14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
policy has moved towards less-intensive production and is<br />
more cautious of biotechnology. The United States, on the<br />
other hand, has seen a drive by companies to expand highproductivity<br />
agriculture.<br />
In the BSE case, UK consumers could choose whether<br />
to purchase British beef based on the information available<br />
to them. However, trust in scientific and government<br />
institutions was severely impacted by the failure to inform<br />
people of the <strong>risk</strong>s at an early stage. In the case of GM<br />
crops, confidence in the scientific understanding of the <strong>risk</strong>s<br />
and distrust in the profit motives of the seed companies at<br />
the expense of the environment has similarly had a strong<br />
impact on acceptance. The similarities of public response<br />
to BSE and GM emphasize the need to understand linkages<br />
between responses to unrelated <strong>risk</strong>s — indeed, responses<br />
can be predicted between <strong>risk</strong>s.<br />
There has long been awareness and concern about the<br />
different cultural definitions of ‘hazard’ and ‘<strong>risk</strong>’ that playout<br />
through regulatory regimes. This is particularly evident<br />
across European member states, and it also varies between<br />
sectors such as pharmaceuticals and food (where <strong>risk</strong><br />
assessment is the dominant approach) and environmental<br />
regulation (where hazard identification and assessment is<br />
prioritized) 23 . The GM case study in Chapter 11 highlights<br />
how the European Union’s regulatory approval process for<br />
the commercial release of a GM trait — which is based<br />
on the presumption of hazard — is prohibitively expensive<br />
compared with the United States.<br />
Political and regulatory differences in focus between<br />
hazard and <strong>risk</strong> have been attributed to strategic gameplaying<br />
by stakeholders who are well-aware of the semantic<br />
difference between the terms. So, it is argued, <strong>risk</strong> responses<br />
have as much, if not more, to do with political interests and<br />
strategic positioning as the objective assessment of the <strong>risk</strong>,<br />
with all of its uncertainties 24 . Such institutional variability<br />
is one important factor influencing public mistrust in<br />
management and control regimes.<br />
Context and Responsibility<br />
Personal agency and institutional trust are deeply rooted<br />
and connected factors that determine how people respond<br />
to <strong>risk</strong> 25 . Trust and agency interact at different spatial and<br />
temporal scales, and we often see the most powerful<br />
responses at the local level.<br />
Studies of the responses to natural hazards (flooding, sea<br />
level rise and radon) in different locations in the United<br />
Kingdom 26 , on air quality 27 , and on thresholds of response<br />
to climate change 28 , have determined that even when<br />
people appear to understand the hazards and the <strong>risk</strong>s to<br />
themselves and have the personal resources and capacity<br />
to respond, they may choose not to if they consider that<br />
the responsibility to reduce the <strong>risk</strong> lies elsewhere. The<br />
same has been evident in responses to flood <strong>risk</strong> in other<br />
countries. In high-<strong>risk</strong> areas where people take responsibility<br />
and acquire clean-up experience, <strong>risk</strong> awareness tends to<br />
remain high compared to those who have chosen to deny<br />
their vulnerability and responsibility 29 . Active investment<br />
of personal resources, even if no more than time, tends to<br />
Choice and responsibility<br />
are sources of stress for<br />
people when information<br />
about <strong>risk</strong>s appears<br />
confused and conflicted.<br />
support ongoing responsibility.<br />
Choice and responsibility are sources of stress for<br />
people when information about <strong>risk</strong>s appears confused<br />
and conflicted. The initial response to the MMR (measles,<br />
mumps and rubella) vaccination in Britain in the late 1990s<br />
provides one example of this. A preliminary study of a<br />
small group of children — which could prove no causal link<br />
between the vaccination and autism, but which left open the<br />
possibility — generated media coverage that sparked a huge<br />
controversy. The immediate response focused on, indeed<br />
proactively played upon, the parental fear of autism; this led<br />
to a dramatic drop in the uptake of MMR, with some areas<br />
of the country falling below the health protection target<br />
(see case study for details). As communications from the<br />
government’s Department of Health did not specifically<br />
negate the relevance of the study, the wide-scale response<br />
— which was fed through parental networks — was able to<br />
have damaging impact.<br />
Socio-economic differences were strongly evident in the<br />
responses. Higher socio-economic groups that were better<br />
able to access a wider range of information sources, or<br />
could choose to pay for the alternative single vaccinations,<br />
were more likely to avoid MMR. It became evident that<br />
embedded social responsibility — through a long process<br />
of normalization of childhood vaccination — was very<br />
much secondary to individual maternal responsibility in<br />
relation to a child’s health, when mothers in particular were<br />
faced with uncertainty and disruption to acquired trust in<br />
immunization 30 .<br />
Responsible Innovation, Context and Engagement<br />
The notion of responsibility in <strong>innovation</strong> has grown in<br />
importance over the past decade and notably in European<br />
policy circles. The possibilities and opportunities of emerging<br />
technologies are of course accompanied by uncertainty and<br />
indeed sheer ignorance. These uncertainties are not purely<br />
around the possible harms, but also in the kind of futures<br />
societies wish for. Innovation takes place over multiple scales<br />
(increasingly global) and the range of actors (from individuals<br />
to corporations to states) are often acting in different<br />
cultural and economic contexts, which impact directly on<br />
notions of what is the ‘right’ and ‘responsible’ thing to do.<br />
Governance of responsible <strong>innovation</strong> is being discussed<br />
in terms of a new adaptive framework, implying a move away<br />
from top-down, <strong>risk</strong>-based regulation to a system in which<br />
111