Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000nab a2200000 i 4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20071501088</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20080418122638.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="007">hzruuu---uuuu</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">000906e19990801usa||||    | |00010|eng d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">7</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080056490</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Slovic, Paul</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: surveying the risk-assessment battlefield</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Paul Slovic</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Risk management has become increasingly politicized and contentious. Polarized views, controversy, and conflict have become pervasive. Research has begun to provide a new perspective on this problem by demonstrating the complexity of the concept "risk" and the inadequacies of the tradicional view of risk assessment as a purely scientific enterprise. This paper argues that danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Risk assessment is inherently subjective and represents a blending of science and judgment with important psychological, social, cultural, and political factors. In addition, our social and democratic institutions, remarkable as they are in many respects, breed distrust in the risk arena. Whoever controls the definition of risk controls the rational solution to the problem at hand.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080588953</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Análisis de riesgos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080602871</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Percepción del riesgo</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080609788</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Comunicación del riesgo</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="0" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080591182</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Gerencia de riesgos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="650" ind1="1" ind2="1">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20080604394</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Valoración de riesgos</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20077000345</subfield>
      <subfield code="t">Risk analysis : an international journal</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">New York and London : Society for Risk Analysis</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">Vol. 19, nº 4, Agosto, 1999 ; p. 689-700</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>