Presented by Robert A. Chiusano, Robin M. Fries, Jessa M. Harger

“For decades, both policy maker and analysts have been frustrated by sharp and stubborn conflicts between expert and lay perceptions of environmental risks.”

Presentation Objectives To provide Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion

Main Theme: Real life experiences are directly correlated with human intuition which in turn provides a cognitive framework for general public and expert opinion.

Presentation Objectives To provide Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk To provide Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion

Difference between expert and lay opinion Spectrum of Experience

Presentation Objectives To provide Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk To provide Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion

Delving Deeper Discussion of 3 general theories Discussion of 3 general theories Coin experiment Coin experiment Risk Matrix Risk Matrix –Moving through the risk matrix Differences in individual and social choices Differences in individual and social choices –New York City asbestos (in public schools)

Discussion of 3 theories Theory 1 Theory 1 –An ideological standpoint Theory 2 Theory 2 –Loss of trust Theory 3 Theory 3 –“…Turns on the idea already emphasized, which is that what the expert sees as risk is not the same thing as what the public sees.”

Delving Deeper Discussion of 3 general theories Discussion of 3 general theories Coin experiment Coin experiment Risk Matrix Risk Matrix –Moving through the risk matrix Differences in individual and social choices Differences in individual and social choices –New York City asbestos (in public schools)

Coin Experiment *Coins courtesy of Craig W. Allin and the South Hall commemoration

Questions 1. If the upside is heads, what is the chance that the downside will be heads? 2. If the upside is tails, what is the chance that the downside will be tails? 3. What is the chance that one coin has either heads or tails on both sides?

Applying the Coin Experiment to Margolis

Delving Deeper Discussion of 3 general theories Discussion of 3 general theories Coin experiment Coin experiment Risk Matrix Risk Matrix –Moving through the risk matrix Differences in individual and social choices Differences in individual and social choices –New York City asbestos (in public schools)

The Risk Matrix Risk Assessments Margolis proposes a pair of proverbial contexts to explain two opposite sides of risk assessment Margolis proposes a pair of proverbial contexts to explain two opposite sides of risk assessment –“better safe than sorry” –“waste not, want not”

The Risk Matrix

Definitions Cell 4: indifference Cell 4: indifference –Not having a salient issue at the forefront of our life –Usually the starting and finishing point when moving through the matrix Cell 3: “Waste not, want not” Cell 3: “Waste not, want not” –Signifies an attitude of boldness and risk taking –The idea of getting on with things Cell 2: “Better safe than sorry” Cell 2: “Better safe than sorry” –Signals an attitude of caution –The idea of not moving ahead Cell 1: Fungibility Cell 1: Fungibility –A balance of box 2 and 3 –Giving up values to gain values, a compromise

Delving Deeper Discussion of 3 general theories Discussion of 3 general theories Coin experiment Coin experiment Risk Matrix Risk Matrix –Moving through the risk matrix Differences in individual and social choices Differences in individual and social choices –New York City asbestos (in public schools)

Individual and Social Choices Choices on social issues Choices on social issues –If the overlying lay response is firmly in cell 2, political realities tend to place expert judgment into cell 3 –Conflicts are more intense because both sides are locked into living with the consequences Choices on Individual issues Choices on Individual issues –Experiences either place individuals in cell 2 or cell 3 creating a need for fungibility

Applying the Knowledge New York City asbestos September September 1993, public schools closed over an asbestos concern The The overwhelming expert opinion felt the threat was not serious, however, the lay opinion was the complete opposite Over Over time the risk was assessed again by the lay and the opinion changed, feeling the cost did not outweigh the benefits This This is a direct example of fungibility

Presentation Objectives To provide Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk To provide Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion

Using the Theories to Bring it all together “Do No Harm” “Do No Harm” –The Risk Matrix provides a “do no harm” rule –“The rule itself is only that if a regulation is intended to protect public health, then there ought to be reasonable confidence that the effect of the regulation in fact would be to save lives, not cost lives.” –Does not come from economics, so the rule proposed does not cover the full range of consequences that would be covered in an economic analysis –“The general notion of “do no harm” is so close to immediate common sense that it has been discussed in one way or another many times.”

“Do No Harm” continued… Basically the proposal is to push as many costs as possible on-screen (risk matrix) in context where the regulatory process effectively rules out a full cost-benefit analysis Basically the proposal is to push as many costs as possible on-screen (risk matrix) in context where the regulatory process effectively rules out a full cost-benefit analysis –The proposal provides only a minimal, not a sufficient assessment of the pros and cons of a proposed regulation –Involves the three F’s: Fungibility, Fairness, and Framing

An old episode to illustrate how “do no harm” might work: The abortive FDA plan to ban saccharin The abortive FDA plan to ban saccharin –Easy to link saccharin to ordinary experience, so fungibility comes easily with the consequences we expect –“If we want reasonable confidence that a health regulation would have overall good effects, then the various ways in which the regulation might affect health have to be estimated in a manner that does not stack the deck in favor of regulation.” –So for saccharin, the risk of cancer would have to be weighed against the possible benefits of saccharin*

Continued… For saccharin there is a great uncertainty about how its use actually affects weight loss, but there is also a great uncertainty exactly how much it increases the risk of cancer For saccharin there is a great uncertainty about how its use actually affects weight loss, but there is also a great uncertainty exactly how much it increases the risk of cancer –So in short you have one side that is guilty unless proven innocent and the other is innocent unless proven guilty (proven carcinogenic and not to help weight loss) –The possibility arose of a huge discrepancy between the FDA judgment and a widespread public perception of a need to balance the risks

“Do No Harm” in general: “The argument is not that subtle risks should always be ignored, only that risks of one sort should be assessed parallel to other risks affected by the very same choice. “The argument is not that subtle risks should always be ignored, only that risks of one sort should be assessed parallel to other risks affected by the very same choice. –The three F’s come into play here to reinforce each other in conflict with the FDA proposal to ban saccharin, and clearly fungibility with the major role of the three

Wrap Up To provided Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk To provided Ben, Jill, Dax, and Craig with a basic understanding of Dealing With Risk Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion Presenting the differences between expert and lay opinion To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples To delve deeper into the minds of expert and lay opinion with real life examples Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion Policy Prescriptions based on Margolis’ analysis of expert and lay opinion

Thought Provoking Questions 1. Why do we think we know the things we know? 2. Why are we sometimes wrong about those things? 3. What is the main difference between the lay opinion and expert opinion? 4. How does this pertain to environmental policy?

THE END (you may clap now)