Gender, Risk, and Scientific Proceduralism

Elisabeth Boetzkes
{"title":"Gender, Risk, and Scientific Proceduralism","authors":"Elisabeth Boetzkes","doi":"10.1046/j.1526-0992.1998.00088.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>ABSTRACT</p><p>In this article, I consider the implications of gender differences for determining acceptable risk. Although often unacknowledged, values are ineradicable from risk identification, estimation, and acceptability. Because empirical studies, including some conducted by McMaster University’s Eco-Research group, show significant gender differences in risk assessment, democratic decisions about acceptable risk must reflect the values of females as well as males. I argue that Kristin Shrader-Frechette’s model of scientific proceduralism, modified to incorporate findings about gender differences, can contribute to fairness in decision-making about risk. Furthermore, because females are more environmentally concerned than are males, especially at local levels, ecosystem health would be well-served by decentralizing environmental decision-making and ensuring gender representation.</p>","PeriodicalId":100392,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Health","volume":"4 3","pages":"162-169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1526-0992.1998.00088.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

Abstract

ABSTRACT

In this article, I consider the implications of gender differences for determining acceptable risk. Although often unacknowledged, values are ineradicable from risk identification, estimation, and acceptability. Because empirical studies, including some conducted by McMaster University’s Eco-Research group, show significant gender differences in risk assessment, democratic decisions about acceptable risk must reflect the values of females as well as males. I argue that Kristin Shrader-Frechette’s model of scientific proceduralism, modified to incorporate findings about gender differences, can contribute to fairness in decision-making about risk. Furthermore, because females are more environmentally concerned than are males, especially at local levels, ecosystem health would be well-served by decentralizing environmental decision-making and ensuring gender representation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
性别、风险与科学程序主义
在这篇文章中,我考虑了性别差异对确定可接受风险的影响。虽然通常不被承认,但价值在风险识别、评估和可接受性中是不可避免的。由于实证研究,包括麦克马斯特大学生态研究小组进行的一些研究,表明在风险评估方面存在显著的性别差异,关于可接受风险的民主决策必须反映女性和男性的价值观。我认为Kristin Shrader-Frechette的科学程序主义模型,经过修改纳入了关于性别差异的发现,可以促进风险决策的公平性。此外,由于女性比男性更关心环境问题,特别是在地方一级,分散环境决策和确保性别代表性将有利于生态系统的健康。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
BOOK REVIEW BOOK REVIEW BOOK REVIEW BOOK REVIEW Logical Interrelations between Four Sustainability Parameters: Stability, Continuation, Longevity, and Health
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1