Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
P.15 Willis, AM*; Maier, A; Reichard, J; Haber, L; Patterson, J;
Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA);
Willis@TERA.org
Practice makes perfect: Lessons and outcomes based on
mode of action/human relevance framework application
to case studies.
A public workshop, organized by a Steering Committee of
scientists from government, industry, university, and research
organizations, was held at the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in September, 2010.
The workshop explored the development of dose-response
approaches for receptor-mediated liver cancer within a Mode of
Action (MOA) Human Relevance Framework (HRF)
(WHO/IPCS). Case studies addressed activation of the aryl
hydrocarbon receptor (AHR), the constitutive androstane
receptor (CAR), and the pregnane X receptor alpha
(PPARα). The workshop case studies provided a valuable
exercise in applying the MOA/HRF and a number of insights
and lessons emerged that may be useful for future applications.
Inclusion of associative events and modulating factors into the
framework was useful for the consideration of mechanistic data
to inform dose-response. In particular, associative events and
modulating factors could be a useful approach for the
integration of molecular and biomarker data to inform risk
assessment. Further guidance in the MOA/HRF would be useful
to clarify the number of key events needed to define a MOA, to
address the absence of human studies needed to inform critical
interspecies differences, and to assess activation of multiple
MOA cascades and interactive molecular signaling pathways. In
addition, variation in human population susceptibility needs to
be addressed for assessing human relevance, particularly the
possibility that populations exhibit widely ranging individual
thresholds. A qualitative “value of information” approach to
assess the utility of further research to better inform
dose-response and a detailed and systematic uncertainty
analysis for use in the framework would be useful.
M4-G.3 WIlson, RS*; McCaffrey, S; The Ohio State University,
USDA Forest Service; wilson.1376@osu.edu
Do I stay or do I go? Risk attitudes and evacuation
decisions during a wildfire event
Most socio-psychological wildfire research focuses on risk
mitigation actions taken before a fire event occurs with less
attention paid to homeowner actions during a fire. However,
increasing incidences of homeowners refusing to evacuate or
leaving at the last minute during wildfires and other natural
disasters had led to a growing interest in research into
evacuation decision making. We randomly selected
homeowners from three counties in the states of Washington,
Texas and South Carolina, and conducted a mailed survey to
assess their evacuation decision making process in the spring of
2013. These three counties were specifically chosen because of
their high wildfire risk, but they each varied in terms of past
experience with wildfire and mandatory evacuation orders.
Drawing on Protection Motivation Theory and the Extended
Parallel Process Model, we assessed individual homeowner's
threat and coping appraisal related to wildfire, as well as
individual risk attitudes. We expected that individuals with risk
averse attitudes would have higher threat appraisals and lower
coping appraisals than those with risk tolerant attitudes. As a
result it was expected that risk averse individuals would be
more likely to evacuate early, whereas the risk tolerant would
vary in their evacuation response based on their respective
appraisals. In effect, the pattern would be that evacuation
decisions are made heuristically, whereas decisions to stay and
defend, or wait and see, are more systematic and driven by
individual differences in the perceived threat and ability to cope
with wildfire. To ensure maximum public safety, crisis
communication efforts could target the risk tolerant, focusing
on correcting the misperceptions or critical beliefs that tend to
drive individuals to ignore evacuation orders and place their
lives in danger.
T3-G.1 Wilson, RS; The Ohio State University;
wilson.1376@osu.edu
Information processing, risk and uncertainty: A
roundtable discussion
There is a breadth of research that informs our understanding
of how individuals process information about risk and
uncertainty, with much of this research focusing on the
heuristic processing of information through a variety of
mechanisms. As a result of decades of research, many useful
theoretical models have evolved to inform how this type of
processing influences judgments (e.g., hazard acceptance
models, the risk information seeking and processing model,
etc). Ideally, these theoretical perspectives should influence the
way we as practitioners communicate and structure decisions,
yet the breadth of perspectives can make it difficult to know
which is "best" or "right" for a particular context. This
roundtable brings together an interdisciplinary panel of
accomplished risk and decision scientists who will discuss how
their research informs our understanding of information
processing and what their findings suggest for improving risk
communication and decision making in the context of real-world
problems. Each panelist will have an opportunity to address
these two key points before opening up the session to general
discussion and questions from the audience. Invited roundtable
panelists include: Paul Slovic (Decision Research) Joe Arvai
(University of Calgary) Katherine McComas (Cornell University)
Michael Siegrist (ETH Zurich) Janet Yang (State University of
New York at Buffalo) Nathan Dieckmann (Oregon Health and
Science University)
W4-F.2 Wilson, GS; Global Catastrophic Risk Institute;
grant@gcrinstitute.org
Minimizing Global Catastrophic and Existential Risks
from Emerging Technologies Through International Law
Mankind is rapidly developing “emerging technologies” in the
fields of bioengineering, nanotechnology, and artificial
intelligence that have the potential to solve humanity’s biggest
problems, such as by curing all disease, extending human life,
or mitigating massive environmental problems like climate
change. However, if these emerging technologies are misused
or have an unintended negative effect, the consequences could
be enormous, potentially resulting in serious, global damage to
humans (known as “global catastrophic harm”) or severe,
permanent damage to the Earth—including, possibly, human
extinction (known as “existential harm”). The chances of a
global catastrophic risk or existential risk actually materializing
are relatively low, but mankind should be careful when a losing
gamble means massive human death and irreversible harm to
our planet. While international law has become an important
source of global regulation for other global risks like climate
change and biodiversity loss, emerging technologies do not fall
neatly within existing international regimes, and thus any
country is more or less free to develop these potentially
dangerous technologies without practical safeguards that
would curtail the risk of a catastrophic event. In light of these
problems, this presentation serves to discuss the risks
associated with bioengineering, nanotechnology, and artificial
intelligence; review the potential of existing international law to
regulate these emerging technologies; and propose an
international regulatory regime that would put the international
world in charge of ensuring that low-probability, high-risk
catastrophes never materialize.
December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD