SDEST: Responsible Analysis When Tradeoffs are Taboo

禁忌权衡已经在各种环境和健康风险政策的背景下被确定，这些政策涉及从根本上难以解决或思考的情感，道德或伦理问题。在极端的情况下，在这些环境中被问及他们的意见的人可能会拒绝做出权衡，例如拒绝回答或对需要平衡成本和收益的问题陈述极端值，因为受到保护或被视为神圣的规范被视为被违反。这种禁忌或受保护的价值观的表达提出了一个问题，即从专业（分析）和道德的意义上讲，由于人们可能认为他们被要求违反或违反他们所建立的绝对标准或规则，因此寻求得出某些困难的权衡取舍是如何正确的，以及是否正确。本提案采用了基于理论和基于实验的研究相结合的方法，以检查这种高度带电的价值观的逻辑和处理。拟议的研究旨在区分真正禁忌的权衡表达和表达的权衡，相反，可能引起但很难，例如，因为它们是认知复杂的（在涉及多个和/或不同维度的意义上）或唤起强烈的道德和情感反应或鼓励预期的遗憾和担心，如果事情出了差错。这项研究建立在心理学家菲利普·泰特洛克的工作基础上（关注价值冲突和禁忌权衡），乔纳森·巴伦（重点是受保护的价值观）及其同事，提出了一个三部分的调查：（a）明显存在权衡禁忌的原因，（B）在这种情况下可能有用和适当地用于引发权衡的技术，以及（c）决策者在决定是否以及如何构建和评估权衡及其影响时可能使用的因素。拟议的两年期研究工作的好处包括更全面地了解禁忌或受保护价值观的概念，并就如何以促进负责任的思考和审议的方式展示或询问权衡取舍问题向公共决策者提供更多指导。如果取得成功，最终结果将是公民有更好的机会参与有争议的政策辩论，做出更知情的公共决策，并采用更明确地反映和促进公民基本价值观的政策替代方案。

Taboo tradeoffs have been identified in the context of a variety of environmental and health risk policies that involve emotional, moral, or ethical issues that are fundamentally difficult to resolve or think about. At the extreme, people asked for their opinions in these settings may resist making tradeoffs, for example by refusing to answer or by stating extreme values for questions that require a balancing of costs and benefits, because a norm that is protected or regarded as sacred is perceived as being violated. The expression of such taboo or protected values raises the questions of how and whether it is proper, in both a professional (analytical) and an ethical sense, to seek to elicit certain difficult tradeoffs because people may consider they are being asked to violate or transgress an absolute standard or rule that they have established. This proposal uses a mixture of theory-based and experiment-based research to examine the logic and treatment of such highly charged values. The proposed research is designed to distinguish between the expression of tradeoffs that truly are taboo and expressed tradeoffs that are, instead, possible to elicit but difficult, for example because they are cognitively complex (in the sense of involving multiple and/or disparate dimensions) or evoke a strong moral and emotional response or encourage anticipatory regret and worry in the event that something goes awry. The research builds on the work of the psychologists Philip Tetlock (focusing on value conflicts and taboo tradeoffs), Jonathan Baron (focusing on protected values), and their colleagues, proposing a three-part investigation of (a) reasons for the apparent existence of a taboo on making tradeoffs, (b) techniques that might usefully and appropriately be employed for eliciting tradeoffs in such settings, and (c) factors that decision makers might use in determining whether and how to construct and assess tradeoffs and their implications. Benefits of the proposed two-year research effort include a more comprehensive understanding of the concept of taboo or protected values and the provision of additional guidance to public decision makers regarding methods for displaying or inquiring about tradeoffs in such a way as to facilitate responsible thought and deliberation. If successful, the end result will be better access for citizens who seek to provide input to controversial policy debates, more informed public decisions, and the adoption of policy alternatives that more clearly reflect and advance citizens' underlying values.