Getting beyond 'grin and bear it' in the practice of risk management

Risk perception researchers frequently notice major discrepancies between expert judgment and lay opinion concerning the identity of 'large' risks. These discrepancies are particularly disconcerting because they lead to a significant misallocation of scarce resources devoted to public risk management. Yet, democratic decision-making also appeals to many risk perception researchers, and some see such little prospect for a solution thaty they seem close to surrendering to decision-making based on lay risk perception. This article argues that such a 'grin and bear it' strategy is also unsatisfactory; that risk perceptions are unstable grounds for decision-making; that expert risk assessment and lay risk perception differ by design rather than accident; that risk experts' search for 'virtuous lawmakers' who would make public decisions for the greatest public good is a vain one; that the dissonance risk perception researchers now observe will likely get worse in the new information age; and that risk perception researchers need to return to first principles to find solutions to these dilemmas. In particular, the gap between expert judgment and lay perception will close only when non-experts are permitted and expected to make their own risk management decisions, so far as that is possible, while bearing full responsibility for their choices