USDA again

[Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX]

I hope Mike does not hit me for bouncing this off-line note back into the
lepsterism discussion group :-) but he raises an important point below
related to risk assessment and degrees of comfort/discomfort with the
reality of risk that is inherent in every decision. I would be very
interested in seeing, for the monarch release issue, a formal and structured
risk assessment that uses our best available information and expert opinion.
I could then at least understand the logic even if I still did not agree
with the results.  All I see at the moment is a lot of speculation and
apparent personal biases (which I also have, of course) being put forward as
science and as statutory decisions to protect the public interest.  Sorry
but I cannot buy what is being offered for sale.  Based on the information I
have seen to date I can only conclude that the level of risk attached to
monarch release is so low that it does not even register on my risk radar.
but some people on some issues are not willing to accept any level of risk.
We could have an interesting debate on how practical or useful is the notion
of zero risk :-) Also I am very disappointed that the decisions to list or
not list proposed endangered species do not use explicit risk assessment as
part of the decision making process.  I see lots of concerns raised in the
documents but no assessment of how likely the concerns are to materialize.
The documentation too often strikes me as being based on a gloom and doom,
the sky is falling, lets conjure up the most negative scenario type of
mind-set. Flame away if you disagree; I wear flame proof clothing :-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Gochfeld [mailto:gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:06 AM
To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
Subject: Re: USDA again


I agree with you that many extreme positions are taken.  My former
chief, Bernard Goldstein, developed a position on the 
precautionary principle requiring on-going evaluations of the impact of
the principle and the evolution of the science, since policy decisions
always have a time axis which exists after some decision is reached. 

The distinction between risk prone and risk averse personalities is
indeed very real. We use questionnaires in our RISK ASSESSMENT class in
order to help students recognize their underlying views and preferences
regarding how risky something would have to be before they would take an
action.  

Mike Gochfeld

"Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" wrote:
> 
> Count me in as a supporter and practitioner of the precautionary
principle,
> both on the job and in my personal life.  It is an agreeable approach, but
> like anything can be taken to extremes and in my view has been taken to
> absurd extremes on the issue of monarch releases.  If we applied the
> principle to extremes, nothing would happen as the world grinds to a halt
> through the paralysis of analysis.  Also like with everything else
involving
> people, we all have different views and comfort levels with the degree of
> risk that we are prepared to take or support. As usual I am not saying
that
> any one answer is right; lets just recognize the different views and move
> forward in exploring what is reasonable at the end of the day.  People
with
> a very low risk tolerance would take the precautionary principle far
further
> than I would. Maybe they are 'right' and maybe not :-)
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gochfeld [mailto:gochfeld at eohsi.rutgers.edu]
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 5:22 AM
> To: Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX
> Cc: 'stanlep at extremezone.com'; leps-l at lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: USDA again
> 
> I can well understand and sympathize with Norbert's concise philosophical
> statement below.
> However, like it or not there is an underlying logic which is not grasping
> at
> straws.  It is a formalized policy approach called the
> PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.  It is, of course controversial, like not taking
> precautions, but it is
> a philosophical approach to governmental action that is being debated in
> many
> scientific-policy meetings around the world. It has many detractors and
many
> advocates.
> 
> It depends in part on the probability and the consequences of the "things
> that
> may happen".
> 
>  And not surprisingly there are people who would apply the precautionary
> principle to some aspects of life but not others.
> 
> Michael Gochfeld
> 
> "Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX" wrote:
> 
> > the reason was given on this list from a usda official. I guess some
> people
> > see logic in conjuring up things that "may happen" as reasons to
prohibit
> a
> > human activity. This is no logic at all. It is grasping at straws to
> meddle
> > in the lives of other people because of personal philosophical or
ethical
> > reasons and is not fit logic on which to base a government decision.

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl