...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of risk research >Why separate risk assessors and risk managers? Further external values affecting the risk assessor qua risk assessor
【24h】

Why separate risk assessors and risk managers? Further external values affecting the risk assessor qua risk assessor

机译：为什么要分开风险评估者和风险管理者？影响风险评估师或风险评估师的其他外部价值

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The functional separation of risk assessment and risk management has long been at the heart of risk analysis structures. Equally long it has been criticized for creating technocratic risk management due to valuations being done in the risk assessment to which the stakeholders do not have access. The criticism has mostly been of an ethical nature. Arguably, in separating risk assessment and risk management, one hopes to fulfil two requirements: (1) Social requirement: we (citizens) want risk management to meet the goals and needs of society. (Therefore, there is an obvious reason to have publicly elected risk managers.) (2) Scientific requirement: we (citizens) do not want political views to influence the assessment of facts. (Therefore, there is an equally obvious reason to have risk assessors who are not publicly elected.) We ask in this paper whether it is, in principle, possible to separate risk assessment from risk management. The crucial distinction between risk assessment and risk management we take to be between what kinds of values are involved in them and that separation is meant to shield risk assessment from risk management values and vice versa. Risk assessment is judged to be a scientific activity that should only involve scientific values. We go through a paradigmatic example of good science to see what those scientific values are and whether they are the only ones influencing science. We also present an example of a risk assessment in order to compare it to science. We conclude that the values involved in both science and risk assessment are of the same kind and that they both involve extra-scientific values. The paper ends with a short discussion of whether the above requirements can be met even though risk assessment and risk management are interdependent.
机译：风险评估和风险管理的功能分离长期以来一直是风险分析结构的核心。同样长时间以来，由于在风险评估中进行了估值，而利益相关者也无法获得评估，因此创建技术专家制的风险管理受到了批评。批评主要是出于道德性质。可以说，在将风险评估和风险管理分开时，人们希望满足两个要求：（1）社会要求：我们（公民）希望风险管理能够满足社会的目标和需求。 （因此，显然有理由公开任命风险管理者。）（2）科学要求：我们（公民）不希望政治观点影响事实评估。 （因此，有一个同样明显的理由是没有公开选举风险评估师。）我们在本文中询问，原则上是否有可能将风险评估与风险管理分开。风险评估和风险管理之间的关键区别在于它们所涉及的价值类型之间的区别，而这种区分是为了使风险评估不受风险管理价值的影响，反之亦然。风险评估被认为是一项科学活动，只应涉及科学价值。我们以优秀科学的范例为例，看看这些科学价值是什么以及它们是否是唯一影响科学的价值。我们还提供了一个风险评估的示例，以便将其与科学进行比较。我们得出的结论是，科学和风险评估所涉及的价值是同一种价值，并且它们都涉及超科学价值。本文最后简短讨论了即使风险评估和风险管理是相互依存的，也能否满足上述要求。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号