Psyche, Science, and Society

Avian flu doubts and decision-making

November 23rd, 2005

A friend has e-mailed several pieces from the new Science that discuss skeptics who raise questions about the likelihood of a influenza pandemic arising from the current H5N1 virus. As my friend points out, unlike the global warming issue, where little serious doubt remains among disinterested researchers, there is still considerable controversy regarding the threat posed by H5N1.

I’ve known since I started writing about it that there is considerable controversy as to how likely a H5N1 pandemic is. Given the uncertain state of knowledge, and the devastation that a near worst-case scenario would cause, it seems prudent to prepare. There are three policy issues that are involved.

1. How to make decisions when the experts disagree. In a case like this, to wait until there is consensus of all serious thinkers is to do nothing. Is this reasonable? Probably not, as sometimes, the dangers will indeed occur. Decisions often have to be made in conditions of uncertainty. However, it is important to foster open dialog and avoid premature artificial consensus is major mistakes are to be reduced.

2. How to make decisions when a worst-case is rather unlikely, but devastating? It is hard to know how much resources to put into preventing/coping with unlikely events. New Orleans shows the consequences of making the wrong decision in the resource-preserving direction. The billions spent on air safety, in order to avert a major accident every other year shows how substantial resources can be squandered. The many millions of dollars spent per life saved could save thousands of lives if spent on something else, e.g., childhood immunizations. Where the right balance lies is a difficult decision. Unfortunately, our society makes it rather suboptimally, without a serious public weighting of the costs and risks.

3. How to take action against unlikely dangers without fostering so much cynicism that it interferes with being able to take action against future risks?

The only answer I can see to dealing with the third, and indeed all three issues, is truly informing the public and involve them in the decision-making process. Informed, involved people are more likely to pay attention to both sides of the issue. Of course, in our society, that seldom, if ever, occurs. Yet another argument for a truly participatory democratic society!

Entry Filed under: Avian flu, Public Health, Social Issues