IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v16y1996i6p793-799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Characterization and the Weight of Evidence: Adapting Gatekeeping Concepts from the Courts

Author

Listed:
  • Vern R. Walker

Abstract

Risk characterization objectives include evaluating the weight of evidence underlying risk determinations, communicating that evaluation to nonexperts, guiding risk assessors to achieve consistency, and preserving deference for those reasonable expert judgments inherent in any risk determination. Similar objectives are shared by American courts that face the gatekeeping task of screening scientific evidence before it is presented to nonexpert factfinders, such as juries. This article surveys the judicial gatekeeping concepts of relevance, evidentiary reliability, legal sufficiency, presumptions, and standards of proof (particularly, preponderance of the evidence). It examines recent court decisions that have applied these concepts to the kinds of scientific information common in risk assessments, and suggests how to adapt these gatekeeping concepts for use in weight‐of‐evidence characterization. If we can develop and adopt a neutral framework for characterizing the weight of evidence underlying risk assessments, it might help clarify not only the current debate over risk characterization and risk management, but also the drafting of treaty provisions, such as those invoking the Precautionary Principle of international environmental law.

Suggested Citation

  • Vern R. Walker, 1996. "Risk Characterization and the Weight of Evidence: Adapting Gatekeeping Concepts from the Courts," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(6), pages 793-799, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:6:p:793-799
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00830.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00830.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb00830.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Douglas L. Weed, 2005. "Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1545-1557, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:16:y:1996:i:6:p:793-799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.