Communication of Environmental Risk: Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Information and Legal Decision-Making. L. A. Reynolds, University of British Columbia Faculty of Law and University of Alberta EcoResearch Chair in Environmetal Risk Management, 13-103 Clinical Sciences Building, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada TG6 2G3
A series of studies completed in the Spring of 1995 examined the communication of environmental and environmental health risk information by the scientific community in legal decision-making processes such as trials and administrative hearings involving environmental/environmental health issues, and the comprehension/understanding of those information by decisions-makers in those processes. In order to address the interdisciplinary issues arising in this area, the research involved a series of 4 related empirical studies which attempt to identify the concerns of 4 of the primary participants in environmental/environmental health decision-making processes -- the judiciary, administrative tribunal members, legal counsel and expert scientific witnesses. Comprehensive survey questionnaires designed to generate both quantitative and qualitative data with respect to the perceptions of each of the 4 study groups were developed and distributed to representatives from each of the groups across 5 Canadian jusidictions (Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory). Each of the studies examined the perceptions of respondents with respect to a wide range of issues involving the communication of scientific information to decision-makers with limited or no scientific training, including the use of technical language and the distortion of scientific information by cross-examination by opposing legal counsel. Related issues concerning the comprehension of scientific information by nonscientific decision-makers were also addressed, including the ability of decision-makers to understand the methods of scientific inquiry and proof, the merits and pitfalls of statistical analysis, and the value premisses and professional biases which underlie scientific information. Finally, the studies also explored the current nature of the relationship between the scientific and legal communities, including the perceptions of the respondent groups with respect to communication between the scientific and legal communities, the quality of interaction between these communities, and the level if understanding by each community of the concerns of the other in environmental/environmental health decision-making. Responses to the questionnaires were received from approximately 20 provincial /territorial, superior and appellate justices, more than 60 administrative tribunal members and in excess of 100 environmental lawyers. In addition, the views of the scientific community are represented by responses from more than 100 environmental/environmental health scientists from across Canada and the United States representing some 60 different specialities. The studies produced some very interesting results. For example, 57% of administrative tribunal members, 56% of legal counsel and 87% of scientists agreed that problems exist in administrative environmental hearings with respect to the communication of scientific information. Similarly, 55% of administrative tribunal members, 56% of legal counsel and 77% of scientists indicated that problems also exist in the comprehension/understanding of scientific at these hearings. Finally, 68% of judges, 73% of administrative tribunal members, 67% of legal counsel and 82% of scientists rated communication between the scientific and legal communities as only very poor, poor or fair.