A Sociological Checklist for Assessing Environmental Health Risks

The contribution of social sciences to risk analysiscan be traced to the 1970s.As different disciplines from the natural sciencesstrived to establish a rigorous method to define the existence, probability andamplitude of risks related to nuclear energy or chemicals in the environment orthe workplace, (psycho)sociologists undertook in parallel to study differencesin risk perceptions between experts and the lay public. They concluded thatrisks were mental constructs, not objective facts, whose definition rested onthe use of different frames of reference. The identification of the factors shapingthe public's perception of risks led to the development of the subfield of riskcommunication, designed to reduce the gap between lay and expert perceptions andhelp policymakers address the legitimate concerns of the general public whenmanaging risks. The wealth of studies dedicated to riskperception, amplification and communication since the 1970s is a testimony tothe importance of this field of research. Whilst initially considered outsidethe process of risk assessment and management as codified by the NRC in its1983 Red Book, risk perception and communication made their way in the processduring the 1990s. Progressively, societal concerns were considered importantenough to warrant the development of various models. In the most recent, IRGC'srisk governance framework (2008), social sciences are integrated in each of thefour stages (pre-assessment, risk appraisal, tolerability and acceptabilityjudgment, and risk management). The journal Risk Analysis also testifies to theimportance of social science knowledge in governing risks. Yet, for all theirefforts to bring in societal concerns in the process of risk analysis, these modelsfail to question the separation between science and society. This can be tracedback to the initial assumption that the public's perceptions differ from thoseof experts, although risk perception scholars insisted that both were equallyvalid. With the multiplication of health and environmental crises, scandals andcontroversies during the 1990s in Europe, policymakers acknowledged thatsocietal concerns should be taken into consideration along with scientificinput in managing risks - but separately. Accordingly, independent agencieswere set up on the basis of a clear separation between risk assessment (domainof the natural sciences) and risk management (where social sciences could becalled upon). These agencies never considered the possibility that socialsciences might contribute to the characterization of dangers or the definitionof risks. In the minds of their promoters, social sciences were only requiredonce the risk had been established, in order to help communicate the findingsto the general public and come up with acceptable decisions.