Skip to main content
Log in

The ethics of truth-telling and the problem of risk

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Risk communication poses a challenge to ordinary norms of truth-telling because it can easily mislead. Analyzing this challenge in terms of a systematic divergence between expertise and public attitudes fails to recognize how two specific features of the concept of risk play a role in managing daily affairs. First, evaluating risk always incorporates an estimate of the reliability of information. Since risk communication is an effort at providing information, audiences will naturally and appropriately incorporate their assessment of the reliability of the risk communicator into their assessment of the risk as such. Second, one conceptual and grammatical feature of the concept of risk is to categorize experience as non-routine and demanding further deliberation. That is, the whole point of calling something a risk can be to distinguish it from activities or phenomena that need no further attention. Risk communications that stress relative comparisons of measured probabilities and expected utilities can be inconsistent with both features of our concept of risk. At best they mislead; at worst they undermine our society’s capacity to cope with risk. While there are no simple answers to these two conundrums, technical experts should bear them in mind when communicating with the broader public.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Slovie, P. (1987) Perception of Risk, Science 236: 280–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Sandman, P. (1985) Getting to Maybe: Some Communications Aspects of Siting Hazardous Waste Facilities, Seton Hall Legislative Journal 9: 442–465.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Wilson, R. (1979) Analyzing the Daily Risks of Life, Technology Review 81(4):41–46.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hornig, S. (1990) Science Stories: Risk, Power and Perceived Emphasis, Journalism Quarterly 67(4):767–777.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Starr, C., Rudman R. & Whipple, C. (1976) The Philosophical Foundations of Risk Assessment, Annual Review of Energy 1: 629–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Plough, A. and Krimsky S. (1987) The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context, Science, Technology and Human Values 12(3&4): 4–10.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Raynor, S. (1987) Risk and Relativism in Science for Policy, in: Johnson, B. B. and Covello, V. T., eds., The Social and Cultural Construction of Risk, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 5–23.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jasonoff, S. (1993) Bridging the Two Cultures of Risk Analysis, Risk Analysis 13:123–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications, London.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wynne, B. (1992) Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement, in: Krimsky, S. and Golding D., eds., Social Theories of Risk, Praeger Publishers, Wesport, CT., pp. 275–297.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Raynor, S. (1992) Cultural Theory and Risk Analysis, in: Krimsky, S. and Golding D., eds., Social Theories of Risk, Praeger, Westport, CT, pp. 83–116.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Douglas, M. and Wildovsky A. (1984) Risk and Culture, University of California Press, Berkeley, CA..

    Google Scholar 

  13. Nagel, T. (1998) The Last Word, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Roty, R. (1994) Does Academic Freedom Have Philosophical Presuppositions? Academe 80:36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hornig, S. (1993) Reading Risk: Public Response to Print Media Accounts of Risk, Public Understanding of Science 2: 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Shrader-Frechette, K. (1991) Risk and Rationality. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Dewey, J. 1911 [republished 1993] The Problem of Truth, in: The Political Writings, Hackett Publishing Co, Indianapolis, IN,.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Williams, B. (1998) The End of Explanation, New York Review of Books 45(18, November): 40–44.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Thompson, P. B. & Dean, W. (1996) Competing Conceptions of Risk, Risk: Health, Safety and Environment 7:361–384.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ziman, J. (1992) Not Knowing, Needing to Know and Wanting to Know,” in: Lewenstein, B.V., ed., When Science Meets the Public, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington D.C., pp 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Margolis, H. (1996) Dealing With Risk: Why the Public and the Experts Disagree on Environmental Issues, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lewis, H.W. (1990) Technological Risk, Norton, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Thompson, P. B. (1997) Food Biotechnology in Ethical Perspective, Blackie Academic and Professional for Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mayo, D.G. (1991) Sociological Versus Metascientific Views of Risk Assessment,” in: Mayo, D.G. & Hollander, R.D., eds. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 249–279.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Covello, V., Sandman, P. & Slovic, P. (1991) Guidelines for Communicating Information About Chemical Risks Effectively and Responsibly, in: Mayo, D.G. & Hollander, R.D., eds. Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management, Oxford University Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York: pp 66–90.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson, P. B. (1995) Risk and Responsibilities in Modern Agriculture, in: Mepham, T. B., Tucker, G.A. & Wiseman, J. eds., Issues in Agricultural Bioethics, Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, pp. 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ratzen, S.C. ed. (1998) The Mad Cow Crisis: Health and the Public Good. New York University Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Harpold, T. L., Levy, M.L. & Savage, B.D. (1998) Transmissibility of BSE Across Species,” in: Ratzan, S. C., Ed., The Mad Cow Crisis: Health and the Public Good, New York University Press, New York, pp. 15–25.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jasanoff, S. (1995) Product, process or programme: three cultures and the regulation of biotechnology, in: Bauer, M., ed., Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology and Biotechnology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 311–331.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Jasanoff, S. (1997) Civilization and Madness: The Great BSE Scare of 1996, Public Understanding of Science 6:221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Anand, P. (1998) Chronic Uncertainty and BSE Communications: Lessons from (and Limits of) Decision Theory, in: Ratzan, S.C., ed., The Mad Cow Crisis: Health and the Public Good, New York University Press, New York, pp. 51–62.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Powell, D. and Leiss, W. (1997) Mad Cows and Mothers Milk: The Perils of Poor Risk Communication. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal & Kingston.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Habermas, J. (1990) Discourse Ethies: Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification, in: Benhabib, S. and Dallmayr, F., eds., The Communicative Ethics Debate, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thompson, P.B. The ethics of truth-telling and the problem of risk. SCI ENG ETHICS 5, 489–510 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0050-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-999-0050-5

Keywords

Navigation