It is also desirable that comparative risks should be provided where there is a potential for misinterpretation of results - e.g. comparing a reported 'danger' with the probability of being struck by lightning or travelling in a motor car for a short period of time. The observed 'benefits' of a particular variable should also be presented in a comparative manner. An increased concern with safety is very evident in contemporary popular media. The concept of safety, however, is an issue with which science is ill-equipped to deal. The rise in significance of the Precautionary Principle in policy and public decision-making also adds to difficulties which many scientists face in this context.
Scientists are unable to say in response to media questioning that anything is ever 'safe'.
There are always uncertainties. Such responses, however, are often seen as 'equivocation' or a lack of conviction by non-scientists. There is, therefore, a need for scientists to anticipate the potential for such reactions while at the same time maintaining the rigorous application of scientific principles. This might, again, be done in a comparative manner - e.g. indicating that the risks associated with X are, empirically, no greater than those associated with Y, where Y might be something which is popularly perceived as 'safe'. Guidelines for Journalists Join the Discussion Group on this topic Click Here to download the complete document using Adobe's Acrobat reader.