Programme / Plenary session II – RISK ASSESSMENT – Weighing Risk in Policymaking

When scientists provide evidence to inform policy, evidence is only one component of the decision-making process. There are multiple competing risks, values and factors that inform policy. In a world of increasing geopolitical tensions and immediate risks to human and national security, communicating risk at the science-policy interface can be fraught.  How can science provide and communicate evidence that speaks to both immediacy and complexity of risk, especially in cases where risks may compound?

Summary of the session by session rapporteur Dr Zsuzsa Bagoly, Associate Professor, University of Debrecen, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences: 

When scientists provide evidence to inform policy, evidence is only one component of this decision-making process. There are multiple competing risks, values and factors that inform policy. In a world of increasing geopolitical tensions and immediate risks to human and national security, communicating risk at the science-policy interface can be fraught.

Margaret Hamburg (Co-President of the Interacademy Partnership, IAP) explained that we are living in a golden age of science - the pace of which has never been faster. Regulatory decisions must be grounded in science, and evidence has to be the foundation of decision-making. However, national and cultural values must be reflected during the process. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) faces difficult problems when a product needs to be removed from the market, as often there may be poor other options left. The point of view of the patient needs to be carefully assessed in all such cases. The introduction of new tools and approaches to streamline transparency about the decision-making process is critical. 

Toshio Koike (Executive Director, International Centre for Water Hazard and Risk Management, Public Works Research Institute) was of the opinion that the gap between society/stakeholders and the science community needs to be bridged. He provided an example in which well-informed decisions on water resilience under climate change can be made. A water resilient future in an age of climate change can be created by facilitators between science and society across disciplines and sectors based on quantified uncertainty and integrated knowledge.

Narinder K Mehra (Vice President, Indian National Science Academy) talked about the twin crises of air pollution and microbial resistance. Environmental pollution and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two of humanity’s most important challenges that we are going to face in the next 50 years. Interdisciplinary research, political advocacy and a sustained global effort are all urgently needed in order to tackle these two intertwined global challenges. According to estimations, by 2050, AMR may cause 1.91 million deaths each year, and a further 8.22 million people may die annually from illnesses associated with antimicrobial resistance. Therefore, the critical role of climate change and the environment in the development, transmission and spread of AMR needs to be understood. Understanding how AMR has evolved alongside climate change could provide insights on which policy and effective interventions could be based.

Eörs Szathmáry (Research professor, HUN-REN Centre for Ecological Research) described his view of an evolving AI as an existential threat to humanity. He explained how digital organisms can reproduce, mutate and evolve in a virtual environment by drawing an analogy between the natural selection and evolution of living organisms and those of digital organisms. AI programs can write new programs and can replicate themselves, and a replicator can be very dangerous even it if lacks consciousness. He insisted that a fully autonomous reproduction of artificial intelligence must never be allowed and called for more scientific studies on artificial intelligence.

Marina Rantanen-Modéer (Manager, Saab Underwater Systems) outlined the way in which autonomy forces a paradigm shift in R&D. Autonomy is the capability and mandate to make meaningful decisions. Technology may be used to forecast better investments. At the same time, she suggests to use robust approaches and leverage AI when investing in the technologies that make up autonomy.