Perception and Evaluation of Risk and Uncertainty - Essay Example

Perception and Evaluation of Risk and Uncertainty (College Perception of Risk Technological, chemical and nuclear development has brought about serious and long lasting damages to the earth and those that inhabit it. These damages demanded a creation of a new intellectual discipline called risk assessment. Perception of risk among people differs. There are people who oppose technology due to the risks involved with them. They believe through complex technologies that are unfamiliar to them, they face more risk today than in the past and that future risks will be greater than todays (Slovic, 1987, 280).

A risk perception research is helpful in determining peoples perception to risk. This research will help in knowing public responses to any new technology and the development of new risk management strategies. Social and cultural factors affect perception and acceptance of risk. This is because people try to emphasize on particular risks that they see as important, in order to control what others are thinking and make them believe them, all in trying to make sense out of what is happening to the world mostly through new technology.

Starrs research concluded that acceptability of risk from an activity is roughly proportional to the third power of the benefits for that activity and the public will accept risks from voluntary activities (such as skiing) that are roughly 1000 times as great as it would tolerate from involuntary hazards (such as food preservatives) that provide the same level of benefits (Slovic, 1987, 282). Also studies have shown that perception of risk can be quantifiable and predictable. There are models that are used to show the relation between perceptions, behavior and qualitative characteristics of hazards.

These models are: Factor-Analytic Representations and Accidents as Signals. Eventually riskiness means a lot to people than expected number of fatalities. In order to carry out a good research, both parties, the public and the experts have to contribute on how they perceive risk.Science-Based Risk Assessment for Non-target Effects of Transgenic CropsRisk assessment is a methodology used for evaluating the environmental risks of new technologies. Agriculture has evolved since the early 1940s in order to provide enough food for various countries, but the need of taking great care of the environment has increased and rules and regulations have been made to protect the environment.

Risk assessment also involves the process of identifying risks and their seriousness, so that decisions can be made on whether or not the technology should be used and how to proceed with it. However, risk assessment has its own serious limitations. This is because sometimes "Environmental risks are most easily assessed after damage has occurred, yet risk assessment is useful for decision making only when the risks are assessed before damage actually occurs (David & Angelika, 2004, 637).” Biologists have been able to create transgenic plants by the interaction between novel gene constructs that are in novel promoters and crop plant genomes through the advent of molecular gene technology.

A thorough evaluation of the ecological risks of using these transgenic crops on the environment has been demanded. The regulatory frameworks for example OSTP 1986, CBD 2000, EC 2001 agree that risk assessment should be science based, conducted on a case-by-case basis and take into account the triad of the trans gene, the organism and the environment into with the proposed release would occur (David & Angelika, 2004, 638). New risk models will therefore be developed periodically in order to use the above criteria to differentiate among non target risk-assessment models.

We shall look into three models used to assess the environmental risks to non target organisms from transgenic crop plants. The first non target model is ecotoxicology for non target risk management. This model is used for the evaluation of the effects of non target chemicals released to the environment. It is done by exposing single chemicals to the same amount of universal indicator species, carry out estimations of the non target effects and provide the necessary recommended measures for the handling and usage of the chemicals.

The limitations for this model are: chosen species used for testing are not efficient in the prediction of sensitivity of other non target species and it is not capable of following the criteria of conducting a case-by-case basis approach as should a risk assessment model should do. The second model is the non-indigenous-species model for environmental risk assessment. This model helps in determining the environmental effects of the transgenic crops and understanding those effects. this model involves identifying a commodity involved in international trade, identifying all the non-indigenous species that are associated with the commodity and may pose an environmental risk as potential pests in the country of importation and a conclusion with an evaluation o their potential environmental effects.

The third and last model is an ecological model for non target risk assessment. This method depends on ecological principles to select species, specification of an end point and the development of assessment protocols. "Species selection is done case by case".end points are concrete and relevant to environmental risk; and assessment protocols are based on transparent, scientific principles (David & Angelika, 2004, 642).” The advantages of using this model are: it avoids potential arbitrariness involved in the non-indigenous-species model, Costs are minimized due to the focus of few non target species, uncertainty is also reduced by selecting relevant species, expanding the species list and the use of multiple test methodologies and uncertainty factors (David & Angelika, 2004, 642), inappropriate conclusions are avoided by focusing on testing critical ecological processes and by limiting the number of species that are tested.

ReferencesDavid A. Andow, Angelika Hilbeck. "Science-Based Risk Assessment for Nontarget Effects of Transgenic Crops." BioScience (2004): 637-649.Slovic, Paul. "Perception of Risk." Science (1987): 280-285.1. What are the authors’ main arguments for each of the readings?In the “Ten reasons why biotechnology will be important in the developing world” chapter, the author main arguments include: there is no such thing as misconceptions about biotechnology. He explains that the people involved in providing bioengineered food, follow the rules and principles in making genes and the techniques they use are safe for consumer and the environment (Richard & John, 2002, 166).

He also explains that the scientists test everything they produce to the consumers and identify any damages that could affect the environment. He says that millions have consumed bioengineered foods and not one of them has had any negative effects from consuming the food. In the “Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, or reduce poverty in the developing world” chapter, the author explains that there is no way the biotechnology method of producing food in the developing countries will help reduce poverty but rather is a profit making scheme that the scientists are doing.

He continues to explain that the foods and crops produced are not thoroughly tested by the scientists and that they do not follow the scientists’ standard such as transgenic crops. Since they are not tested and evaluated, they may pose health risks and affect the environment. He says the world has enough food resources and land that could be used to produce natural food. The issue is that people in the developing countries are poor and cannot be able to afford the food provided in the country or cannot be able to grow food due to no land and resources. 2. What is the evidence provided by the authors to support their arguments?

In the “Ten reasons why biotechnology will be important in the developing world” chapter, the author has provided evidence to prove that the food produced through biotechnology is safe for consumption by stating that “The Food and Drug Administration has evaluated technical evidence on all proteins produced through biotechnology and which are currently in commercial food products… proteins that have been placed into foods through the use of biotechnology and are currently in the market are non-toxic, sensitive to heat, acid and enzymatic digestion… have no structural similarities with proteins known to cause allergies.

” This explains his argument when he that the genes produced is safe for consumption and safe for the environment as well.He also states that the crops and foods that have been commercialized have gone through testing over the years. The tests are done in the laboratory and controlled natural environments by the EPA, FDA and the Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service/United States Department of Agriculture. These tests are done in order to follow the scientific standards. For example transgenic crops have been assessed and evaluated many times and have data on both the environmental and food safety of biotechnology crops and foods showing their overall suitability.

In the “Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, or reduce poverty in the developing world” chapter, the author provides evidence showing that the biotechnology industry is a profit making scheme by saying that there is a global fight for market share to massively deploy transgenic crops around the world; the principles on the market today are herbicide resistant crops like soybeans and Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) crops which are engineered to produce their own insecticide and to boost seed sales at the cost of damaging the usefulness of a key pest management product (Richard & John, 2002, 175).

He also provides evidence to show that the products from biotechnology are not properly tested and evaluated. He explains that they are not given enough funds to thoroughly test and assess the foods and crops for short or long-term impacts on human health and the environment. The private sector in the Unites States, the author explains, pressured the White House to decree that there is no difference between altered and normal seeds thus preventing Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency testing.

The author concludes by saying that agroecological technologies are the best in producing the much needed food in the developing countries. 3. Is the evidence and arguments made compelling?The evidence shown in “Ten reasons why biotechnology will be important in the developing world” chapter, is compelling and interesting to know. If there is a possibility of feeding the hungry world through biotechnology then it should be used. The risks involved in this technique seem to be under serious supervision, through tests and thorough evaluation and various methods to provide the right foods that are safe for consumption and to the environment are being developed.

The evidence provided in “Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment, or reduce poverty in the developing world” chapter seems incomplete to me. I do not think the FDA and EPA would allow anything to be produced to consumers without thoroughly testing the products produced through biotechnology.4. What was your viewpoint on the utility/importance of biotechnology in reducing poverty in the developing countries prior to reading these chapters? Has this opinion changed or been swayed by the points made by the authors?

Biotechnology can readily be used in providing food in developing countries and eventually reducing poverty in these regions. It seems to be the next alternative if resources are deprived. This opinion has not been changed but has rather supported my view concerning the importance of biotechnology.ReferencesRichard Sherlock, John D. Morrey. "Ethical Issues in Biotechnology." Rowman & Littlefield, 2002. 166-182.