult to study; data will be scarce, making speculation necessary. Scientists who raise such concerns may face disapproval not only as doomsayers, but also for their unconventional views. Yet the costs of false negatives in these cases -- of wrongly dismissing warnings about catastrophic risks -- are by definition very high. For these reasons, aspects of the methodology and culture of science, such as its attitude to epistemic risk and to unconventional views, are relevant to the challenges of managing extreme technological risks. In this piece I discuss these issues with reference to a real-world example that shares many of the same features, that of so-called 'cold fusion'.

History and Philosophy of Physics
Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

Eduardo Garcia-Garzon,Ariadna Angulo-Brunet,Oscar Lecuona,Juan Ramón Barrada,Guido Corradi

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02797-6

IF: 2.8

2022-02-28

Current Psychology

Abstract:Amidst a worldwide vaccination campaign, trust in science plays a significant role when addressing the COVID-19 pandemic. Given current concerns regarding research standards, we were interested in how Spanish scholars perceived COVID-19 research and the extent to which questionable research practices and potentially problematic academic incentives are commonplace. We asked researchers to evaluate the expected quality of their COVID-19 projects and other peers’ research and compared these assessments with those from scholars not involved in COVID-19 research. We investigated self-admitting and estimated rates of questionable research practices and attitudes towards current research status. Responses from 131 researchers suggested that COVID-19 evaluations followed partisan lines, with scholars being more pessimistic about others’ colleagues’ research than their own. Additionally,researchers not involved in COVID-19 projects were more negative than their participating peers. These differences were particularly notable for areas such as the expected theoretical foundations or overall quality of the research, among others. Most Spanish scholars expected questionable research practices and inadequate incentives to be widespread. In these two aspects, researchers tended to agree regardless of their involvement in COVID-19 research. We provide specific recommendations for improving future meta-science studies, such as redefining QRPs as inadequate research practices (IRP). This change could help avoid key controversies regarding QRPs’ definition while highlighting their detrimental impact. Lastly, we join previous calls to improve transparency and academic career incentives as a cornerstone for generating trust in science.

psychology, multidisciplinary
Managing Cyber Risk, a Science in the Making

Michel Dacorogna,Marie Kratz

2023-02-05

Abstract:Not a day goes by without news about a cyber attack. Fear spreads out and lots of wrong ideas circulate. This survey aims at showing how all these uncertainties about cyber can be transformed into manageable risk. After reviewing the main characteristics of cyber risk, we consider the three layers of cyber space: hardware, software and psycho-cognitive layer. We ask ourselves how is this risk different from others, how modelling has been tackled and needs to evolve, and what are the multi-facetted aspects of cyber risk management. This wide exploration pictures a science in the making and points out the questions to be solved for building a resilient society.

Cryptography and Security
The missing risks of climate change

James Rising,Marco Tedesco,Franziska Piontek,David A. Stainforth

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05243-6

IF: 64.8

2022-10-27

Nature

Abstract:The risks of climate change are enormous, threatening the lives and livelihoods of millions to billions of people. The economic consequences of many of the complex risks associated with climate change cannot, however, currently be quantified. Here we argue that these unquantified, poorly understood and often deeply uncertain risks can and should be included in economic evaluations and decision-making processes. We present an overview of these unquantified risks and an ontology of them founded on the reasons behind their lack of robust evaluation. These consist of risks missing owing to delays in sharing knowledge and expertise across disciplines, spatial and temporal variations of climate impacts, feedbacks and interactions between risks, deep uncertainty in our knowledge, and currently unidentified risks. We highlight collaboration needs within and between the natural and social science communities to address these gaps. We also provide an approach for integrating assessments or speculations of these risks in a way that accounts for interdependencies, avoids double counting and makes assumptions clear. Multiple paths exist for engaging with these missing risks, with both model-based quantification and non-model-based qualitative assessments playing crucial roles. A wide range of climate impacts are understudied or challenging to quantify, and are missing from current evaluations of the climate risks to lives and livelihoods. Strong interdisciplinary collaboration and deeper engagement with uncertainty is needed to properly inform policymakers and the public about climate risks.

multidisciplinary sciences
Global Catastrophic Risk and the Drivers of Scientist Attitudes Towards Policy

Christopher Nathan,Keith Hyams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-022-00411-3

2022-10-28

Abstract:An anthropogenic global catastrophic risk is a human-induced risk that threatens sustained and wide-scale loss of life and damage to civilisation across the globe. In order to understand how new research on governance mechanisms for emerging technologies might assuage such risks, it is important to ask how perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes towards the governance of global catastrophic risk within the research community shape the conduct of potentially risky research. The aim of this study is to deepen our understanding of emerging technology research culture as it relates to global catastrophic risks, and to shed new light on how new research governance mechanisms might be developed. We analyse in-depth interviews with leading AI and biotech researchers both from universities and the private sector. We develop new insights in terms of four salient themes. First, 'engineering mindset', which highlights the premium placed by many interviewees on pursuing interesting research about the physical world for its own sake. Second, 'self-government', which looks at how self-regulation of technological development currently occurs. Third, 'pure incentives', focussing on how career and other incentives shapes research. Fourth, 'norms and persuasion', which examines the role of moral considerations in guiding the research choices of scientists. We end by considering the implications of these findings for future research on governance of anthropogenic global catastrophic risk.
Risk preferences and risk perceptions in insurance experiments: some methodological challenges

Glenn W. Harrison

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s10713-024-00097-6

2024-03-09

The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review

Abstract:The ability to run experiments, or to see natural data as a quasi-experiment, does not free one from the need for theory when evaluating insurance behavior. Theory can be used to motivate the experimental design, evaluate latent effects from the experiment, or test hypotheses about latent effects or about observable effects that could be confounded by latent effects. The risk, evident in the broader behavioral literature in general, is the attention given to "behavioral story-telling" in lieu of rigorous scholarship. Such story-telling certainly has a role in fueling speculation about possible casual forces at work generating the data we see, but should not be mistaken for the final word. There is also a severe cost in terms of the heroic assumptions needed for identification. Again, such identifying assumptions can have a valuable role, but many general claims rely critically on those assumptions. Controlled laboratory experiments and Bayesian econometric methods should play a complementary role to field experiments and quasi-experiments. One clear lesson from the evaluation of methodological challenges is to use theory more, to explore the ability of "standard economics" to explain behavior. The time has long passed where straw men theories are set up to fail when confronted with behavior. Just as we want to consider flexible parametric functional forms when appropriate, we should be open to conventional economics applied more flexibly.

economics,business, finance
Knowledge Mapping of Credit Risk Research: Scientometrics Analysis Using CiteSpace

Wei Zhou,Qingjuan Chen,Sun Meng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2019.1660202

2019-01-01

Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja

Abstract:To understand the development track of credit risk research clearly and discover the hidden internal connections between literatures, this article utilises the scientific information measurement software – CiteSpace – to conduct a scientometric analysis (citation analysis, co-citation analysis and co-occurrence analysis) of 2,384 articles on credit risk from Web of Science (W.o.S.) during 1998 and 2017. According to the research results, some useful conclusions can be drawn as follows: (1) Credit risk research has become interdisciplinary and subject involved are ‘Business Finance’, ‘Economics’, ‘Operations Research Management Science’, ‘Mathematics Interdisciplinary Applications’; (2) The U.S., Europe, and Asia make the majority of contributions and there are numerous collaborations among countries; (3) The key researchers with influence and authority in this field mainly are Merton Robert Cox and Jarrow Robert Alan; (4) ‘Rollover risk’, ‘Arbitrage-free pricing’, ‘Default cycle’, ‘Credit risk evaluation’ and ‘Correlated default’ are the major research area; (5) ‘Crisis’, ‘Contagion’, ‘Monetary policy’, ‘Counterparty risk’ and ‘Systemic risk’ have become major research hotspot currently. Finally, we hope this scientometric analysis can provides some inspiration for credit risk researchers.
The economics of immense risk, urgent action and radical change: towards new approaches to the economics of climate change

Nicholas Stern,Joseph Stiglitz,Charlotte Taylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2022.2040740

2022-02-26

Journal of Economic Methodology

Abstract:Designing policy for climate change requires analyses which integrate the interrelationship between the economy and the environment. We argue that, despite their dominance in the economics literature and influence in public discussion and policymaking, the methodology employed by Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) rests on flawed foundations, which become particularly relevant in relation to the realities of the immense risks and challenges of climate change, and the radical changes in our economies that a sound and effective response require. We identify a set of critical methodological problems with the IAMs which limit their usefulness and discuss the analytic foundations of an alternative approach that is more capable of providing insights into how best to manage the transition to net-zero emissions.

economics
An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage

S.N. Jonkman,P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder,J.K. Vrijling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0304-3894(02)00283-2

IF: 13.6

2003-04-01

Journal of Hazardous Materials

Abstract:A comprehensive overview of methods to quantify and limit risks arising from different sources is still missing in literature. Therefore, a study of risk literature was carried out by the authors. This article summarises about 25 quantitative risk measures. A risk measure is defined as a mathematical function of the probability of an event and the consequences of that event. The article focuses mainly on risk measures for loss of life (individual and societal risk) and economic risk, concentrating on risk measurement experiences in The Netherlands. Other types of consequences and some international practices are also considered. For every risk measure the most important characteristics are given: the mathematical formulation, the field of application and the standard set in this field. Some of the measures have been used in a case study to calculate the flood risks for an area in The Netherlands.

environmental sciences,engineering, environmental
Opium in science and society: Numbers

Julian N. Marewski,Lutz Bornmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1804.11210

2018-05-08

Abstract:In science and beyond, numbers are omnipresent when it comes to justifying different kinds of judgments. Which scientific author, hiring committee-member, or advisory board panelist has not been confronted with page-long "publication manuals", "assessment reports", "evaluation guidelines", calling for p-values, citation rates, h-indices, or other statistics in order to motivate judgments about the "quality" of findings, applicants, or institutions? Yet, many of those relying on and calling for statistics do not even seem to understand what information those numbers can actually convey, and what not. Focusing on the uninformed usage of bibliometrics as worrysome outgrowth of the increasing quantification of science and society, we place the abuse of numbers into larger historical contexts and trends. These are characterized by a technology-driven bureaucratization of science, obsessions with control and accountability, and mistrust in human intuitive judgment. The ongoing digital revolution increases those trends. We call for bringing sanity back into scientific judgment exercises. Despite all number crunching, many judgments - be it about scientific output, scientists, or research institutions - will neither be unambiguous, uncontroversial, or testable by external standards, nor can they be otherwise validated or objectified. Under uncertainty, good human judgment remains, for the better, indispensable, but it can be aided, so we conclude, by a toolbox of simple judgment tools, called heuristics. In the best position to use those heuristics are research evaluators (1) who have expertise in the to-be-evaluated area of research, (2) who have profound knowledge in bibliometrics, and (3) who are statistically literate.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
Conceptualizing the use of the term financial risk by non-academics and academics using twitter messages and ScienceDirect paper abstracts

Eun Jin Kwak,John E. Grable

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-020-00709-9

2021-01-02

Social Network Analysis and Mining

Abstract:A text mining technique, based on an Application Programming Interface (API) request—using narrative data from Twitter™ and ScienceDirect™—was used to identify how non-academics and academics conceptualize and evaluate sentiment indicators associated with the term financial risk in their communications. It was determined that unlike the day-to-day uses of the term—all of which tend to focus predominately on the business and technology aspects of risk taking—the academic definition of the term is expressed broadly. It was also determined that the term was mainly associated with negative emotions in daily conversations, whereas the term tended to be used in a positive way in research paper abstracts. Results from this study suggest that the way financial risk is conceptualized and applied in real-life settings primarily represents negative emotional contexts, while academic papers tend to represent positive emotional contexts. Information presented in this paper can help educators, researchers, and policy makers better understand the way non-academics objectively and subjectively evaluate and describe financial risk. This information may help lead to better investor educational interventions and decision outcomes.
Patents, Transaction Costs and Academic Research Project Choice

Paul H. Jensen,Elizabeth Webster

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4932.12093

2013-12-19

Economic Record

Abstract:Survey data from over 3,000 academic scientists show that nearly half of these scientists report that their choice of research projects has been affected (to some degree) by the presence of third‐party patents. Our evidence suggests that the operation of this patent‐induced effect is through (i) restrictions patent owners place on the timing of follow‐on publications and (ii) disincentives for open exchange of information between scientists. While the need to translate science into commercial use is potentially a valuable source of productivity growth, this should be balanced against the need for openness and information sharing in the scientific realm.

economics
The Returns to Science in the Presence of Technological Risk

Matt Clancy

2024-05-10

Abstract:Scientific and technological progress has historically been very beneficial to humanity but this does not always need to be true. Going forward, science may enable bad actors to cause genetically engineered pandemics that are more frequent and deadly than prior pandemics. I develop a quantitative economic model to assess the social returns to science, taking into account benefits to health and income, and forecast damages from new biological capabilities enabled by science. I set parameters for this model based on historical trends and forecasts from a large forecasting tournament of domain experts and superforecasters, which included forecasts about genetically engineered pandemic events. The results depend on the forecast likelihood that new scientific capabilities might lead to the end of our advanced civilization - there is substantial disagreement about this probability from participants in the forecasting tournament I use. If I set aside this remote possibility, I find the expected future social returns to science are strongly positive. Otherwise, the desirability of accelerating science depends on the value placed on the long-run future, in addition to which set of (quite different) forecasts of extinction risk are preferred. I also explore the sensitivity of these conclusions to a range of alternative assumptions.

General Economics

Economists count the cost of 'risky' science

Avoid Entrepreneurial Risks

Rationalizing risk aversion in science

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

Rationalizing risk aversion in science: Why incentives to work hard clash with incentives to take risks

Surveying the Surveyors to Address Risk Perception and Adaptive Behaviour Cross-study Comparability

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

Understanding the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies

Risk and Scientific Reputation: Lessons from Cold Fusion

Exploring COVID-19 research credibility among Spanish scientists

Managing Cyber Risk, a Science in the Making

The missing risks of climate change

Global Catastrophic Risk and the Drivers of Scientist Attitudes Towards Policy

Risk preferences and risk perceptions in insurance experiments: some methodological challenges

Knowledge Mapping of Credit Risk Research: Scientometrics Analysis Using CiteSpace

The economics of immense risk, urgent action and radical change: towards new approaches to the economics of climate change

An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life and economic damage

Opium in science and society: Numbers

Conceptualizing the use of the term financial risk by non-academics and academics using twitter messages and ScienceDirect paper abstracts

Patents, Transaction Costs and Academic Research Project Choice

The Returns to Science in the Presence of Technological Risk