Values and Science in Risk Analysis and Governance: Case

Values and Science in Risk Analysis and Governance:Case of GMOs

Prof. Jennifer KuzmaFulbright Canada Research Chair in Science and Society (Spring 2018)

Goodnight-NCGSK Foundation Distinguished ProfessorCo-Director Genetic Engineering and Society Center

North Carolina State University

@Risk Panel: Managing RiskMay 15, 2018

Values and Science in Decision Making

• Values are subjective and science is objective• Keep values out of risk analysis• Problem: risk analysis is claimed as basis of regulatory decision making• No place for values? Controversy? Exclusion? • Dominance of technological elites who have their own biases (and COI?)

• Values and science are both subjective• Science can always be contested• Problem: Relativism and “alternative facts”• All about values? Everyone’s values count equally? • Dominance of fringe groups with loudest voices making false claims

GMOs Story

Common view among GMO scientists

People are irrationally afraid and expect zero risk

We need to educate them

No place for values or concerns of non-expert public

We have the knowledge and objectivity

Societal values are considered here

We have risk managers in government to do this

Problems:

Values inherent in risk analysis

Risk managers profess that the decisions are “science based”

Regulatory approval is usually final DM point andchoices about RM are not deliberated in it.

Different Conceptions of Risk (Renn, et al 2000)

Who gets to define what a “risk” is?

• 1st order physical health and environmental harms

• 2nd order physical health and ecosystem• Distribution of risks and benefits• Social structure harm• Ethical affronts (without choice, voice, or consent)• Psychological well-being• Financial impacts (direct)• Economic impacts (indirect)• Cultural disruption

Decision making based solely on “sound science” is a myth

• Safety is socially constructed

• Risk analysis is value laden

• Endpoints chosen• Interpretation of data• Temporal and geographic timescales• Choice of baseline (pristine nature, conven breeding?)• Ecological economics (non-use values, discount rates)

Population Suppression Aedes aegypti & Dengue Fever

Food and Drug Administration approves INAD in FL 2016

Motivations in Regulatory Risk Assessment

Meghani & Kuzma J Resp Innov 2017

Experts and non-experts alike exhibit biases in interpreting scientific information for attitude formation & decision making

Aka….Motivated Reasoning, Confirmation Bias, Availability Heuristic, Identity Protection, Risk Perception Theory, Fast vs. Slow Thinking, etc.

Cultural Worldviews influence Risk PerceptionKahan et al

Perceive higher risk for emerging technologies

Features of technology influence risk perception(Slovic et al.)

Low Familiarity

Low Controllabili

ty

Public perception of emerging technologies (Brown, Fatehi, Kuzma JNR 2015)

So Whose Values Count?

Whose Values Should Count?How Should they Count?When should they count?

Innovation in Risk Governance: A Middle-Ground

• “Science-informed, value-respected”• Multiple expertise and standpoints

• Analytical-Deliberative Process for Risk Analysis (NAS 1996)

• Interested and affected parties• Iterate between analysis and

deliberation in risk assessment• For risk decisions with unique and

wide impact

14

Changing the Paradigm for GEPreparing for Future Biotechnology Products (U.S. NAS 2017)

Acknowledgements

Center Website: research.ncsu.edu/gesTwitter: @GESCenterNCSU

Integrating scientific knowledge & public valuesin shaping the futures of biotechnology

Feel free to contact me at: jkuzma@ncsu.edu