Communicating Risk and
Uncertainty:
The Role of Science Advise for Policy
Brussels, October 14, 2010
Ortwin Renn
University of Stuttgart and
DIALOGIK Institute
Part 1: Basics
Essentials of Policy
Making
Crucial Questions for Collectively
Binding Decision Making
Inclusion
Who: stakeholders, scientists, public(s)
What: options, policies, knowledge claims, visions
Scope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal)
Scale: space, time period, future generations
Closure
What counts: acceptable evidence
What is more convincing: competition of arguments
What option is selected: decision making rule
(consensus, compromise, voting)
Input to Decision Making
in Civil and Plural Societies
Economic System
Optimizing allocation
and distribution
• Pareto principle
• Distributive discourse
(bargaining)
Expert System
Sustaining Meaning
• Methodology and
Peer Review
• Cognitive and
interpretative
Discourse
Maximizing Utility /Efficiency
Empathy/Fairness
Evidence/Effectiveness
Collectively binding norms/Legitimacy
Political System
Sustaining Order
• Compatibility with
universal or positive
principles
• Normative Discourse
Social System
Sustaining
Relationships
• Mutual
understanding
• Therapeutic
Discourse
Part 2: Application to risk
Challenges of
communicating risk and
uncertainty
Risk Characteristics
Three challenges of risk management
Complexity in assessing causal and temporal
relationships
Uncertainty
variation among individual targets
measurement and inferential errors
genuine stochastic relationships
system boundaries and ignorance
Ambiguity in interpreting results
Special Challenge: Systemic Risks
Characteristics
Highly complex
Second order uncertainty (non-knowledge)
High interpretative and normative ambiguity
Open system boundaries (ripple effect)
Problems
Limits of quantification
Plurality of risk assessment results and uncertainty
characterization
System breakdown possible
Potential for high social mobilization
Objectives of Risk Communication
Enlightenment: Making people able to
understand risks and become “risk-literate”
Behavioral changes: Making people aware of
potential risks and help them to take protective
actions
Trust building: Assisting risk management
agencies to generate and sustain trust
Conflict resolution: Assisting risk managers to
involve major stakeholders and affected parties
to take part in the risk management process
Relevance of Risk Communication
Health and Safety are top concerns of people in
industrial countries
People demand more information and
transparency on decisions that affect their
welfare
Trust in traditional decision makers is low and
replaced by demand of participation
Risk communication is legally demanded in many
countries
Part 3: Science-Policy Interface
Communicating risk to
policy makers
Three challenges of risk communication
Complexity: defies public wisdom and intuition
Uncertainty:
disappoints public expectation for certainty in the
sciences
Contradicts deterministic world view
Risk of decreasing legitimacy (science and policy
makers)
Ambiguity: leaves impression of arbitrariness
Approaches to Meet These
Challenges I
Dealing with Complexity
Characterization of robust systematic knowledge
Interdisciplinary expert input
Emphasis on methodology, peer review and
impartiality
Dealing with uncertainty
Discernment between known and uncertain
Options that enhance resilience
Emphasis on finding right balance between
innovation and precaution
Approaches to Meet These
Challenges II
Dealing with Ambiguity
Inclusion of public values and aspirations
Focus on normative reasoning
Emphasis on fairness
Integrating all three levels
Several parallel discourse activities
Transdisciplinary approaches
Necessity for new integrative methods of linking
different types of knowledge and values
STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
Scientists/
Researchers
Affected
stakeholders
Scientists/
Researchers
« Civil
society »
Affected
stakeholders
Scientists/
Researchers
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Agency Staff
Instrumental
Epistemic
Reflective
Find the most
cost-effective
way to make
the risk
acceptable or
tolerable
Use experts
to find valid,
reliable and
relevant
knowledge
about the risk
Involve all
affected
stakeholders
to collectively
decide best
way forward
Include all
actors so as
to expose,
accept,
discuss and
resolve
differences
Simple
Complexity
Uncertainty
Ambiguity
Actors
Type of
participation
Dominant risk
characteristic
Participative
As the level of knowledge changes, so also
will the type of participation need to change
Part 5: Lessons
Orientations for scientific
communicators
Five major conditions for „success“
of policy advise
Consensus among experts on limits of
„legitimate“ cognitive knowledge
Between absurd and possible
Between possible and probable
Between probable and (almost) certain
Ability to analytically separate
cognitive,
interpretative,
evaluative and
normative knowledge claims
Five major conditions for „success“
form policy advise
Ability to connect to political decision making
process (Anschlussfähigkleit)
timing,
framing,
type and style of argumentation
Legitimization power for external input from
stakeholders and affected individuals
Ability to communicate results to relevant
policy makers and/or the public
Needs for improving relationship
Integrated concepts of linking disciplines and
perspectives
Transdisciplinary methodology
Evidence based science for cognitive claims (incl. uncertainty)
Focus on interface between cognitive claims, interpretations
(frames), evaluations and normative conclusions
Key focus on governance:
Policy making as product of discourse between politics,
economics, civil society and science
Institutional arrangements such as innovation networks, policy
platforms and public-private partnerships
Creation of a stimulating learning environment
Link of research and operational practice
Need for regular forums between policy makers, stakeholders
and scientists
Conclusions
The Role of Science and the Public(s)
Science provides systematic knowledge claims and
methods to judge validity of claims
Science faces problems when dealing with
complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity
Public input needed for understanding concerns,
including experiential and local knowledge, and
providing guidelines to resolve ambiguity and to
handle uncertainty
Need for Discourse Activities
Complexity: consensus on causal and temporal trends
Uncertainty: enhancement of resilience and flexibility
Ambiguity: integration of values and preferences of
the affected publics
Quote
To progress in knowledge and action
means to doubt what conventional wisdom
suggests
(Aristotle)
Four Systems of Society:
Internal Mechanisms, Social Functions and Synergisms
Economic System
Consulting
Expert System
• Test of truth claims
• Instrumental
Knowledge
• Enlightenment
• Property rights
• Private contracts
• Compensation for
external effects
Efficiency
Acceptability
Fairness
Effectiveness
Meditation
Social System
• Mutual Understanding
• Empathy
• Lifestyles
Legitimacy
Political System
Expert Advisory
Panels
• Due Process
• Power divsion
• Voting
Participation
Models of Science and Policy
Interplay
Technocratic Models (Decision function)
Science in the superior role of advising and recommending
Decisionistic Models (Advising function)
Majority of commissions
Science advising, political actors decision making
Corporatistic Models (Interest balancing)
Science, stakeholders and public policy makers
Club atmosphere
Participative Models („Empowerment“)
Science shops
Internet consultants
Consensus conferencing
Contribution of Science to Policy
Makers
Orientation
Enlightenment
Instrumental Knowledge
Understanding situation
Providing meaning
Sharpening of judgmental
focus
Legitimizing Politics
Reference to truth and cognitive authority
Systematic knowledge and expertise as means of power
and influence
Experts as „useful means“ for staging enlightened leaders
Gaining of public acceptance
Learning Experiences for Science
Orientation
Experiential knowledge
Local Knowledge
Identification of concerns
Worldviews and visions
Legitimizing Science
Reference to public needs
Assurance of practical implications
Support by public actors (financial, in-kind, symbolic)
Gaining of public acceptance
Science-Policy Connection
Three challenges
Complexity in assessing causal and temporal
relationships
Uncertainty
variation among individual targets
measurement and inferential errors
genuine stochastic relationships
system boundaries and ignorance
Ambiguity in interpreting results
Interpretative
Normative