As if we didn’t have enough to worry about already, risk management seems to be the latest addition to our list of responsibilities in the workplace. There was a time when risk management probably meant no more than mopping up a spillage, or sweeping up some broken glassware. These days it’s a career. And it applies to almost any aspect, of any business, that involves making a decision. But it also has a fear factor – what if the decision is wrong? what will the consequences be? Few businesses can afford to run a ‘shoot now, ask questions later’ approach to decision making. As scientists, we all know that data driven decisions make sense; in fact, you could argue that this is part of our purpose in life, to advance knowledge by rigorously testing scientific hypotheses through the acquisition and logical interpretation of data. But as human beings, we also take a subjective view of risk. Siri Segalstad has authored an article ‘Do We Really Understand Risks?’, published in Scientific Computing, that looks at a comparison between subjective and objective approaches to risk. It’s well worth reading, just to add a little perspective to some of life’s scary moments.
As an extension to this, and slightly away from the laboratory, I’ve just finished reading Bad Science by Ben Goldacre; actually, it’s the second time I’ve read it. Ben Goldacre is a writer, broadcaster and doctor, known for his Bad Science column in the Guardian newspaper which is presented as a weblog. The book attacks the misuse of science, primarily in the field of medicine and nutrition. If you work for a pharmaceutical company, it could make for some uncomfortable reading, but the underlying principles of data-based decision making and risk management will be appreciated by any scientist who has squirmed at some of the nonsense that is fed to the public at large. And it is very funny……
