Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	1
EPA/600/A-95/151
Ecological Risk Assessment1
Robert T. Lackey
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97333
CITATION: Lackey, Robert T. [1996]. Ecological risk
assessment. In: Molak, Vlasta, editor. [1996], Fundamentals
of Risk Analysis and Risk Management. CRC Press/Lewis
Publishers, New York, NY.
1This chapter is an abbreviated version of "Is Ecological Risk Assessment Useful for
Resolving Complex Ecological Problems?" which was published in Pacific Salmon and Their
Ecosystems: Status and Future Options, Deanna J. Stouder, Peter A. Bisson, and Robert J.
Naiman, editors, Chapman and Hall, Inc., New York, NY, 1995. This chapter does not
necessarily represent the policy positions of the Environmental Protection Agency or any other
organization.

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pmJ
Robert T. Lackey
Summary
Risk assessment has been suggested as a tool to help manage ecological
problems. Ecological risk assessment is usually defined as the process that
evaluates the likelihood that adverse ecological effects are occurring, or may
occur, as a result of exposure to one or more stressors. The basic concept,
while straightforward, is difficult to apply to any but the simplest ecological
problems. Strong reactions, both positive and negative, are often evoked by
proposals to use ecological risk assessment. Risk assessment applied to
relatively simple ecological problems (chemical toxicity being the most common)
is popular; there are many vigorous supporters, particularly among scientists,
administrators, and politicians. Yet critics are equally vocal. The intellectual
history of the risk assessment paradigm as applied to ecological problems does
not follow a neat, linear evolution. A formidable problem in many risk
assessments, and especially for complex questions such as addressing the
challenge of ecological sustainability, is selecting what ecological component or
system is to be considered at risk. This selection is entirely social and political,
but estimating the actual risk is technical and scientific. The question of what
is at risk must be answered within the political decision-making framework or
the results of the risk assessment will be of limited utility. Performing credible
risk assessments for complex ecological problems is difficult unless the
boundaries of the assessment problem are highly constrained. However,
narrowly defining ecological problems produces risk assessments that are of
limited relevance in resolving public policy questions.
Key Words: ecological risk assessment, risk assessment, environmental protection, decision
analysis, expert opinion, conservation, ethics, modeling, multiple use management, sustainability,
bioassays, environmental impact assessment, ecological health, biological diversity

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey
Introduction
Increasingly, there are calls for the use of risk assessment to help solve
complex ecological problems (examples are Pacific salmon decline in the Pacific
Northwest and the decrease in biological diversity). The basic concept
underlying risk assessment is relatively straightforward. Risk is something
that can be estimated (i.e., risk assessment). In turn, that estimate can be
used to manage the risk (i.e., risk management). Ecological risk assessment is
usually defined as "the process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse
ecological effects are occurring, or may occur, as a result of exposure to one or
more stressors." 1 Analyses of the options and procedures for conducting risk
assessment for human health issues are available elsewhere in this book.
The basic concepts of risk assessment may be simple, but the jargon
and details are not. Risk assessment (and similar analytical tools) is a concept
that has evoked strong reactions whenever it has been used. At the extreme,
some have even concluded that use of risk assessment in human health
decision-making is "premeditated murder." 2 A number of philosophical and
moral reasons for such strong reactions exist but they are usually based on
either (1) concerns that the analysis (risk assessment) and decisions (risk
management) accept the premise that people will die to achieve the desired net
benefits, or (2) a belief that the process of risk assessment places too much
power with technocrats.
Reaction to ecological risk assessment may be less harsh than reaction
to risk assessment applied to human health problems, but even with ecological
issues, both strong positive and negative responses occur. Several bills (e.g.,
Environmental Risk Reduction Act) have been introduced in the United States
Congress mandating that federal agencies use risk assessment to set priorities
and budgets. Several panels of prestigious scientists have made similar

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	4
recommendations. Popular and influential publications argue for a risk
assessment approach. On the other hand, some conclude that risk assessment
is a disastrous approach, one that is "scientifically indefensible, ethically-
repugnant, and practically inefficient." 3
Still, risk assessment has been used extensively to link environmental
stressors and their ecological consequences. The risks associated with
chemical exposure are the typical concern. Quantifying the risk of various
chemicals to human health is a logical outgrowth of risk assessment as applied
in the insurance industry and other fields. Over the past 20 years, a body of
procedures and tools has been used for environmental risk assessment for
human health. Risk assessment applied to ecological problems is more recent,
but has also focused primarily on chemicals, with animals used as surrogates
for "ecological health."
Adapting the risk paradigm from assessing insurance risks to assessing
human health risks to assessing ecological risks has not been simple. 4 Some
view ecological risk assessment merely as using new labels for old ideas. It is
still unclear whether ecological risk assessment will actually improve decision
making and ultimately protect ecological resources.
Risk Assessment in Practice
In spite of the difficulties of defining problems in complex ecological
policy questions, the use of risk assessment to help solve ecological problems is
widely supported. Legislation recently debated in Congress would mandate
use of risk assessment by federal agencies for many problems. Clearly, many
people think that risk assessment is a valuable tool and should be used
extensively in solving ecological problems.
There is, however, a vocal group of critics of the use of risk assessment

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	5
for ecological problems. They argue that risk assessment (and risk
management) are essentially triage — deciding which ecological components
will be "saved" and which will be "destroyed." The theme of "biospheric
egalitarianism" is a mindset that makes risk assessment a real anathema.
Many risk assessment critics have a strong sense of technophobia, and often
view mainstream environmental organizations as co-opted by industrial or
technocratic interests.
Risk assessment is also challenged from a different, more utilitarian
perspective. The assertion is that, while the concept of risk assessment is
sound, the process of risk assessment is often controlled by scientists and
others who have political agendas different from the majority. Critics contend
that "risk assessors" use science to support their position under the guise of
formal, value-free risk analysis. Risk assessment as thus viewed has the
trappings of impartiality, but is really nothing more than thinly disguised
environmentalism (or utilitarianism). The apparent lack of credibility and
impartiality of the science (and risk assessment) underlying the policy debates
over acid rain, stratospheric ozone depletion, global climate change, and loss of
biological diversity are often offered as examples of how science has allegedly
been misused by scientists and others to advocate political positions.
Risk assessment has historically been separated from management.
Such separation requires that scientists play clearly defined roles as technical
experts, not policy advocates; these distinctions are blurred when scientists
advocate political positions. Further, some critics charge that scientists who
use their positions to advocate personal views are abusing their public trust.
The counter-argument is that scientists, and all individuals for that matter,
have a right to argue for their views and, as technical experts, should not be
excluded simply because of their expertise. Others conclude that the execution
of the scientific enterprise is value-laden and therefore partially a political

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robtrt T. Lackey	6
activity. Rather than attempting to be solely "scientifically objective," a
scientist should also be an advocate. Either way, the role of the analyst must
be clear to everyone using the results.
History of the Paradigm
Neither risk assessment nor any other commonly used management tool
is completely new, but draws on earlier tools and shares some of the core
principles. For example, both assessment and management are based on the
fundamental premise that all benefits are accruable to man. This is a
utilitarian approach and a necessary assumption in all the models or
paradigms that follow. "All benefits are accruable to man" encompasses the
fact that society might choose to protect wilderness areas that few visit,
preserve species that have no known value to man, or preserve natural
resources for their scenic beauty. Benefits may be either tangible (fish yield,
tree harvest, camping days, etc.) or intangible (pristine ecosystems, species
preservation, visual beauty, etc.). It is easy to jump past the fundamental
premise of a utilitarian assumption, but much of the political debate revolves
around the issue of whether a person operates with a utilitarian world view or
ecocentric (or other, usually religiously-based) world view. It is not a trivial
difference. In practice, however, the split between those with utilitarian and
ecocentric (or other) world views is not complete; most of us manifest features
of both. 5
The multiple use model of managing natural resources has been the
basic paradigm in North America during this century. Popularized by Gifford
Pinchot and others, it has been used extensively and widely in fisheries,
forestry, and wildlife. The idea is simple: There are many benefits that come
from ecological resources (commodity yields, recreational fishing and hunting

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey
experiences, outdoor recreational activities, ecosystem services such as water
purification, etc.) and that the mix of outputs needs to be managed to produce
the greatest good for the greatest number over a sustained period of time. 6
The concept is straightforward and works well if there is a high degree of
shared values among the public.
A number of variations in the multiple use model arose over the middle
years of this century: maximum sustainable yield, maximum equilibrium yield,
and optimum sustained yield. Widely used in teaching and management,
these concepts have dominated mainstream professional thought and practice
through current times. As with all natural resource management paradigms
and goals, none of these evolved in a linear manner. The basic idea is that
commodity yields (fish, trees, wildlife) could be produced annually from
"surplus" production, and could be continued in perpetuity with sound
management. All these models suffered from the problem of a heterogeneous
public with competing demands and with demands that change over time.
Even today, there is still a struggle to control fishing, hunting, and logging
levels in politically acceptable and managerially efficient ways.
Scientific management is a related management paradigm that includes
operations research, management by objectives, optimization, linear
programming, artificial intelligence, and other mathematical procedures. 7
There are many outputs from ecosystems, both commodity and non-
commodity, and these can (must) be measured, and the aggregate output
optimized. The outputs are selected by experts, who then use mathematical
tools to quantify and evaluate various combinations of outputs. Input from the
public is not particularly important because there is a "correct" optimal set of
decisions to maximize output. The natural resource "professional" is dominant
in the process. The view that "if politicians and the public will just stay out of
the process, we professipnals will manage natural resources just fine" is

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17. 1995 [5:32pm]
Robe.l T. Lackey	8
characteristic of scientific management. There are many examples of the
collapse of natural resources based on following this general management
approach.
Ecosystem management, including variants such as watershed
management, has become popular in the past decade. Both ecosystem and
watershed management have ambiguous definitions, illustrated by the popular
wall poster for ecosystem management: "Considering All Things." Usually
other concepts, such as biological diversity, are embedded in ecosystem
management, although biological diversity is an ill- defined concept in its own
right. For example, in our quest to restore salmon stocks, should we eradicate
squawfish (predators) and walleye (competitors), or do we restore ecosystems
(habitat) to some desired state and let nature take its course? Does ecosystem
management mean we "optimize" this mix of species? These and a myriad of
others are policy questions and must be explicitly answered regardless of what
management approach is used. They must be answered as policy questions,
not scientific ones. Advocates of ecosystem management often see it as a
fundamental shift in management and assessment thinking; skeptics see it as
a "warmed-over" version of multiple-use management or, more pejoratively, as
"policy by slogan."
A different approach is embodied in chaos theory and adaptive
management; these approaches recognize the high degree of uncertainty in
ecosystems. The basic idea is that ecosystems are unfathomably complex and
that they react to unpredictable (chaotic) events; thus, it is pointless to develop
sophisticated ecosystem models for decision making based on equilibrium
conditions. There is also constant feedback between man's decisions and
adjustments of the ecosystem to those decisions. Uncertainty is so great that it
is not feasible to create useful predictive models. Also, for alternatives that
preclude future options, adaptive environmental assessment and management

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey
will not work well (for example, construction of dams on the main stem of the
Columbia River has had major ecological consequences for salmon, and each
major project was an irrevocable decision). In general, the manager or analyst
will make a series of "small" decisions, evaluate the results, and then make
revised decisions. To make a "big" decision requires strong public support and
acceptable ways to compensate the losers.
Total quality management (TQM) is a concept that became popular in
business and government in the 1980's and 1990's. The widespread efforts to
"reinvent government" have their basis in TQM. The core idea is that the
customer comes first and, in turn, management should be measured by what
customers want. In natural resource management and environmental
protection, the "customer" is often defined as the "public." Hence, TQM
presupposes that an agency can find out what the "public" wants in terms of
ecosystem management and protection, and then deliver that "product." There
are difficulties in defining the "public," but TQM has been successful in some
business applications. Its usefulness in managing and protecting public
natural resources is open to question, however. In a pluralistic society it is
unlikely that there will be a common public goal for ecological resources that
will allow the principles of TQM to be used effectively.
Risk assessment and management, the final management paradigm
reviewed here, has been used as a tool in some of the previous paradigms, or
as a stand-alone approach. Strongly advocated by some, the approach has
generally been used for assessing the role of chemicals in ecosystems or
components of ecosystems. The basic idea of risk assessment and risk
management is that there are many risks to the environment, ecosystems, and
human health. These risks ought to be identified, quantified, and managed.

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 f5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	10
Available Tools
There is a widely used set of tools and techniques to generate data for a
risk assessment. Initially the question of who assumes the "burden of proof
needs to be addressed. Do risk assessors assume that current ecological
conditions are the norm and any proposed deviation from the status quo must
be justified? Or do they assume some pristine ecological state as the norm?
Or do they assume that the person or organization proposing the action must
justify it? One of the reasons that the Endangered Species Act and Section 404
of the Clean Water Act are so potentially powerful is that they effectively shift
the burden of proof to those who would change a defined condition (e.g.,
species must not go extinct, or wetlands must not be altered unless there is
explicit government approval). The practitioners of ecological risk assessment
often overlook values, ethics, and burden of proof in defining the problem, and
operate instead on the purely technical level. To continue with the salmon
example, why do we assume that the physical alterations of salmon rivers,
such as the Columbia, are irrevocable? Is it not an option to demand that the
organizations responsible for dams demonstrate that the dams are not
adversely affecting salmon populations, or alter their operations (including
removal) so as not to adversely affect salmon? Why should the burden rest
with those trying to protect or restore salmon?
Bioassays are the most commonly used tools in producing the basic data
for ecological risk assessment dealing with exposure to chemicals. There are
many permutations of the basic bioassay and the literature is extensive.
Bioassays work well for certain types of ecological problems and especially for
the "command and control" regulatory approach. Severe limitations, however,
occur in assessing multiple, concurrent stresses, assessing effects on
ecosystems or regions, or assessing effects that are not chemically driven (e.g.,

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	11
land use alterations). It is easy to lose sight of the fact that bioassays are
simplifications of the ecosystems and regions with which risk assessors are
concerned, and are merely surrogates for the realistic tests or experiments that
cannot be performed. On an administrative level, the use of bioassays has
become institutionalized, and the public may now view such tests as more
relevant to protecting the environment than is warranted.
Environmental impact analysis and monitoring are additional tools often
used in risk assessment. Such analyses are relevant to real world problems,
and are often targeted directly at public choice issues; there is an extensive
literature on their many approaches and procedures. Because problems are
"relevant," they are often complex scientifically, and, therefore, the resulting
predictions lack the scientific rigor typically seen in scientific journals. As a
result, users often lack confidence in the reliability of the predictions.
Moreover, the process of developing an environmental impact statement may be
more important than the actual document produced.
Modeling and computer simulation are tools that have proved to be very
popular in ecological risk assessment. These tools have many desirable
features, such as the ability to deal with complex problems, the ability to
evaluate alternative hypotheses quickly, and the ability to organize data and
relationships into a defined whole. However, modelers often fall into the trap of
substituting analytical rigor for intellectual rigor. Very simplistic (and
incorrect) ideas can be masked by mathematical complexity. Even some of the
most widely accepted and applied models in ecology illustrate the problem of
developing and applying models to actual management issues. Further, the
ease and beauty of tools such as computer-assisted geographic analysis can
also cause the analyst to lose sight of intellectual rigor and common sense.
Because most ecological risk assessment problems are complex and do
not lend themselves entirely to laboratory experiments, field experiments, or

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	12
modeling, the use of expert judgement and opinion is desirable and necessary.
Expert opinion is useful, but is not without problems. For example, when
experts have dramatically different opinions, how does a risk assessor handle
this analytically? History is filled with examples of experts being completely in
error. On the other hand, risk assessors trust that experts are less wrong on
topics of their expertise than are non-experts, and the use of experts and
formal expert systems will continue to increase. There is the particularly
insidious problem, when relying on the opinions of technical experts, of
separating their personal and organizational values from their technical
opinions.
Risk assessment, at least in the problem formulation stage, must include
an explicit determination of what the "customer" wants. This is not as easy as
it sounds. The customer is usually the public or a subset of the public (or an
institutional surrogate such as a law or a court determination). Typical
information from the public is that people want to "protect the environment,"
"protect endangered species," or "maintain a sustainable environment." The
same people may also say that they want to "protect family-wage jobs,"
"maintain economic opportunities for our children," and "protect the sanctity
of personal property." It is very difficult to move beyond such platitudes and
obtain information that is really useful in risk assessment. On the other hand,
individuals or elements of society with a direct and vested interest will have
very specific preferences. Those less directly affected tend to have more
general preferences. For example, studies show various elements of the public
possessing at least nine different concepts of sustainability for forests, many of
which are mutually exclusive. 8

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	13
Application
The first step in conducting any analysis of ecological risk is to clearly
define the "problem." Unfortunately this step is often overlooked or resolved
simplistically. In many cases, agreeing on the "problem" is impossible because
that is in itself the political impasse. There is also tension between analysts
who want to simplify the problem so that it is technically tractable, and
politicians (who work in the real world) who must keep problem definition as
realistic (which means technically complicated to analysts) as possible.
Defining the "problem" is a political process, requiring technical input, but is
based on values and priorities.
Considering the specific example of the Pacific salmon helps clarify the
issues. An analyst must explicitly resolve whether the focus is on preserving
some or all stocks (distinct populations) from extirpation, or maintaining some
or all stocks at "fishable" (high) levels. These are largely mutually exclusive
alternatives. They are also not scientific decisions. Further, defining which
species, communities, or ecosystems are to be evaluated in risk assessment is
value-based and not solely a scientific determination. Does the analyst
consider the "baseline" condition to be 10,000 years ago, 200 years ago, or for
the Columbia Basin, pre-impoundment construction (basically before the
Second World War)? Analysts should not decide these questions; society
should. Depending on the baseline selected, the results of a risk assessment
will differ.
Most practioners argue that, to be more useful, risk assessment
(estimating risk) must be separated from risk management (making choices)
both in practice and in appearance. 9,10 There are counter-arguments against
separating assessment from management. Usually the arguments recognize
that it is impossible to separate a person's values from his technical (risk

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pmJ
Roben T. Lackey	14
assessment) activities, and therefore the separation is illusionary. Separating
the two activities (management and assessment) is not as easy as it might
appear. Many scientists have strong personal opinions on public choice issues
that concern ecological resources. It is difficult for anyone to separate purely
technical opinions from personal value judgements. Even more difficult is
convincing all elements of the public (all stakeholders) that the assessment is
being conducted without a bias on the part of scientists.
The best scientists and most credible scientific information must be used
in risk assessment. Besides being independent, the assessors must not
advocate their organization's political position or their own personal agenda. If
the risk assessment is not perceived to be independent, the results will be
suspect. Further, the research and assessment function within an
organization should be separated from the management and regulatory
function. Credibility and impartiality are difficult to maintain, especially in the
public eye.
Risk analysis will result in a number of options to "manage" the risk.
These may range from drastic, expensive options to those that maintain the
status quo, which may also be expensive. Options must be presented as clear
alternatives with statements of ecological benefits and costs, and measures of
uncertainty, for each. There is not a lot of rationality in most decision making,
but there should be in decision analysis. 11 For example, risk analysts (and
scientists) deal with estimates of ecological "change;" risk managers (and
politicians) deal with ecological "degradation" and ecological "improvement."
Such value-based statements move the scientist out of the scientific realm and
into the political, value-driven realm. It may well be true that ecological
conditions are better or worse from the policy perspective, but they are not
better or worse from a scientific perspective.
My recommendations are (1) not to conduct a risk assessment unless

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	15
there is a high likelihood that it will be used in decision making. If
expectations are raised, and if no decision is made, the public senses that
government institutions are not working. (2) Recognize that risk analysis of
any significant ecological problem will result in options that create big winners
and big losers. It serves no productive purpose to try to convince losers that
they are really winners. If someone's property will be effectively expropriated
for some larger societal good, that action should be clearly stated in the
assessment. Conversely, if an owner is permitted to alter his property for
short-term gain, but at huge expense to society at large or to future
generations, that also should be clearly stated.
Some Proposed Changes
First, ecological risk assessment needs to be modified to create a
paradigm of ecological consequence analysis. The concept of risk applied to
natural resources will only work for a narrow set of problems where there is a
clear public (and legal) consensus, and on issues where there is an agreed-
upon time frame of interest (are benefits and risks defined over 10 years or 10
centuries?). With all ecological "risks," a probability (of cause and effect, or
ecological change) is neither good nor bad, it is only a probability. The
resolution of many ecological problems is not limited by lack of scientific
information or technical tools, but by conflict created by fundamentally
different values and social priorities (e.g., for the salmon example, cheap food
via irrigation water use vs. fishing; cheap power vs. free flowing rivers;
personal freedom vs. land-use zoning). If we are dealing with an ecological
problem that is at an impasse because some of the stakeholders do not accept
the utilitarian model, we should not be surprised when risk assessment and
management do not resolve the issue. We need to do ecological consequence

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm/
Robert T. Lackey	16
analysis, and let the political process select the desired option.
Second, the concept of ecological "health" needs to be better defined and
understood by politicians and the public. The fundamental problem is not lack
of technical information but what is meant by health. Is a wilderness condition
defined as the base, or preferred level, of ecological health? Is the degree of
perturbation by human activity the measure of ecological health? The concept
of ecological "degradation" is human value-driven; the concept of ecological
"alteration" is scientific. If the consequences of chaotic events in ecosystems
are considered, what is "natural"? There are scientific answers for some of
these questions, but political (social) answers to many others.
Third, risk assessors need better ways to use expert opinion. Most of the
policy-relevant problems in ecology are too complex for easy scientific
experimentation or analysis. An old rule in policy analysis is that if something
can be measured, it is probably irrelevant to public choice. If problems are
simplified to the point of making them scientifically tractable, then the result
may lack policy relevance. Expert opinion must be used. Computer-generated
maps and computer-assisted models may be elegant, but for really important
decisions, the political process demands expert opinion.
Fourth, better ways need to be developed to evaluate and measure public
preference and priorities in framing ecological issues. Public opinion polls
always show that the public is very supportive of the "environment," as it is
with "peace," "freedom," and "economic opportunity." The public is similarly
supportive of preserving biological diversity, ecosystem management, and
sustainable natural resource management. Unfortunately this type of
information is of limited use in helping make difficult environmental decisions.
The public is not a monolith; it encompasses many divergent views, and
individuals vary greatly in the intensity of their opinions. Individuals may
argue forcefully for the "industrial economic paradigm" or for the "natural

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T, Lackey	17
economic paradigm," but practical political options are not framed in this
context.
The fifth critical need is to develop better ways to present options and
consequences to the public, to policy analysts, and to decision-makers. Society
is not well served by statements such as "it is a complicated problem and you
need to have an advanced degree in ecology to understand it," or "you can
select this option without significant cost to society" when there will be costs to
some people. The main take-home message in risk assessment must be that
there are no free lunches in environmental protection, and that policy
alternatives and the consequences of each must be explained in ways that the
users of the assessments understand.
Conclusion
Biological and social science must be linked if public decision making is
to be improved. Too often forestry, fisheries, and wildlife problems are viewed
as biological challenges. It is society that should define problems and set
priorities, but the public speaks with not one, but many voices. Many of the
stated public demands are mutually exclusive. Ecological "health," for
example, is a social value defined in ecological terms. But, incorporating
public input into risk assessment and management may be carried to the
extreme (e.g., democratization).
Scientists must maintain a real and perceived position of providing
credible ecological information — information that is not slanted by personal
value judgements. Those involved in risk assessment cannot become
advocates for any political position or choice, lest their credibility suffer. Such
a position may be painful at times because no one can completely separate
personal views from professional opinions. Risk assessors must be clear to the

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	18
public (and political officials) on what scientific and technical information can
and cannot do in resolving public choice issues.
We should not assume that complex ecological problems, such as the
decline of the Pacific salmon, have only technological and rational solutions.
Although tools such as risk assessment might help at the margins of the
political process, they are not going to resolve the key policy questions. Non-
rational ideas are extremely important in all significant public choice issues.
Scientists and risk assessors should guard against technical hubris, a false
sense of confidence in technology, technological solutions, and rational
analysis . . . including risk assessment.

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	19
References
1.	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Framework for ecological risk
assessment, Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, EPA/630/R-92/001,
41 pp, 1992.
2.	Merrell, P., and C. Van Strum, Negligible risk: premeditated murder?
Journal of Pesticide Reform, 10, 20,1990.
3.	O'brien, M. H., A proposal to address, rather than rank, environmental
problems. Presented at "Setting National Environmental Priorities: the EPA
Risk-Based Paradigm and its Alternatives," Resources for the Future,
Annapolis, Maryland, 15-17 November, 22 pp., 1992.
4.	Lackey, R. T., Ecological risk assessment, Fisheries, Bulletin of the
American Fisheries Society, 19, 14, 1994.
5.	Herzog, H., Human morality and animal research: confessions and
quandaries, The American Scholar, 62, 337, 1993.
6.	Callicott, J. B., Conservation ethics and fishery management, Fisheries,
16, 22, 1991.
7.	Lackey, R. T., Options and limitations in fisheries management,
Environmental Management, 3, 109, 1979.
8.	Gale, R. P., and S. M. Cordray., Making sense of sustainability: nine

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Rober* T. Lackey
20
answers to'what should be sustained?' Rural Sociology, 59, 311,1994.
9.	Ruckelshaus, W. D., Risk, science, and democracy, Issues in Science and
Technology, 1, 19, 1985.
10.	Suter, G. W. (editor), Ecological risk assessment, Lewis Publishers, Boca
Raton, Louisiana, 496 p., 1993.
11.	Douglas, M., and A. Wildavsky, Risk and culture, University of California
Press, Berkeley, California, 221 p., 1982.

-------
Ecological Risk Assessment
October 17, 1995 [5:32pm]
Robert T. Lackey	21
Questions
1.	What is the definition of ecological risk assessment? How does risk
assessment differ from risk management?
2.	Compare and contrast the application of risk assessment to ecological
issues and human health issues.
3.	What are the most important reasons offered for using risk assessment to
help solve ecological problems? What are the major objections to the use of
risk assessment to help solve ecological problems?
4.	Compare and contrast the role of values, ethics, and science in formulating
the "problem" in ecological risk assessment.
5.	What are the commonly used alternatives to ecological risk assessment?
What are their advantages and disadvantages?
6.	Should the process of risk management be linked to risk assessment?
What are the major benefits and dangers with the alternatives?
7.	How is adverse determined in ecological risk assessment? Who decides
what is adverse?
eco-risk. crc

-------