communicating risk and uncertainty: the role of science advise for policy

Communicating Risk and Uncertainty:

The Role of Science Advise for Policy

Communicating Risk and Uncertainty:

The Role of Science Advise for Policy

Brussels, October 14, 2010

Ortwin Renn

University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK Institute

Brussels, October 14, 2010

Ortwin Renn

University of Stuttgart and DIALOGIK Institute

Part 1: BasicsPart 1: Basics

Essentials of Policy Making

Essentials of Policy Making

Crucial Questions for Collectively Binding Decision Making

Crucial Questions for Collectively Binding Decision Making

InclusionWho: stakeholders, scientists, public(s)What: options, policies, knowledge claims, visionsScope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal)Scale: space, time period, future generations

ClosureWhat counts: acceptable evidenceWhat is more convincing: competition of argumentsWhat option is selected: decision making rule (consensus, compromise, voting)

InclusionWho: stakeholders, scientists, public(s)What: options, policies, knowledge claims, visionsScope: multi-level governance (vertical and horizontal)Scale: space, time period, future generations

ClosureWhat counts: acceptable evidenceWhat is more convincing: competition of argumentsWhat option is selected: decision making rule (consensus, compromise, voting)

Economic System

Optimizing allocation and distribution

• Pareto principle• Distributive

discourse(bargaining)

Political SystemSustaining Order

• Compatibility withuniversal or positiveprinciples

• Normative Discourse

Expert SystemSustaining

Meaning

• Methodology and Peer Review

• Cognitive and interpretative Discourse

Social System

Sustaining Relationships

• Mutual understanding

• Therapeutic Discourse

Maximizing Utility /Efficiency

Empathy/Fairness

Evidence/Effectiveness

Collectively binding norms/Legitimacy

Input to Decision Making in Civil and Plural SocietiesInput to Decision Making

in Civil and Plural Societies

Part 2: Application to risk Part 2: Application to risk

Challenges of communicating risk and uncertainty

Challenges of communicating risk and uncertainty

Risk CharacteristicsThree challenges of risk managementRisk CharacteristicsThree challenges of risk management

Complexity in assessing causal and temporal relationships

Uncertaintyvariation among individual targetsmeasurement and inferential errorsgenuine stochastic relationshipssystem boundaries and ignorance

Ambiguity in interpreting results



Ambiguity in interpreting results

Special Challenge: Systemic RisksSpecial Challenge: Systemic Risks

CharacteristicsHighly complexSecond order uncertainty (non-knowledge)High interpretative and normative ambiguityOpen system boundaries (ripple effect)

ProblemsLimits of quantificationPlurality of risk assessment results and uncertainty characterizationSystem breakdown possiblePotential for high social mobilization

CharacteristicsHighly complexSecond order uncertainty (non-knowledge)High interpretative and normative ambiguityOpen system boundaries (ripple effect)

ProblemsLimits of quantificationPlurality of risk assessment results and uncertainty characterizationSystem breakdown possiblePotential for high social mobilization

Objectives of Risk CommunicationObjectives 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

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 CommunicationRelevance 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

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 InterfacePart 3: Science-Policy Interface

Communicating risk to policy makers

Communicating risk to policy makers

Three challenges of risk communicationThree challenges of risk communication

Complexity: defies public wisdom and intuition

Uncertainty: disappoints public expectation for certainty in the sciencesContradicts deterministic world viewRisk of decreasing legitimacy (science and policy makers)

Ambiguity: leaves impression of arbitrariness

Complexity: defies public wisdom and intuition

Uncertainty: disappoints public expectation for certainty in the sciencesContradicts deterministic world viewRisk of decreasing legitimacy (science and policy makers)

Ambiguity: leaves impression of arbitrariness

Approaches to Meet These Challenges I Approaches to Meet These Challenges I

Dealing with ComplexityCharacterization of robust systematic knowledge

Interdisciplinary expert input

Emphasis on methodology, peer review and impartiality

Dealing with uncertaintyDiscernment between known and uncertain

Options that enhance resilience

Emphasis on finding right balance between innovation and precaution

Dealing with ComplexityCharacterization of robust systematic knowledge

Interdisciplinary expert input

Emphasis on methodology, peer review and impartiality

Dealing with uncertaintyDiscernment between known and uncertain

Options that enhance resilience

Emphasis on finding right balance between innovation and precaution

Approaches to Meet These Challenges II Approaches to Meet These Challenges II

Dealing with AmbiguityInclusion of public values and aspirations

Focus on normative reasoning

Emphasis on fairness

Integrating all three levelsSeveral parallel discourse activities

Transdisciplinary approaches

Necessity for new integrative methods of linking different types of knowledge and values

Dealing with AmbiguityInclusion of public values and aspirations

Focus on normative reasoning

Emphasis on fairness

Integrating all three levelsSeveral parallel discourse activities

Transdisciplinary approaches

Necessity for new integrative methods of linking different types of knowledge and values

Complexity

Epistemic

Use experts to find valid, reliable and relevant knowledge about the risk

Uncertainty

Reflective

Involve all affected stakeholders to collectively decide best way forward

Ambiguity

Participative

Include all actors so as to expose, accept, discuss and resolve differences

Simple

Instrumental

Find the most cost-effective way to make the risk acceptable or tolerable

Agency Staff

Dominant risk characteristic

Type of participation

Actors

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENTSTAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

Agency Staff

Agency Staff

Agency Staff

Scientists/ Researchers

Affected stakeholders

« Civil society »



Affected stakeholders

As the level of knowledge changes, so alsowill the type of participation need to change

Part 5: LessonsPart 5: Lessons

Orientations for scientific communicators

Orientations for scientific communicators

Five major conditions for „success“ of policy adviseFive major conditions for „success“ of policy advise

Consensus among experts on limits of „legitimate“ cognitive knowledge

Between absurd and possibleBetween possible and probableBetween probable and (almost) certain

Ability to analytically separatecognitive, interpretative, evaluative and normative knowledge claims

Consensus among experts on limits of „legitimate“ cognitive knowledge

Between absurd and possibleBetween possible and probableBetween probable and (almost) certain

Ability to analytically separatecognitive, interpretative, evaluative and normative knowledge claims

Five major conditions for „success“ form policy adviseFive 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

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 relationshipNeeds for improving relationship

Integrated concepts of linking disciplines and perspectives

Transdisciplinary methodologyEvidence 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 scienceInstitutional arrangements such as innovation networks, policy platforms and public-private partnerships

Creation of a stimulating learning environmentLink of research and operational practiceNeed for regular forums between policy makers, stakeholders and scientists

Integrated concepts of linking disciplines and perspectives

Transdisciplinary methodologyEvidence 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 scienceInstitutional arrangements such as innovation networks, policy platforms and public-private partnerships

Creation of a stimulating learning environmentLink of research and operational practiceNeed for regular forums between policy makers, stakeholders and scientists

ConclusionsConclusionsThe Role of Science and the Public(s)

Science provides systematic knowledge claims and methods to judge validity of claimsScience faces problems when dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguityPublic input needed for understanding concerns, including experiential and local knowledge, and providing guidelines to resolve ambiguity and to handle uncertainty

Need for Discourse ActivitiesComplexity: consensus on causal and temporal trendsUncertainty: enhancement of resilience and flexibilityAmbiguity: integration of values and preferences of the affected publics

The Role of Science and the Public(s)Science provides systematic knowledge claims and methods to judge validity of claimsScience faces problems when dealing with complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguityPublic input needed for understanding concerns, including experiential and local knowledge, and providing guidelines to resolve ambiguity and to handle uncertainty

Need for Discourse ActivitiesComplexity: consensus on causal and temporal trendsUncertainty: enhancement of resilience and flexibilityAmbiguity: integration of values and preferences of the affected publics

QuoteQuote

To progress in knowledge and action means to doubt what conventional wisdom suggests

(Aristotle)

To progress in knowledge and action means to doubt what conventional wisdom suggests

(Aristotle)

Four Systems of Society: Internal Mechanisms, Social Functions and SynergismsFour Systems of Society: Internal Mechanisms, Social Functions and Synergisms

Economic System

• Property rights• Private contracts• Compensation for

external effects

Political System

• Due Process• Power divsion• Voting

Expert System

• Test of truth claims• Instrumental

Knowledge• Enlightenment

Social System

• Mutual Understanding• Empathy• Lifestyles

Efficiency

AcceptabilityFairness

Effectiveness

Legitimacy

Expert Advisory Panels

Consulting

Participation

Meditation

Models of Science and Policy InterplayModels of Science and Policy InterplayTechnocratic Models (Decision function)

Science in the superior role of advising and recommending

Decisionistic Models (Advising function)Majority of commissionsScience advising, political actors decision making

Corporatistic Models (Interest balancing)Science, stakeholders and public policy makersClub atmosphere

Participative Models („Empowerment“)Science shopsInternet consultantsConsensus conferencing

Technocratic Models (Decision function)Science in the superior role of advising and recommending

Decisionistic Models (Advising function)Majority of commissionsScience advising, political actors decision making

Corporatistic Models (Interest balancing)Science, stakeholders and public policy makersClub atmosphere

Participative Models („Empowerment“)Science shopsInternet consultantsConsensus conferencing

Contribution of Science to Policy MakersContribution of Science to Policy Makers

OrientationEnlightenmentInstrumental KnowledgeUnderstanding situationProviding meaningSharpening of judgmentalfocus

Legitimizing PoliticsReference to truth and cognitive authoritySystematic knowledge and expertise as means of power and influenceExperts as „useful means“ for staging enlightened leadersGaining of public acceptance

OrientationEnlightenmentInstrumental KnowledgeUnderstanding situationProviding meaningSharpening of judgmentalfocus

Legitimizing PoliticsReference to truth and cognitive authoritySystematic knowledge and expertise as means of power and influenceExperts as „useful means“ for staging enlightened leadersGaining of public acceptance

Learning Experiences for ScienceLearning Experiences for Science

OrientationExperiential knowledgeLocal KnowledgeIdentification of concernsWorldviews and visions

Legitimizing ScienceReference to public needsAssurance of practical implicationsSupport by public actors (financial, in-kind, symbolic)Gaining of public acceptance

OrientationExperiential knowledgeLocal KnowledgeIdentification of concernsWorldviews and visions

Legitimizing ScienceReference to public needsAssurance of practical implicationsSupport by public actors (financial, in-kind, symbolic)Gaining of public acceptance

Science-Policy ConnectionThree challenges Science-Policy ConnectionThree challenges



Ambiguity in interpreting resultsInterpretative

Normative



Ambiguity in interpreting resultsInterpretative

Normative

communicating risk and uncertainty: the role of science advise for policy

Documents