摘要：Governance of infectious disease risks requires understanding of often indeterminateinteractions between diverse, complex, open, and dynamic human and natural systems. In the face of thesechallenges, worldwide policy making affords disproportionate status to " science-based" risk-assessmentmethods. These reduce multiple, complex dimensions to simple quantitative parameters of "outcomes" and"probabilities," and then re-aggregate across diverse metrics, contexts, and perspectives to yield a singleostensibly definitive picture of risk. In contrast, more precautionary or participatory approaches are routinelyportrayed as less rigorous, complete, or robust. Yet, although conventional reductive–aggregativetechniques provide powerful responses to a narrow state of risk, they are not applicable to less tractableconditions of uncertainty, ambiguity, and ignorance. Strong sensitivities to divergent framings can renderresults highly variable. Reductive aggregation can marginalize important perspectives and compoundexposure to surprise. The value of more broad-based precautionary and participatory approaches may beappreciated. These offer ways to be more rigorous and complete in the mapping of different framings. Theymay also be more robust than reductive–aggregative appraisal methods, in "opening up" greateraccountability for intrinsically normative judgements in decision making on threats like pandemic avianinfluenza
