HANDBOOK FOR Envi ronmental RESK Decision Making - SECTION 5 (end) pdf

© 1996 by CRC Press LLC
SECTION
V
© 1996 by CRC Press LLC
ETHICS AND VALUES
IN ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
27
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
1.
(a) Risk assessment is value laden.
(b) The whole enterprise
of
risk assessment is socially constructed-
2.

(a) Risk assessment
is
an appropriate and useful aid in environmental
(b) Risk assessment should be relied on more heavily in decision making
3.
(a) Public values should be taken into account in decision making and in
(b) Where there is persistent disagreement, public (“political”) values should
meaning that it has no independent validity or objectivity.
decision making, despite its deficiencies.
(as has been proposed in recent bills before Congress).
setting risk reduction priorities.
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 organi-
zations 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 profes-
sional 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 do 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
-
hon-
esty 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 catego-
ries we use to understand anything at all. Facts do 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 orienta-
tion 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
Revo-
Zutions)*,
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 reliabil-
ity. (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 men-
tions 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 in-
volves 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 meth-
odology 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 empha-
sized particularly our limitations in using
ecological
risk
analysis (as William
Cooper did as well), and our problem of understanding long-term and large-
scale 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 risk-
based 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 scien-
tists 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 probabili-
ties and consequences of a technical sort. However, risk is more than that, as
Norton pointed out, and the circumstances under which risk should be under-
taken 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, do 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
do better in blending public and expert judgments in the future.
CONCLUSION
-
FOUR MODEST SUGGESTIONS

Several recommendations can be made, partly derived from the sympo-
sium, but ultimately the personal suggestions of the author:
1.
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.
2.
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
3.
Stop disguising value judgments as technical ones. Freudenberg was par-

ticularly 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.
4. 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. regu-
lator, media bashing, government bashing, lawyer bashing. After all, in
some real sense we
are
all in this together.
REFERENCES
1. 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.
2.
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 Depart-
ment 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 Engineer-
ing, 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 Develop-
ment, 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 Massa-
chusetts. 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
Art
from Seton Hall University School of Law, and

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 epide-
miologist, 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 deci-
sion making.
Douglas Crawford-Brown
is Professor of Environmental Physics in the De-
partment 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 Sci-
ence 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 Univer-
sity 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 198 1-1987. 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 con-
sultant for the Michigan Aeronautics Commission. Dr. Cooper holds member-
ship 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 forma-
tion 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 social-
science aspects of risk assessment and
risk
management. His articles have been
published in interdisciplinary journals 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 devel-
opment 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 gradu-
ated 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 expo-
sure and risk assessment support for numerous types of consumer products. He
has chaired the Exposure Assessment Task Group of the Chemical Manufactur-

ers 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 assessment guidance 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 Devel-
opment 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 Depart-
ment
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 Advance-
ment
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 philosophi-
cal 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
‘I
.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
8
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 commu-
nity should become active in political affairs and that they should insist on
rational consideration of societal issues involving science and technology.
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 intergenerational equity and sustainability theory, with special empha-
sis 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, 199 l), 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 Envi-
ronmental 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 191 1. 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 improv-
ing 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 Enforce-
ment 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 4 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 Protec-
tion 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 undergradu-
ate 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 9 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 Cali-
fornia, 1991). On the editorial boards of 17 journals, Shrader-Frechette is a
member of the U.S. National Academy of SciencesDJational Research Council
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, its Committee on
Risk
Characterization. and its EMAP Committee.