Search

Social scientists have expressed strong views on corporate influences over science, but most attention has been devoted to broad, Black/White arguments, rather than to actual mechanisms of influence. This paper summarizes an experience where involvement in a lawsuit led to the discovery of an unexpected mechanism: A large corporation facing a multibillion-dollar court judgment quietly provided generous funding to well-known scientists (including at least one Nobel prize winner) who would submit articles to "open," peer-reviewed journals, so that their "unbiased science" could be cited in an appeal to the Supreme Court. On balance, the corporation's most effective techniques of influence may have been provided not by overt pressure, but by encouraging scientists to continue thinking of themselves as independent and impartial.

Despite the warnings of risk communication specialists, members of the technical community often urge that technological risks should be "put in context" by comparisons against risks that are more familiar. Little quantitative evidence is available on the actual behavioral consequences of such risk comparison efforts. In the present study, subjects were presented with two types of information about a hazardous waste incinerator--a simplified statistical summary and a comparison of incinerator risks against the risks of smoking. Statistical information led to a modest increase in the reported willingness to vote in favor of the incinerator in a community referendum, but the comparison against cigarettes led to a slight decrease in support; the difference between the two messages is statistically significant (p < .001). In combination with other results, this study's findings suggest that an implicit assumption of risk comparisons is in error: Opposition to controversial technologies may have little to do with citizens' levels of information about technology, having more to do with citizens' levels of trust in governmental and industrial actors.

Risk assessment is commonly seen as the domain of physical and biological sciences, with social scientists focusing instead on risk management and communication. This division is unnecessary, and it may lead to errors in risk assessments. Social science input is needed for more accurate calculations of risk consequences and probabilities and for identifying potential biases created by certain risk assessment procedures, as well as in analyzing and explaining public responses to risk. Findings, moreover, suggest that the dichotomy between "real" and "perceived" risk is less "real" than is often assumed, particularly in cases involving controversial technologies.