ABSTRACT
The discussion above has mingled the terminology of “design” and “habitat”, suggesting two general ways in which SHARK can be made to work. One is an opportunistic “biological niche” approach, which focuses on niches for intervention “wherever the action is”. The SHARK strategy for risk managers (however conceived) is one of opportunistic and shifting intervention, seeking “making extremes meet” social conditions wherever they are to be found. The policy skills involved are those of identifying a niche or a lever for influence in a structure of conflict. Shrader-Frechette’s (1991:197-218) proposals for procedural reforms in risk management to alter the balance between risk creators and risk receivers (by means such as changing the burden of evidence required in litigation from toxic tort victims, encouraging class action suits, provision of public funding to ensure equal access to technical expertise in negotiations over risk issues between citizens and business groups, and the institution of adversary proceedings on a “science court” basis, involving scientists and lay-people) are examples of such niche-spotting policy skills. Indeed, seen in this way, SHARK need not involve any permanent institutions or arrangements, but may operate as a way of shifting the “action” around the social landscape, with public funding or other resources moving from one fulcrum to another according to the conditions of the moment.
