Much of that report focused on technical issues of risk assessment, but one recommendation did address risk management. Experience shows that difficulties can arise from a blurring of the distinction between the two elements. This recommendation has received surprisingly little discussion. While there is justification for separating risk assessment and management, we would like to see more attention given to the possible limitations of that approach. A decade of experience has passed since the NRC report was published, and it seems appropriate to reexamine its recommendations, focusing particularly on instances where it may not work.
Experience is the primary justification for sequestering risk assessment from management.
It seems to us that there are numerous situations where risk is routinely assessed and important risk management decisions are or have been undertaken without a separation of assessment and management. Here, we explore some of those situations and suggest that they may cast some doubt on the wisdom of the universal separation of risk assessment and risk management activities. Analogous Experience Physicians routinely make a diagnosis and then, when appropriate, afford treatment, acting respectively as risk assessors and managers. The knowledge of the patient's history and knowledge gained in making the diagnosis appear to be essential to a successful outcome. Even when a specialist is brought in or a second opinion is sought, the new physician does not rely on the prior diagnosis but reevaluates it prior to treatment.