We are continuously informed of new risks to our health and welfare. Many of these risks can be attributed to technology—which simultaneously makes our lives easier and more dangerous.

In his 1990 book Technological Risk, which won the science writing award of the American Institute of Physics, H.W. Lewis writes: "We are both beholden to technology for enrichment of our lives and suspicious of the associated risks. . . It is an uneasy cohabitation." According to Lewis, uneasiness stems from consequences associated with technology. We tend to be wary of things unfamiliar or uncertain.

Fortunately, scientists are used to dealing with the unknown. The quest for answers keeps them in business.

* * * * * *

People have used scientific methods to measure, interpret, and quantify risks for many centuries. However, contemporary advances in technology, coupled with the expansion of our knowledge about the way things work, has intensified risk exploration.

Federal and state statutes and regulations designed to protect the public and the environment from exposure to pollutants have been in effect for nearly two decades. These regulations require risk assessment. Defined in Michigan Sea Grant's 1995 publication Reporting on Risk: A Journalist's Handbook on Environmental Risk Assessment, risk assessment is "a scientific process of evaluating the adverse effects caused by a substance, activity, lifestyle, or natural phenomenon." While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) serves as the primary regulating agency for risk assessment studies pertaining to the general public and the environment, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the primary regulator of occupational hazards.

Mark Hahn, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) marine toxicologist, has conducted several risk characterization studies, key components of risk assessments. One, a WHOI Sea Grant–supported study of the effects of contaminants on marine mammals, highlights the use of molecular biological techniques.

Contaminants—in particular, planar halogenated aromatic hydrocarbons (PHAHs), including PCBs, chlorinated dibenzofurans, and chlorinated dioxins—are known to accumulate in some marine mammals. Exposure to PHAHs and other organic contaminants has been blamed for reproductive and hormonal dysfunction and reproductive abnormalities. Because legal and ethical concerns prohibit the direct testing of toxic chemicals on protected species such as marine mammals, scientists cannot draw direct conclusions as to the cause and effect relationship between PHAH exposure and marine mammal sensitivity to these contaminants. For this reason, Hahn’s study takes an alternative approach.

The study is focused on an intracellular protein known as the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (Ah receptor or AhR), which is thought to mediate most of the effects of PHAHs in vertebrate animals. "It has been suggested that the presence and properties of the AhR are critical determinants of the sensitivity of animals to PHAH toxicity," says Hahn, citing evidence from a series of studies on inbred mice conducted over two decades. While AhR is not the only factor influencing susceptibility to PHAH effects, Hahn acknowledges, it represents a logical starting point for investigation.

In many ways, says Hahn, his studies with marine mammals parallel the difficulties with studying disease in humans. "In both cases, legal and ethical concerns preclude direct examination on the subjects of interest. Yet the need for both human and ecological risk assessments requires that we understand the sensitivity of humans and wildlife to PHAH and other chemicals. The future of risk assessment," he says, "lies in a fundamental understanding of mechanisms of chemical action, combined with in vitro molecular and biochemical studies that assess the susceptibility of certain species."

Aside from supporting risk assessment work, Sea Grant programs across the country have funded studies of risk management, risk communication, risk perception, and risk susceptibility.

Predicting risk helps scientists and others manage and communicate the risk. To predict risk, scientists often develop models. MIT Sea Grant is currently funding a study of risk in navigation-related shipping accidents. In this project, Hauke Kite-Powell and Di Jin, WHOI Marine Policy Center scientists, are working with Nicholas Patrikalakis, MIT ocean engineering professor, and two MIT graduate students to formulate a model for predicting the risk of navigational vessel casualties, such as groundings and collisions.

Groundings of commercial ships account for one-third of all commercial maritime accidents, says Kite-Powell. "Groundings represent a risk because they expose vessel owners and operators, and the public, to the possibility of losses—vessel and cargo damage or loss, injuries or deaths, environmental damage, and others," he says.

"We're looking at historical groundings and factors such as environmental conditions and uncertainty in nautical charts to see if they contribute to risk, and, if so, how," explains Kite-Powell.

The study has focused on five U.S. ports: San Francisco Bay, Houston/Galveston, Tampa Bay, Port of New York/New Jersey, and Boston Harbor. So far, results indicate that vessel type, vessel size, wind speed, visibility, and, possibly ship registry (country of origin), may all be useful risk factors to include in their model of port-related grounding risk. One preliminary finding shows that having real-time environmental information—currents, tide levels, and winds—may reduce the likelihood of grounding. While further analysis is needed, data from the port of Tampa Bay show a dramatic decline in the number of groundings in the 1990s, when real-time information became available.

Modelling can be used for many scenarios. Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University economics professor, developed a model-based approach to help predict the timing, political responses, and economic implications of rising sea level. Supported in part by Connecticut Sea Grant, the model projects when problems related to sea level rise may occur, the best timing for various responses, and cost-benefit analyses of property protection versus no protection. The research also includes working with decision-makers to better understand their perception of risk and response.

In a Rhode Island Sea Grant-supported study, a pair of researchers seeking to understand risk perception landed on the fishing docks. Their subject? Commercial fishermen from the busy ports of New Bedford, Mass., and Point Judith, R.I.

Commercial fishing is a dangerous occupation: The death rate for commercial fisherman is seven times the national average for all industrial occupations. However, statistics and perceptions often correspond poorly. John Poggie and Richard Pollnac, University of Rhode Island, anthropology professors, wondered whether the fishermen themselves viewed their jobs as dangerous.

"Fishermen tend to be risk-seekers," says Pollnac, who found that fishermen underestimate, downplay, or deny their risk. And, the more accidents a fisherman experiences, the less concern he has with the incidents, Pollnac says.

"Fewer [fishermen] experience post-traumatic stress syndrome than you'd expect," says Pollnac, "and the degree of concern is lessened because they've lived through [an accident]." Instead of post-traumatic stress syndrome, which in other fields may cause people to abandon their profession, Pollnac says commercial fishermen get together after a dangerous trip and talk about it. "It's a culturally acceptable form of group therapy," he says.

The study had an underlying motive: improving industry safety by developing realistic and effective training programs for fishermen. "If you understand their perception of risk," explains Pollnac, "you can structure the training to address those perceptions."

In Casarett and Doull's 1991 text Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons, Robert A. Scala points out the differing perspectives between lay persons and experts. "[Experts] rank risk usually from their knowledge of actual fatality rates for any given hazardous activity or agent. Lay persons have some sense of these rates but tune or temper that judgement by impressions of catastrophic potential, fear for future generations, and other elements of dread," writes Scala.

A recent study of Cape Cod coastal residents illustrates Scala's point. The WHOI Sea Grant study, led by Yoshiaki Kaoru, formerly a WHOI Marine Policy Center associate scientist, used a survey to determine the relationship between level of knowledge and perceived risk.

Investigators found that effective communication about flood risk among scientists, policy-makers, and the public was an influential factor in respondents' willingness to pay (WTP) for flood insurance.

Three versions of a questionnaire were mailed randomly to 2,500 coastal residents, with the versions offering different types or amounts of flood risk information. Respondents were queried about perceived flood risk and willingness to purchase flood insurance at hypothetical premium prices. The survey return rate was 66 percent.

The average price respondents were willing to pay for a flood insurance premium was $575, not far off the actual premium, $484, paid by flood insurance policyholders in the Cape Cod survey at the time of the study.

Researchers found that the most detailed description of flood risk on Cape Cod clearly increased the respondents' WTP—an average of $1,038. By contrast, less detailed versions of the questionnaire yielded WTP averages of $572 and $370, respectively.

"Many important policy decisions are made in order to prevent potential future catastrophe, such as that caused by severe storms or hurricanes," says Kaoru. "Risk perceived by the public can significantly influence policy decisions."

If that is the case, what happens when the perception of risk is influenced by biased, inaccurate, or incomplete information? And what about the influence of the media on risk perception?

In his book, Lewis asserts that the media emphasizes "flashy events and rare diseases to the point that people come to think that what is being reported fairly represents what is happening." Lewis points out that the media cover these "flashy" stories because people like to read them—which translates into commercial success for the media outlets. However, he notes that along with the general public, regulators and legislators are also subject to the media's versions of risks.

WHOI researcher Hahn adds that the credibility of science is compromised "when new findings are overinterpreted, by the scientists themselves or more usually, by the press or public relations offices of agencies or institutions—especially when the implications of such results are later shown to be of less concern or even not true." This goes back to risk perception and risk communication issues.

Is better communication of the risk the solution? New York Sea Grant has supported three studies on risk communication as a new dimension in sport-fisheries management. Led by Barbara Knuth, Cornell University natural resources associate professor, the projects have examined angler awareness of health advisories, as well as the vehicles used to distribute a message about fish consumption advisories.

"In general," says Knuth, "licensed anglers are aware of health advisories, but the awareness varies by gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic factors. Women, non-white populations, and lower income anglers are less aware of the advisories than male anglers, in varying degrees." Knuth found that angler response to the advisories also varies by population. "Some anglers stop fishing or eating sport-caught fish altogether," she says. "Some stop eating sport-caught fish in excess of the amount recommended in the advisories. Those who exceed the recommended amount indicate that they are more careful [in its preparation and handling]."

In another study, Knuth looked at the risk message, the messengers, the communication channels, the communication filters, and the receivers of the fish-consumption advisories to provide guidelines for fishery managers. Knuth concluded that using fish-consumption advisories is an appropriate management response to chemically contaminated sport fisheries, but that it is only a first step in what should be a sequence of management responsibilities. And, as with any effective communications program, Knuth concluded that familiarity with the target audience is critical to successful risk communication.

What happens when risk communication meets face-to-face with already formed perceptions of risk?

"It would be comforting to believe that polarized positions respond to informational and educational programs," writes Paul Slovic in his 1991 book Acceptable Risk. Often, however, this is not the case. "Psychological research demonstrates that people's beliefs change slowly and are extraordinarily persistent in the face of contrary evidence. . . new evidence will appear reliable and informative if it is consistent with one's initial beliefs, and conversely, contrary evidence will be dismissed as unreliable, erroneous, or unrepresentative."

Modern society has its benefits—such as advances in technology, medicine, and invention—and its costs—such as pollution and other threats to our health and environment. Uncertainty and risk are inextricably linked to progress. It is up to all of us to achieve—and maintain—the balance between these benefits and costs. We can best do this through education. By involving the public in research and information gathering, we help create stakeholders in the scientific process.

As the futurist John Schaar states: "The future is not a result of choices among alternative paths offered by the present, but a place that is created—created first in the mind and will, created next in activity. The future is not some place we are going to, but one we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them, changes both the maker and the destination."