DOC PREVIEW
MIT 11 941 - Risk communication and health

This preview shows page 1-2-21-22 out of 22 pages.

Save
View full document
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
View full document
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience
Premium Document
Do you want full access? Go Premium and unlock all 22 pages.
Access to all documents
Download any document
Ad free experience

Unformatted text preview:

Risk communication and health: an overviewHealth and medical issues are gaining media attention* Farmed Scottish salmon* Chicken flu* MMR vaccine* SARS New thinking and theoriesTo date many of the implemented risk communication programmes have not workedE.g. it is difficultRisk communication and Risk communication and health: an overviewhealth: an overviewDr. Ragnar LofstedtDr. Ragnar LofstedtProfessor and DirectorProfessor and DirectorKingKing’’s Centre for Risk Managements Centre for Risk ManagementKingKing’’s College Londons College LondonMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyHealth and medical issues are Health and medical issues are gaining media attentiongaining media attention* Farmed Scottish salmon* Chicken flu* MMR vaccine* SARSWhat is happening?What is happening?Growing level of public distrust toward regulators/policy makersPublic demanding access to informationPluralism of scienceAmplified by the mediaPluralism of information sourcesRisks increasingly small and uncertainLow hanging fruits have been regulatedWhat are the main drivers?What are the main drivers?Researchers (specifically Fischhoff, Renn, Slovic and White) uncovered a series of drivers that influence how the public perceive risks:Voluntary-involuntaryNatural-technologicalControl-non controlHigh probability and low consequence risk vis-à-vis low probability and high consequence risk (dread)Familiar-non familiarDrivers continued:Drivers continued:Reproductive organs-non reproductive organs Children-no childrenTrust-no trustFair-not fairThe uncovering of these variables led The uncovering of these variables led to interest in how one can best to interest in how one can best communicate riskscommunicate risksGovernments and industry alike took the view that we now know how the public perceive risksTherefore lets develop communication strategies with our understanding of how people perceive risksRisk communication strategies Risk communication strategies that have been implementedthat have been implementedTop down (first attempt at risk communication)One way presentation of scientific factsDialogue (widely used today)Two way form of persuasive communicationBottom-up (occurs from time to time)Stakeholder interaction in a social contextNew thinking and theoriesNew thinking and theoriesTo date many of the implemented risk communication programmes have not workedE.g. it is difficult to site and build hazardous installations or any large infrastructure projectsAcademics have identified several reasons for this:Social amplification of riskRisks can be socially amplified or attenuatedNarrative approachPeople like anecdotesTrustNeed to establish trust. Distrust leads to ineffective communications. It is 9 times easier to destroy trust than to gain itOf these theories by far the greatest Of these theories by far the greatest attention has been placed on trustattention has been placed on trustIt is envisioned that trust can explain up to 50 per cent of how public perceive risksHigh public trust –low public perceived riskLow public trust-high public perceived riskTough regulator-high public trustWeak regulator-low public trustExample of this:The Bareback nuclear plant—incident August 1992You may have heard that under the last year there has been a great deal of discussion concerning the Barseback plant and the Danes. Do you feel that Barseback is a safe nuclear power plant?Yes 60No 27Maybe 9Do not know 5N=100Barseback 2(If yes) Why do you say this? (let the respondent him/herself come up with an answer)I believe in Swedish industry 57It is a good plant 5Public information is widely available 4Do not know 2Barseback 3 (Denmark)You may have heard that under the last year there has been a great deal of discussion concerning the Barsebackplant and the Danes. Do you feel that Barseback is a safe nuclear power plant?Yes 34No 53Maybe 4Do not know 9N=100Barseback 4 (Denmark)Why do you say this? (let the respondent him/herself come up with an answer)I believe in Swedish industry 31Public information is widely available 5It causes less damage than other energy sources 1N=34Risk communication issuesRisk communication issues——also discussed in the health also discussed in the health sector: sector: SitingSitingBSLBSL--4 facilities Galveston, Texas4 facilities Galveston, Texas* University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) determined the need for BSL-4 in their area in 1995* UTMB recognised early the need for effective public engagement strategy–Began working with CDC communications experts –Strategy included:•Focus groups, internal and external•Internal meetings•Dialogue meetings with community leaders and local mediaGalveston (continued)Galveston (continued)Strategy, continued:–Experts did radio Q and A Sessions–Two large public meetings were held•First meeting was hostile•Second meeting was much less hostile–Currently little or no opposition, even though UTMB has been involved in several recent controversiesRisk communication and acrylamideRisk communication and acrylamide•In 2001 Tornqvist measured acrylamide levels in fried carbohydrates•Found more than 1000 times higher levels of acrylamide than raw or boiled potatoes.•Showed results to SLV fall 2001.Risk communication and acrylamide•SLV took the information seriously and sought to verify results.•February 2002 verification complete-SLV wanted to go public.•Tornqvist wanted to wait till the article was published.•April 2002 Tornqvist gets article results accepted.•Leaks start to appear:•SLV have informed colleagues regarding findings•Lab involved publishes a 2 page spread in their external customer journalRisk communication and acrylamide•Press invitation sent out April 23rd:•"Researchers at Stockholm University have found a substance that can cause cancer and which is formed during cooking a wide range of food stuffs. The National Food Administration have in a pilot study found the substance in many staple foods. The levels (of the substance) are high and new research findings will have international importance with regard to risk valuation, food production and consumption.”Risk communication and acrylamideRisk communication and acrylamideRisk communication and acrylamideImmediate press reaction within the hourResearchers called upMedia searches were conductedEditor of Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry contactedInformation officers and researches decided, as planned


View Full Document
Download Risk communication and health
Our administrator received your request to download this document. We will send you the file to your email shortly.
Loading Unlocking...
Login

Join to view Risk communication and health and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or
We will never post anything without your permission.
Don't have an account?
Sign Up

Join to view Risk communication and health 2 2 and access 3M+ class-specific study document.

or

By creating an account you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use

Already a member?