SECTION V © 1996 by CRC Press LLC 27 ETHICS AND VALUES IN ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT - A SYNTHESIS Bayard L Catron This summary highlights three central themes of the chapters presented in this volume The preceeding chapters traverse a very wide range of issues, making a true synthesis quite impossible The chapter concludes with four modest suggestions This summary is organized around three pairs of propositions Each pair contains a “weak” version, which most people attending the symposium (though not necessarily in the broader risk community) would endorse, and a “strong” version which will be much more controversial, I think The three sets are (a) Risk assessment is value laden (b) The whole enterprise of risk assessment is socially constructedmeaning that it has no independent validity or objectivity (a) Risk assessment is an appropriate and useful aid in environmental decision making, despite its deficiencies (b) Risk assessment should be relied on more heavily in decision making (as has been proposed in recent bills before Congress) (a) Public values should be taken into account in decision making and in setting risk reduction priorities (b) Where there is persistent disagreement, public (“political”) values should trump expert (“scientific”) values PROPOSITION 1(A) RISK ASSESSMENT IS VALUE LADEN Everyone who expressed a view on this point at the symposium agreed that values are present in risk assessment For example, Schnare’s model of risk analysis shows how values, often those of the assessor, were fundamental to the method used in the analysis Nash argued not only that the notion of a © 1996 by CRC Press LLC scientifically pure analysis of risk is an illusion, but also suggests that the pretense of value neutrality itself poses a major danger to scientific integrity There is also a practical challenge here, and Burt Hakkenen presented several examples of industry efforts to incorporate values into risk decision making There might not be such unanimity in the home disciplines represented at the symposium, andor the professional communities and/or scientific organizations represented, but this proposition is rather widely accepted by this time For example, as Nash notes, the EPA Science Advisory Board in Reducing Risk’ speaks of “inevitable value judgments” When risks are borne differently by different groups of people, or cross generations are discussed by Catron et al., questions of fairness or justice arise Scott Baker pointed out that 1983 NAS risk assessmenurisk management paradigm attempted to limit values to the risk management side, preserving risk assessment as value free However, he says each step involves “best professional judgment” which is subjective as well as objective, as he argues in some detail He suggests that subjective values are acceptable “as long as they not introduce bias” (However, it might be argued that this is exactly what is at issue.) Some, but not all, types of values create difficulties in the “scientific” status of particular claims It is important to sort out the several kinds, such as moral, aesthetic, economic, and scientific values In an unusual treatment, James Nash identified as moral values the following scientific values - honesty in selecting data, rationality, tolerance of diversity, freedom of inquiry, corrective dissent, cooperation, and open communications Nash claims that moral values are present in all phases of risk assessment -motives, purposes, definitions, methods, and assumptions However, granting that risk assessment is not value free, is it necessarily a moral enterprise in all these ways? Doug MacLean’s chapter on intrinsic vs instrumental values illustrated the kind of careful analysis of particular values that is needed regardless of the method used to assess risks Virginia Sharpe adopted a different strategy with respect to values Beginning with a normative commitment to a particular value - sustainability - she explores the relation to ethical theory PROPOSITION 1(B) THE WHOLE ENTERPRISE OF RISK ASSESSMENT IS SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED MEANING THAT IT HAS NO INDEPENDENT VALIDITY OR OBJECTIVITY - The idea of social construction of reality was introduced by Bill Freudenberg According to this epistemology or theory of knowledge, facts are not meaningful without human interpretation There is no such thing as “brute facts” independent of a context, which is provided by the language and categories we use to understand anything at all Facts not “speak for themselves” So, for example, as William Cooper pointed out, in answering the question “How safe is a risk?’, we might conclude that it provides a generous level © 1996 by CRC Press LLC of protection or a license to kill, depending on the interpretation Not only the concept of risk itself, but other basic concepts like fact, value, and objectivity, are socially constructed according to this theoretical framework This orientation would not be accepted by many of those at the symposium For example, it would undermine the distinction between subjective and objective that Scott Baker builds his paper around- what he calls objective is no less socially constructed, from this point of view, than what is acknowledged as subjective However, contrary to the fears of many positive scientists, the orientation does not undermine the scientific enterprise -at least in some accounts of what that enterprise is essentially According to philosophers and historians of science following in the tradition of Thomas Kuhn (The Structure ofScientifk RevoZutions)*, superhuman objectivity has never been a requirement of scientific method The values of the scientific community include those Nash listed (cited earlier) and, as Kristin Shrader-Frechette notes, testability and reliability (This does not deny the usefulness of understanding the personal attributes of risk assessors, which Crawford-Brown and Arnold address in their chapter.) Two other chapters seem relevant here, although neither explicitly mentions the social construction of reality Don Brown argues that there is no neutral discourse - whether law, economics, or natural science He might or might not agree with the further inference that science does not or should not have a privileged position -for example, as being “more rational” than other types of discourse Rachelle Hollander focuses on the question: “How does knowledge get legitimated and socially appropriated?’ The risk domain is contested -withidbetween different scientific fields, between experts and the public, between industry and government, etc She says that the contest involves who legitimately (I would add “authoritatively”) speaks about risk, and how (This issue is important in the third set of propositions below.) PROPOSITION 2(A) RISK ASSESSMENT IS AN APPROPRIATE AND USEFUL AID IN ENVIRONMENTAL DECISION MAKING, DESPITE ITS DEFICIENCIES All authors who discuss risk assessment here seem to take this for granted, even as many of them acknowledged limitations and deficiencies of various sorts No one in this group, at least, fundamentally challenged the utility of risk assessment PROPOSITION 2(B) RISK ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE RELIED ON MORE HEAVILY IN DECISION MAKING (AS HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN RECENT BILLS BEFORE CONGRESS) To agree that risk assessment is useful, however, is not to commit oneself to using it to drive decision making Of the authors in this volume, Don Brown would probably disagree most strongly with proposition 2(b) He would argue, © 1996 by CRC Press LLC I think, that the deficiencies of risk assessment are intrinsic, like they are with cost-benefit analysis, and cannot be fixed Therefore, we should use the methodology as a heuristic, not as a decision-driving method Bryan Norton would also disagree with this proposition He argued that risk assessment as a methodology “will never be adequate” to deal with all we ordinarily think of as risk (which is more than the probability of an event occurring and an estimate of the magnitude of its consequences) He emphasized particularly our limitations in using ecological risk analysis (as William Cooper did as well), and our problem of understanding long-term and largescale events PROPOSITION 3(A) PUBLIC VALUES SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DECISION MAKING AND SElTING RISK REDUCTION PRIORITIES This is such a common litany these days that few people would contest it - at least in public It is often used in advocacy, as when Tom Burke appealed to public values in arguing that we need to “rediscover public health” However, there is a question of how deeply and widely this proposition is held Is it just a self-protective strategy, to coopt public opinion and avoid litigation? Or is it a basic principle, and a normative commitment? Bert Hakkenen stated that Procter and Gamble has elevated to a principle the idea of involving the public or considering its values through two-way communication Of course this is at least partly self-interested on the part of the company - every company wants its products to be “safe and perceived to be safe” How important is the “public values” principle in relation to other principles used in decision making (in the case of P&G efficiency and riskbased priority setting)? PROPOSITION 3(B) IN CASES OF PERSISTENT DISAGREEMENT, PUBLIC (“POLITICAL”) VALUES SHOULD TRUMP EXPERT (“SCIENTIFIC”) VALUES This is perhaps the real acid test Scientists and technical experts of all sorts who value reason and evidence highly are not often comfortable seeing themselves as stakeholders in public debates, and certainly not as having vested interests However, the public will inevitably see risk experts as wedded to their methodology and not as the final authority on what social risks should be accepted This is not necessarily “irrational,” as many experts would have it; as Freudenberg suggests, opponents of particular technologies are often as well informed as advocates At least some of the symposium presenters were not willing to put scientists in a privileged position with respect to value determinations Scientists are “as competent” as others, according to Freudenberg, which suggests that their © 1996 by CRC Press LLC value judgments should not be given preference automatically Nash has a more skeptical view: scientists are no more competent - and perhaps less so - than the public as a whole to make these value determinations There are many examples of disparity between public and expert estimates of the importance of particular risks One of the most striking is nuclear waste, which the public ranked first in importance and the experts ranked 20th out of 30 in a recent survey Freudenberg gives a useful example of differing values between scientists and the public He says that scientists and engineers as a whole value efficiency and cost-effectiveness more highly than long-term safety, compared to the population as a whole In that situation, should the scientists’ view prevail? If so, why? Of course there is not always disagreement between experts and the public No one would prefer a lay opinion to an expert assessment of probabilities and consequences of a technical sort However, risk is more than that, as Norton pointed out, and the circumstances under which risk should be undertaken or one risk preferred to another is not a technical question Perhaps in addition to the categories of risk assessment, risk management, etc., we need the concept of a risk judgment which emanates from a social process involving all parties Ideally, it seems that we need better decision mechanisms that will avoid such polarization How can public participation be made meaningful rather than cosmetic? Paterson and Andrews offered some excellent ideas in their chapter They use state and local comparative risk projects to illustrate ways of involving the public meaningfully in establishing criteria for risk assessments and setting priorities, including recommending strategies to public officials Technical advisory committees are used to bring science to bear, first-phase assessment and ranking, and assist in generating and evaluating risk reduction strategies In their example of the state of Washington, the public advisory committee seems to be in the driver’s seat in at least some stages of the process Paterson and Andrews’ chapter provides a good basis for hoping that we will better in blending public and expert judgments in the future CONCLUSION - FOUR MODEST SUGGESTIONS Several recommendations can be made, partly derived from the symposium, but ultimately the personal suggestions of the author: Pay more attention to the problems of definition and analysis in this arena of values and ethics in risk assessment It may be true, as Baker said, that “God’s favorite color is gray”, but that does not excuse casual analysis and the loose, insensitive use of key terms Do not rely too heavily on risk assessment or claim more for it than it can deliver Given our blind spots and pervasive overconfidence (and, as Freudenberg said, especially the unknown unknowns) and the limitations of all our techniques, humility is important © 1996 by CRC Press LLC Stop disguising value judgments as technical ones Freudenberg was particularly forceful in emphasizing the seriousness of potential public mistrust of science He says it is not just a public relations battle here; science is not immune to erosion of confidence Stop playing the blame game Regarding failures in risk communication between experts and the public, as Victor Cohn suggests, there is enough blame to go around While he acknowledges some journalistic deficiencies, he cites vested interests of some parties, the blind spots of experts, and the myopia of some players - let alone the wide areas of disagreement and uncertainty inherent in risk decision making The blame game is unhelpful and indeed counterproductive, whether Federal vs local, industry vs regulator, media bashing, government bashing, lawyer bashing After all, in some real sense we are all in this together REFERENCES U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities And Strategies For Environmental Protection, Science Advisory Board, September 1990, SAB-EC-90-021, Washington, D.C 20460 T.S Kuhn, The Structure of Scient$c Revolutions, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970 © 1996 by CRC Press LLC © 1996 by CRC Press LLC THE CONTRIBUTORS Richard N L Andrews is Professor of Environmental Policy in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Formerly chairman of UNC’s Environmental Management and Policy Program and of the Natural Resource Policy and Management Program of the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources, he is the author of numerous journal articles and book chapters on U.S and comparative environmental policy, environmental impact and risk assessment, and the uses of science and economics in environmental policy making He has also served as budget examiner in the U.S Office of Environmental Studies and Toxicology, and as a member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board Subcommittee on Risk Reduction Strategies Jeffrey Arnold is a Ph.D candidate in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill He received his B.A and M.A in History with a focus on medieval history Scott R Baker is the Director of the Health Sciences Group at EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc He is a toxicologist with broad technical experience in human health and the environment, with 20 years of experience directing and participating in a wide variety of scientific evaluations involving toxicology, health risk assessment, and scientific interpretation of regulatory affairs and risk management issues In his prior position with the U.S EPA as Science Advisor to the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, he earned several citations for his excellent service Prior to the EPA, he was a Senior Staff Officer at the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences His experience includes scientific evaluations of the effect of chemicals on human health and the environment; assessment of the impacts of legislative initiatives, regulations, and standards on the interests of clients; environmental toxicology investigations; risk assessments; and expert witness testimony He has related experience in emergency preparedness, indoor air research, pesticide health effects, air toxics, and water quality criteria He has also chaired and served on a number of committees and task forces related to risk assessment and environmental issues such as chemical safety and the human health effects of chemicals He received his Doctorate degree in toxicology from Iowa State University in 1978 He has published a number of papers and books and presented a number of papers on topics related to human health and the environment © 1996 by CRC Press LLC Lawrence G Boyer is a public administration graduate student at The George Washington University He holds a master’s degree in Economics from Rutgers University and a bachelor’s degree in Physics from the University of Massachusetts Mr Boyer is also a member of the joint GWU-EPA Green University Task Force His research interests include: intergenerational decision making, risk management, climate change, and non-market valuation techniques Donald A Brown is Director of the Bureau of Hazardous Sites and Superfund Enforcement in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources He is interested in, and has written and lectured extensively on, the interface between environmental science, law, economics, and environmental ethics Mr Brown represented Pennsylvania at the Earth Summit and was recently the director of a conference held at the United Nations as a follow up to the Earth Summit on the ethical dimensions of the United Nations program on environment and development He holds a B.S from Drexel Institute of Technology in Commerce and Engineering Science, a M.A in Philosophy and At from Seton Hall University School of Law, and r a J.D from Seton Hall University School of Law He has also done graduate work toward a Ph.D in Philosophy at the New School for Social Research He has worked as an engineer and taught both philosophy and environmental law Thomas A Burke is an Associate Professor of Health Policy and Management at Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health Trained as an epidemiologist, he formerly served as Deputy Commissioner of Health for the State of New Jersey and Director of the Office of Science and Research of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection His experience has shaped his research interest in the interface of science and policy in environmental decision making Douglas Crawford-Brown is Professor of Environmental Physics in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill His B.S and M.S degrees are in Theoretical Physics and his Ph.D degree is in Nuclear Science from the Georgia Institute of Technology Dr Crawford-Brown teaches and conducts research in risk analysis, philosophy of science, and mathematical modeling of biophysical phenomena He is Director of Undergraduate Studies in Environmental Science and Policy and of the Institute for Environmental Studies Bayard L Catron is Professor of Public Administration and Policy at George Washington University His primary research interests are in applied ethics especially environmental ethics and ethics in government He was Research Director of a recent study, “Deciding for the Future: Balancing Risks and Benefits Fairly Across Generations”, conducted by the National Academy of Public Administration and sponsored by the U.S Department of Energy Professor Catron earned his Ph.D in Social Policies Planning and also a Master © 1996 by CRC Press LLC of City Planning degree from the University of California at Berkeley His earlier educational background includes two degrees in Philosophy, a B.A from Grinnell College (Iowa) and a M.A from the University of Chicago Victor Cohn is one of the nation’s leading science reporters and former Science Editor of the Washington Post He began writing about science and medicine for the Minneapolis Tribune, joined the Washington Post as Science Editor in 1968, and did some of the Post’s first environmental reporting From 1985 to 1993 he was senior writer and columnist, originating the column “The Patient’s Advocate”, in the Post’s weekly Health magazine, writing about the problems of patients and how to get good medical care, as well as the nation’s health problems and politics as health care changes In October 1993, he left the Post to become a research fellow at Georgetown University and work on a book on medical care In 1986, Georgetown University awarded him the honorary degree of doctor of science for “insightful reporting fairness and effectiveness” He is currently a research fellow at the American Statistical Association Among his publications is a book, News & Numbers: A Guide to Reporting Statistical Claims and Controversies in Health and Other Fields William Cooper is Professor of Zoology at Michigan State University He became a full professor in 1972 He became co-director of the Design and Management of Environmental Systems Project, sponsored by the Research Associated with Nations Needs (RANN) section of NSF in 1970 From 1975 until 1988, he was Chairman of the Michigan Environmental Review Board He was Chairman of the Zoology Department at Michigan State University from 1981-1987 He is presently Senior Consultant for Environmental Science for Public Sector Consultants, Inc He has been a member of the Science Advisory Board of the Great Lakes Center, the Environmental Cabinet (State of Michigan), Environmental Quality Council (State of Michigan), and consultant for the Michigan Aeronautics Commission Dr Cooper holds membership in five professional societies, two editorial boards, and is a lecturer at the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC He has had two terms on the National Research Council Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology He is also the recipient of the Braun InterTecDow Chair in Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota Dr Cooper is presently a driving force in the formation of the Hazardous Waste Management Consortium that is directed through the Institute for Environmental Toxicology at Michigan State University He has an appointment on the U.S EPA Science Advisory Board and has directed the Relative Risk Assessment Program for Michigan, and currently chairs the Michigan Environmental and Natural Resources Code Commission William Freudenburg is a Professor of Rural Sociology and Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison He has devoted some two decades to the study of technological controversies and the social impacts of © 1996 by CRC Press LLC environmental and technological change, with a special emphasis on the socialscience aspects of risk assessment and risk management His articles have been published in interdisciplinaryjournals such as Science, Risk, Risk Analysis and Technological Forecasting and Social Change, and in numerous sociological journals, including American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Annual Review of Sociology, Rural Sociology, and Social Forces and Social Problems His books include Public Reactions to Nuclear Power: Are there Critical Masses? and Paradoxes of Western Energy Development, both of which were published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science His latest book, written with Dr Robert Gramling and entitled Oil on Troubled Waters, compares the risk perceptions related to offshore oil development in Louisiana vs California He received a B.A from the University of Nebraska; his M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D are from Yale University Jennifer Grund is a Policy Analyst for PRC Environmental Management, Inc of McLean, Virginia She is also pursuing a Master of Public Administration degree at the George Washington University During the 1993-1994 academic year, as a graduate assistant to Professor Bayard Catron, she participated in the Department of Energy’s project entitled, “Deciding for the Future” She graduated from University of Hartford with a degree in History and Politics and Government in 1993 PJ (Bert) Hakkinen earned a B.A degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1974, and a Ph.D in Comparative Pharmacology and Toxicology from the University of California at San Francisco in 1979 From 1979-1982, he was a postdoctoral investigator at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in toxicology and in exposure and risk assessment Dr Hakkinen joined the Procter and Gamble Company (Cincinnati, Ohio) in 1982, and is currently a “Senior Scientist - Toxicology and Risk Assessment” His Procter and Gamble work experience includes human exposure and risk assessment support for numerous types of consumer products He has chaired the Exposure Assessment Task Group of the Chemical Manufacturers Association (Washington,DC) since 1991 Dr Hakkinen is a member of the Society of Toxicology, and a charter member of the Society For Risk Analysis (SRA) and International Society of Exposure Analysis (ISEA) He has been an invited expert at several U.S EPA- and OECD-sponsored workshops held to develop or revise human exposure assessmentguidance and resource documents, and has lectured since 1988 on exposure and risk assessment at the University of Cincinnati Dr Hakkinen was on the Editorial Board of Toxicology, the journal, from 1986 to 1994 and is currently on the Editorial Board of the U.S EPA, SRA, and an ISEA cooperative agreement effort to develop a book entitled Residential Exposure: A Source Book He has authored and co-authored numerous publications, including ones on consumer product exposure and risk assessments, consumer risk perceptions, toxicological interactions, respiratory tract toxicology, and computer software and databases © 1996 by CRC Press LLC John Hartung is a Special Research Affiliate in the Office of Policy Development of the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development and a Research Fellow at the George Washington University Center for Washington Area Studies He is also pursuing a Masters of Public Administration at the George Washington University During the 1992-1993 academic year, as a graduate assistant to Professor Bayard Catron, he participated in the efforts leading to the June 1994 conference at which principles referenced in his chapter were articulated Before coming to Washington, he served as judicial clerk to the Illinois Supreme Court and practiced law with the St Louis based firm of Brown and James, P.C Rachelle D Hollander has been at the National Science Foundation since 1976 She is Program Director for the Ethics and Values Studies (EVS) program EVS supports research, educational, and other projects examining ethical and value issues in the interactions between science, technology and society In 199G1991, Dr Hollander was a Visiting Professor in the Department of Science and Technology Studies at Rensselear Polytechnic Institute She received her doctorate in philosophy in 1979 from the University of Maryland, College Park; she has written articles on applied ethics in numerous fields and on science policy and citizen participation With Dr Deborah Mayo, she edited the volume, Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management She is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a AAAS Council Delegate and member of the Committee on Council Affairs She is on the editorial board of Risk: Health, Safety and Environment and the new journal Science and Engineering Ethics Carolyn J Leep earned a B.S degree in Chemistry from Valparaiso University in 1985, and a M.S degree in Organic Chemistry from Stanford University in 1988 Ms Leep is currently Associate Director, Risk Issues for the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) in Washington, DC She serves as staff executive for several CMA task groups involved in risk assessment activities She also coordinates risk assessment issues across all CMA regulatory affairs programs, involving environmental, product, and occupational risk assessments Prior to joining CMA, Ms Leep was a Senior Associate with ICF Incorporated in Fairfax, Virginia, where she was involved in a number of risk-related projects Douglas MacLean is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County His primary research interests are in moral and philosophical issues in risk analysis and the foundations of policy science He has published many articles and books on these topics, including Energy and the Future, The Security Gamble, and Values at Risk He has been involved in policy making as a consultant or advisor to many government agencies Hon Mike McCormack is a former Member of Congress, former Washington State Legislator, and former research scientist at the Atomic Energy Commission © 1996 by CRC Press LLC (now Department of Energy) Hanford facility He is currently Director of the Institute for Science and Society, dedicated to enhancing the level of Science Literacy throughout society ”, and a member of the Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board While a Member of Congress (1970-1980) McCormack was for years chair of a subcommittee on energy of the House Committee on Science and Technology His experiences on that committee and in shepherding science- and energy-related legislation through the Congress led him to the conviction that members of the scientific community should become active in political affairs and that they should insist on rational consideration of societal issues involving science and technology ‘I James A Nash is Executive Director of the Churches’ Center for Theology and Public Policy He is a Lecturer in Social and Ecological Ethics at the Wesley Theological Seminary His research and writing are focused now on ecology and ethics His latest book is Loving Nature: Ecological Integrity and Christian Responsibility He is an ordained United Methodist minister who received his S.T.B degree from the Boston University School of Theology, attended the London School of Economics and Political Science, and received his Ph.D in Social Ethics from Boston University where he was a Rockefeller Doctoral Fellow in Religion Bryan G Norton received his Ph.D in Philosophy, specializing in conceptual change in scientific disciplines Currently Professor of Philosophy of Science and Technology in the School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, he writes on intergenerationalequity and sustainability theory, with special emphasis on biodiversity and ecosystem characteristics His current research includes work on intergenerational impacts of global climate change (sponsored by the U.S Forest Service) and on valuation of long-term impacts of policy choices (sponsored by the U.S EPA) He is author of Why Preserve Natural Variety? (Princeton University Press, 1987), Toward Unity Among Environmentalists (Oxford University Press, 199l), and co-editor of Ecosystem Health: New Goals for Environmental Management (Island Press, 1992) and Ethics on the Ark (Smithsonian Press, 1995) He is especially interested in developing physical measures of ecosystem-level healtldillness and relating these to human welfare Norton serves on numerous panels, including the Ecosystem Valuation Forum, the Risk Assessment Forum (U.S EPA), and the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee of the EPA Science AdvisoIy Board Christopher J Paterson is a Policy Associate at the Northeast Center for Comparative Risk at the Vermont Law School He is a Ph.D candidate in the Environmental Management and Policy Program in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill He received a M.A in History from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a B.A in Cell Biology from the University of California at San Diego © 1996 by CRC Press LLC Van Rensselaer Potter (11), Ph.D., was born on a farm in Northwestern South Dakota in 1911 He and his wife were married in Madison, Wisconsin in 1935 They have three children and six grandchildren He received a B.S degree in Chemistry and Biology at the South Dakota State University in Brookings in 1933 He received the Ph.D in Biochemistry and Medical Physiology in 1938 at the University of Wisconsin in Madison under Professor Conrad Elvehjem He did post-doctoral research under two Nobel Laureates in Europe in 1938 and 1939: Professor Hans von Euler in Stockholm and Professor Hans Krebs in England, respectively He and his wife returned to the U.S in October of 1939, when he continued his fellowship with Professor Thorfin Hogness at the University of Chicago He received an appointment in the new McArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research at the University of Wisconsin in February 1940 and advanced to Professor in 1947 He received numerous awards for his research on cancer and served as President of the American Association for Cancer Research in 1974-1975 and President of the American Society for Cell Biology in 1964-1965 He is a member of the National Academy of Science and of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences He coined the word “bioethics” in 1970 and published two books and numerous articles on the subject Resha M Putzrath, Ph.D., DABT, is a Principal of Georgetown Risk Group, where she evaluates the toxicological properties of chemicals and estimates their quantitative risk for hazardous waste sites, occupational exposures, and consumer products Her focus is on designing innovative methods for improving the accuracy of analysis by combining information including: evaluation of complex chemical mixtures; appropriate application of mechanism of action, biomarker, and genotoxicity data in the assessment of carcinogenicity; and estimation of attendant uncertainties Prior to establishing her firm,she worked at the National Academy of Sciences, U.S EPA’s Hazardous Waste Enforcement Task Force, and other consulting firms.Dr Putzrath earned her Ph.D in Biophysics at the School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Rochester; she is a Diplomate of the American Board of Toxicology Paul Rebers, before his retirement in 1988, worked as a Research Chemist for 28 years on the chemistry of animal disease at the National Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa He has a B.S and M.S in Chemical Engineering, and a Ph.D in Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota After retirement he served years as a Member of the City Council where he became convinced of the necessity for improving the management of municipal solid waste He organized a symposium for the American Chemical Society in 1994 entitled, “Municipal Solid Waste: Problems and Solutions.” In 1990 he organized a symposium for the American Chemical Society entitled “Ethical Dilemmas of Chemists” His faith in God is responsible for his belief that sound ethical principles are essential to the chemical profession and in the promotion of stewardship on the environment He is a past Secretary of the Division of Professional Relations of the American Chemical Society, and a member of the © 1996 by CRC Press LLC American Society of Microbiology He was elected to the Graduate Faculty of Iowa State University, and to the American Association of Immunologists His major research accomplishments are in the field of carbohydrate chemistry where he developed simple and reliable methods for the determination of the total content of carbohydrate in complex biological mixtures His work on the chemical structure of polysaccharides contributed to the better understanding of their role in the specificity of carbohydrate containing antigens These studies contributed to the development of a new procedure for the serotyping of Pasteurella multocida, the causative agent in fowl cholera, an important disease of poultry He is a member of the Methodist Church and a member of the Masonic Lodge, AF&FM, and a Past Master of the Lodge David W Schnare is a Senior Policy Analyst in the newly organized Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency, where his duties encompass strategic planning program analysis His collateral duties include international technical assistance on sustainable environments and free-market environmental economics He was awarded a baccalaureate degree in Chemistry from Cornell College, as well as a M.S in Public Health and a Ph.D in Environmental Management from the School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill His most recent book is Chemical Contamination and Its Victims, Quorum Books, New York, 1989 Virginia A Sharpe is a faculty member in the Departments of Medicine and Philosophy at Georgetown University and a Charles E Culpeper Foundation Scholar in Medical Humanities She teaches medical ethics and environmental philosophy Kristin Shrader-Frechette is currently Distinguished Research Professor at the University of South Florida in the Program in Environmental Sciences and Policy and the Department of Philosophy She has held Professorships at the University of Florida and the University of California and earned undergraduate degrees in mathematics and physics from Xavier University and a doctorate in philosophy of science from the University of Notre Dame She also did NSF post-doctorates in ecology, economics, and hydrogeology Author of 185 articles and 12 books that have been translated into languages, her most recent volumes are Method in Ecology (Cambridge University, 1993),Burying Uncertainty: Risk and the Case Against Geological Disposal of Nuclear Waste (University of California, 1993) and Risk and Rationality (University of California, 1991) On the editorial boards of 17 journals, Shrader-Frechette is a member of the U.S National Academy of SciencesDJationalResearch Council Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, its Committee on Risk Characterization and its EMAP Committee © 1996 by CRC Press LLC ... the interface of science and policy in environmental decision making Douglas Crawford-Brown is Professor of Environmental Physics in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering at... REFERENCES U.S Environmental Protection Agency, Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities And Strategies For Environmental Protection, Science Advisory Board, September 1990, SAB-EC-9 0-0 21, Washington,... Professor of Environmental Policy in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Formerly chairman of UNC’s Environmental