This is a column about the role of information in risk management. If your managers read, this column applies to YOU...

In the longtime favorite TV series Boston Legal, the closing courtroom scene with attorney Alan Shore was always the climax. And in that climax, Shore would inevitably rant in support of his weekly tilt at windmills that everyone knew that “studies show...” one compelling thing or another.

Well, since we probably haven't read and perhaps wouldn’t understand, those “studies,” just where do we (and imaginary characters like Alan Shore) get the information which supports our views (and those of the writers of shows like Boston Legal)?

WITHER GLYCIDYL METHACRYLATE?
Back in the 1970s at a chemical plant, I was responsible for coordinating a full-scale plant test in which a copolymer would be made using the monomer glycidyl methacrylate. At the time we were all learning about the science associated with cancer. Professor Bruce Ames had just published his groundbreaking paper which claimed that carcinogens were mutagens. And glycidyl methacrylate had just flunked Ames’ test: the chemical caused bacteria to mutate.

My managers nearly went ballistic! They had read in the press that 80% of the chemicals which flunked Ames’ test were actually carcinogens, and some thought carcinogens were “super-toxic” chemicals which killed after a single exposure.

A lot of explaining was necessary to justify that plant trial.