Risk communication problems
Communicating efficiently the results of risk assessments is an enormous challenge. Problems lie in virtually all aspects of the risk communication process, including:
- the individual, agency, or company that presents and conducts the risk assessment;
- the risk assessment itself;
- the means to convey risk information;
- the audience.
Examples of these problems are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 - Examples of risk communication problems.
| Source of the Problem | Examples |
Source of the message |
The source of the risk information, usually a governmental or industrial entity or representative, is not trusted. There is often a reluctance to disclose limitations and uncertainties in the risk estimates. Any disagreements among scientific experts make the information appear to be guesswork. The risk assessment may not address issues of greatest concern to individuals and communities. |
The message |
Risk estimates may have large uncertainties due to limitations in models, methods, and date used in the risk assessment. The inherent technical nature of risk assessments makes them difficult for laypersons to understand. Use of jargon and bureaucratic and legal language make risk assessments even more incomprehensible. |
Channel for conveying the message |
Media interpretation may result in presentation of oversimplified, distorted, or erroneous information. Media emphasis on drama, wrongdoing, or conflicts clouds presentation of risk information. Eagerness by media to report may result in premature disclosures of scientific information. |
Receiver of the message |
Public perceptions of risk (largely based on lack of knowledge) are often inaccurate. There may be unrealistic demands for scientific certainty in risk estimates. There is usually a lack of interest in the technical complexities of the risk assessment, and therefore a poor understanding of what risk estimates represent. Not everyone will be open-minded; some individuals with strong opinions and beliefs will not be receptive to new information. There is often an unwillingness or inability to view risks in context, understand risk tradeoffs, or view risk problems from a perspective other than that of their own perceived immediate interests. |
Source: Data removed from Williams et al. (2000).
One of the greatest hurdles is the fact that risk analyses are often very complex, technical exercises. Making the process and outcome of the risk analysis transparent to laypersons is almost impossible unless there is some opportunity to provide background education about the subject in question. In most situations, this opportunity doesn't exist. The public is arguably one of the most important recipients of risk information, but is also one of the most difficult audiences for risk assessors to communicate with. One problem is that the most common channel for communicating risk information to the public (e.g., information related to toxicology; environmental issues) is through the news media (e.g., newspapers, radio, and television). This presents some difficulties in trying to communicate an accurate and clear message, such as:
- reporting of the information may be biased - can lead to misreporting -, incomplete (e.g., perhaps only those issues that will get the attention of the viewer or reader are communicated), or inaccurate (e.g., much of the toxicological information found on the web). One reason for this is that the media generally does not understand the risk assessment process. In addition, media are often unable to differentiate between real health issues and those of low risk. Moreover, reporters usually lack of scientific qualifications and, consequently, their media reports do not typically focus on the science.
- news accounts may tend to sensationalize or focus on ancillary issues (that can sell more newspapers and, consequently, produce more money), such as disagreements between parties or human interest stories. For example, the media will tend to focus on the pessimistic or "worst-case" evaluation of a risk issue. This fact and the lack of knowledge about a topic may help to perpetuate the fear and concern of the unknown (e.g., public concern over the potential impact of chemicals on the environment) - whether or not the fear is appropriate - and uncertainty surrounding an accident. Consequently, there is a built-in degree of mistrust in many of the things that are heard and read.
- news media usually show little interest in providing the background information needed to educate the public on risk analysis and to help them interpret the results for themselves and, consequently, make informed decisions. One reason for this is that the public itself, for the most part, has revealed little interest in the technical complexities and nuances of risk analysis (e.g., how uncertain the risk may be). In most situations for which a risk assessment is needed, the public wants a straight answer to a simple question:
"Is it safe?"
Anything other than a clear "yes" answer to this question is a matter of concern. This is a second major problem for risk communication. Unfortunately, all too often, the answers conveyed by the risk assessment can seem ambiguous. Scientists are trained to be circumspect in their conclusions and carefully point out any warnings in their analysis. This certainly applies to risk assessments, where responsible presentation of risk estimates is always accompanied by a discussion of the many areas of limitations and uncertainty in the analysis. When all of the uncertainties and warnings are presented along with the risk estimate, the uncertainty looms large and it is easy for the public to conclude that:
"They don't really know what the risk is."
When this happens, regardless of the risk estimates are large or small, scientists have little credibility. Hence, the dilemma for the risk communicator is how to adequately communicate the underlying uncertainties in the risk estimates without losing the essential message that the risks are small or large, as the case may be.
Several strategies have evolved for improving risk communication. One of these is to take very careful attention to the language that is used in risk communication. To avoid awkward and sometimes disastrous misunderstandings, it is important to carefully scrutinize the risk communication message and remove phrases and terms that will be unclear or have a different meaning for the public.
