Pesticides and Risk Communication PPP-52 - Purdue Pesticide ...

Myth 4: We should not go public until we have solutions to the
problems. There may be some logic in the notion that problems are
better accepted when coupled with solutions; but, when you get right
down to it, the public wants a say in their own destiny. They want to be
apprised of the negatives as well as the positives. They want the
chance to voice their own opinions. And sometimes they propose
solutions that the experts have not considered!
Myth 5. These issues are too difficult for the public to understand.
Issues can be complex. Nevertheless, citizen groups throughout the
country have demonstrated that lay people are quite capable of grasping
difficult concepts associated with complex, scientific issues. We
cannot communicate successfully by talking down to the public: they
become justifiably angry.
Myth 6: Technical decisions should be left with technical people.
Technical personnel may be well versed, scientifically; but policy is
determined not only on the basis of science but also public values. And
an informed public is more likely to reach a sound decision than one
that is not.
Myth 7: Risk communication is not my job. True, you probably were
hired on the basis of other credentials, but you still have a responsibility
to deal with people. Failure to communicate may result in policy that
damages good science.
Myth 8. Interest groups are responsible for stirring up public
concerns. Activists work to bring about change. They do not create the
concerns; they merely arouse and channel attention to those that
already exist.
Risk Communication in Practice
Our radio and television programs are interrupted with the following
weather update: A tornado watch is in effect. Conditions are right for a
tornado to occur in our area within the next fifteen minutes. Prepare to
take shelter immediately.
So, why don’t we? Why do fifty percent of us ignore the alert? Why
do we normal, perfectly sane people—scientists included—dismiss or
totally ignore this kind of information? Why don’t we take shelter?
Why do we ignore safety advisories on the use of seat belts, helmets,
and chemical resistant gloves? Why do we ignore our doctors’
advice to lose weight for the sake of our health? The list is endless.
The mystery as to why risk messages have little or no impact is one
of the many puzzles facing social scientists today. And it is even more
36