MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W310149042

BSE, Risk and the Communication of Uncertainty: A Review of Lord Phillips' Report from the BSE Inquiry (UK). (Review Essay/Revue Critique)

2001· review· en· W310149042 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kevin Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Sociology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBovine spongiform encephalopathyContext (archaeology)House of CommonsGovernment (linguistics)SurpriseSociologyPolitical scienceDiseaseCriminologySocial scienceEconomic historyLawHistoryMedicinePoliticsPathology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Since the first recognized cases of BSE (1) (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) were identified in the UK during the late 1980s, the history of 'mad cow' disease, as it is popularly known, has been dominated by controversy, scandal and loss. Twenty years after its story began, the aftershocks of a veterinary disease which led to the deaths of almost one hundred UK citizens, culled millions of cattle and scarred the national beef industry, continue to pervade British society. It is within this context that Lord Phillips released his report from the BSE Inquiry to the British House of Commons in October 2000. Tasked with reviewing the emergence and identification of BSE and vCJD in the UK, along with the adequacy of the actions taken by the Government in response to the disease, Lord Phillips has produced a report of massive length. (2) Consisting of 16 volumes, the report covers a wide range of issues. These include the consequences of BSE for human and animal health, the disease's impact on the agricultural in dustry and the national economy, and an evaluation of the science and industrial processes in relation to BSE and vCJD. It is of no surprise that BSE has attracted a great deal of academic attention in the social sciences, and although the disease is seldom treated in depth, it is often held up as exemplifying current trends in social theory. This is no truer than in the case of European sociology's attraction to theories of the so-called 'risk society'. However, what is more important, is that BSE has become a locus around which the language of social theory -- 'risk' and 'uncertainty' in this case -- has melded with public discussions concerning the ability of society to contend with relentless scientific and technological innovation (Rose, 2000: P. 63). BSE and the Risk Society Echoing one of the key tenets of theories of the risk society, Lord Phillips indicates that at the heart of the BSE story is the ability of society to contend with both known and unknown hazards (Phillips et al., 2000a: p. xvii-xviii). In other words, the emphasis is placed on the ability of science, industry and government to cope with routine uncertainty. An awareness of the fallibility and inconclusiveness of science, the recognition that hazards are the unpredictable consequence of human processes, and a loss of faith in the capacity of traditional institutions to secure society from these risks are all implicated in the Phillips Report. The inquiry's treatment of these components of uncertainty is specifically focussed around three core themes: i) the cause of BSE and the persistent spread of the disease amongst cattle, ii) the transmission of BSE to humans, and iii) the Government's failure to communicate risk and uncertainty to the public. The Cause and Spread of BSE in Cattle Although BSE was first identified in 1986, certainty about the cause of the disease and why it suddenly developed in cattle has eluded science. Originally thought to be linked to scrapie -- a more common form of TSE (3) found in sheep -- the Phillips Report now cites scientific evidence that demonstrates that this link does not exist. Instead, the report categorizes the cause of BSE as unknown, and acknowledges that TSEs may develop sporadically (randomly and without explanation) in species in which they have not been identified previously (Phillips et al., 2000a: pp. 249-250). (4) However, if the cause of BSE is recognized as uncertain, or potentially even unknowable, the report is far more certain in ascribing a cause to the persistent and widespread transmission of the disease throughout the UK beef industry. This epidemic side of the BSE story, Lord Phillips suggests, can be directly attributed to human innovation and industrial processes. Uncertainty, in this sense, is not understood solely as a limitation of knowledge, but as the source of potential hazards, or risks, which are the yet unknown products of our own making. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.015
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0180.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of SociologySame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207