Risk Acceptability According to the Social Sciences

1. Moral Issues in Risk Acceptability

Clt.pfer r Mor.' .ssues in Rislc Accepf••"'fy Summary: This chapter indicates the risk issues that involve social justice and considers the neglect of that part of the topic of risk acceptability. In every generation one or another branch of the social sciences is put on the witness stand to be interrogated about drastic problems -famine or economic recession, the causes of war or crime. For the last decade and more, such urgent questions have been about the risks of new technology. The fears and conscience of Western industrial nations have been roused by nuclear radiation, chemical wastes, asbestos and lead poisoning. In response, an important new subdiscipline of the social sciences has emerged which specifically addresses questions asked by industry and government about the public perception of risk. (See Table 1 on page 7.) The public reception of any policy for risks will depend on standardized public ideas about justice. It is often held that perception of risk is directed by issues of fairness. The more that institutions depend upon personal commitment rather than upon coercinq, the more explicitly they are monitored for fairness. The threslwld of risk acceptability in the workplace is lowered when the wmkers consider themselves exploited. Awareness of medical risks is heightened if the medical profession is suspected of 5 malpractice. Whether the sharper sensitivity to risks causes individuals to be more prudent in avoiding them is another matter. Rawl's concept of justice as fairness (1971), which lies at the basis of his moral philosophy, allows for cultural and social variation in concepts of fairness. But these variations would influence perception of risk. Furthermore, the variation in values corresponds to variation in possible kinds of organization. Selsnick (1969) found that fairness means one thing to unskilled manual workers (fairness as equal treatment for all) and another to clerical , professional, and management cadres (fairness as fair recognition of individual ability). Fairness as equality would seem appropriate in a highly ascriptive system with no opportunities for personal advancement and some expectations fi'om collective bargaining ; fairness as rewards for merit would be appealing to persons faced with opportunities for promotion. This is important if the claim is true that "the best predictor of opposition to nuclear energy is the belief that American society is unjust" (Rothman and Lichter 1982). In some professional analyses the existing allocation of risks is taken to imply an accepted norm of distributive justice sustaining the moral fabric of society. Those who are in the more favored sectors of the community as regards the incidence of morbidity and mortality rates may be tempted not to think too deeply about its inequities. However, others would judge a society inequitable that regularly exposes a large percentage of its population to much higher risks than the fortunate top 10 percent. The Poor Risk More Acursory look at the labor and health statistics for the United States shows that, below a certain level, income is a good predictor of relative exposure to risks of most kinds. The percentage of persons who are unable through chronic ill health to carry on their major activity declines as income rises. In 1976-77 income had a greater impact than race upon a person's limitation of activity, but the death rates for disadvantaged minorities in 1977 were higher than for whites at all age levels until age 80 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1980a:2).Blue-collar workers reported a rate of 40.6 persons injured per 100 currently employed. An average of' 21 percent of blue-collar workers were injured at work, and 19.89 percent of farm workers, compared with 5.1 percent of white-collar workers. At incomes less than $10,000, the picture worsens (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1980b). 6 Table 1 Growth of Research in Risk Perception I. RESEARCH INSTITUTIONS Date Institution Chairperson -------------------------~---------1969 Early 1970s 1976 1978-79 NSF Technology Assessment and Risk Analysis Group, 1800 G Street N.W. Washington, DC 20550 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Risk Group 2361 Laxemburg, Austria Decision Research 1201 Oak Street Eugene, OR 97401 Institute for Risk Analysis American University Washington, DC 20016 1979 National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue N.W. Washington, DC 20418 1979 1980 1980 1981 Center for Philosophy and Public Policy University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742 Hudson Institute 1500 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 810 Arlington, VA 22209 Society for Risk...