A mail survey instrument was sent to almost 1,500 members of three professional organizations whose participants study health and environmental risk. Members were asked their opinions about the effectiveness of government auditing of data, research designs, and facilities. Respondents who thought auditing would be effective were outnumbered 6 to 1 by those who thought it would be ineffective. Supporters tended to be less experienced than opponents. They disproportionately had earned baccalaureate or masters degrees as their terminal degree, not doctoral degrees. Supporters had jobs that required data for regulatory purposes, and they perceived that incompetence and pressure lead to misconduct.
Risk scientists and government regulation of ethical behavior: A comparative analysis of opponents and proponents
Reprints and Corporate Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:
Academic Permissions
Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?
Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:
If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.
Related research
People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.
Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.
Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.