Literature DB >> 8234951

Politics and scientific expertise: scientists, risk perception, and nuclear waste policy.

R P Barke1, H C Jenkins-Smith.   

Abstract

To study the homogeneity and influences on scientists' perspectives of environmental risks, we have examined similarities and differences in risk perceptions, particularly regarding nuclear wastes, and policy preferences among 1011 scientists and engineers. We found significant differences (p < 0.05) in the patterns of beliefs among scientists from different fields of research. In contrast to physicists, chemists, and engineers, life scientists tend to: (a) perceive the greatest risks from nuclear energy and nuclear waste management; (b) perceive higher levels of overall environmental risk; (c) strongly oppose imposing risks on unconsenting individuals; and (d) prefer stronger requirements for environmental management. On some issues related to priorities among public problems and calls for government action, there are significant variations among life scientists or physical scientists. We also found that--independently of field of research--perceptions of risk and its correlates are significantly associated with the type of institution in which the scientist is employed. Scientists in universities or state and local governments tend to see the risks of nuclear energy and wastes as greater than scientists who work as business consultants, for federal organizations, or for private research laboratories. Significant differences also are found in priority given to environmental risks, the perceived proximity of environmental disaster, willingness to impose risks on an unconsenting population, and the necessity of accepting risks and sacrifices.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8234951     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1993.tb00743.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  9 in total

1.  Stakeholder perceptions of scientists: Lake Tahoe environmental policy from 1984 to 2001.

Authors:  Christopher M Weible
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2007-09-11       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Factors influencing societal response of nanotechnology: an expert stakeholder analysis.

Authors:  Nidhi Gupta; Arnout R H Fischer; Ivo A van der Lans; Lynn J Frewer
Journal:  J Nanopart Res       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 2.253

3.  Stakeholder participation in research design and decisions: scientists, fishers, and mercury in saltwater fish.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld; Tom Fote
Journal:  Ecohealth       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 3.184

4.  Changes in Aleut concerns following the stakeholder-driven Amchitka independent science assessment.

Authors:  Joanna Burger; Michael Gochfeld
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 4.000

5.  Ethics, Risk and Benefits Associated with Different Applications of Nanotechnology: a Comparison of Expert and Consumer Perceptions of Drivers of Societal Acceptance.

Authors:  N Gupta; A R H Fischer; L J Frewer
Journal:  Nanoethics       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 0.917

6.  Knowledge of and attitude to nuclear power among residents around Tianwan Nuclear Power Plant in Jiangsu of China.

Authors:  Ningle Yu; Yimei Zhang; Jin Wang; Xingjiang Cao; Xiangyong Fan; Xiaosan Xu; Furu Wang
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 3.738

7.  Scientists' Understandings of Risk of Nanomaterials: Disciplinary Culture Through the Ethnographic Lens.

Authors:  Mikael Johansson; Åsa Boholm
Journal:  Nanoethics       Date:  2017-08-03       Impact factor: 0.917

8.  Trust in Science, Perceived Media Exaggeration About COVID-19, and Social Distancing Behavior.

Authors:  Ariadne Neureiter; Marlis Stubenvoll; Ruta Kaskeleviciute; Jörg Matthes
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-12-01

9.  Young adults' perspective of global environmental risks: A study on Polish university students.

Authors:  Błażej Przybylski; Emilia Janeczko; Marcin Studnicki; Ernest Bielinis; Lidia Bielinis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 3.752

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.