Re-Imagining Risk: The Role of Resilience and Prevention

Abstract

Bad things happen. Chemicals, meant to lead to better living, sometimes cause cancer, reproductive problems, Parkinson’s disease, or other problems. Factories and power plants, designed to operate efficiently and safely, occasionally explode. We have largely relied on the process of risk analysis to minimize the frequency and impacts of such events. Risk analysis identifies the likely undesirable consequences from a given activity (risk assessment) and develops control measures meant to reduce those consequences to acceptable levels (risk management). Doubts have arisen about the value of conventional risk analysis, particularly in the face of newly emerging technologies such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology. I argue that that conventional risk analysis—meaning risk analysis fixated on controlling risks—should expand to systematically integrate two related principles. The first is prevention, which seeks in the first instance to avoid the risk altogether. The second is resilience, which aims build the capacity to respond to whatever does come to pass. I use three case studies to illustrate current risk analysis practices and demonstrate how integrating prevention and resilience would change those practices. Those cases are registration of a new agricultural pesticide under California law, regulation of industrial process safety under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and evaluation of the use of synthetic biology in biofuel production under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Keywords: risk analysis practices, pesticide regulation, risk management, risk assessment