dynamic adaption to our ever-changing world, whether driven by environmental,
technological, societal, health, or other causes.
The concept of resilience often appears provocative to the public, as it implies
the possibility for more disruptions or accidents to happen. However, this is exactly
what has to be realized: the fact that there is a finite probability for events with
potentially disastrous consequences to happen. We need to enhance our resilience
in order to be better prepared so we can minimize the physical and “measurable”
impact as well as the psychological and emotional health impact. Only an informed
public and educated decision-makers are able to provide an effective response to a
disruption. The necessity for a better-informed public on advanced technologies or
more broadly for a “technologically literate citizen” is not new [9]. As we can see,
for example, from the events associated with Fukushima, in the discussion about
vaccinations or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) the public, particularly in
the United States but also globally, is susceptible to a perceived risk, rather than a
factual risk. Unfortunately, the concept of risk is not well understood in the public
and therefore, any discussion about risk is dominated by the potential impact of an
event, rather than both the impact and the probability of an event. As a matter of
fact, the likelihood for a disastrous event to happen is often neglected. The misperception of the concept of risk in the public is compounded by the fact that the
potential impact can easily be used in the media to capture attention and increase
readership. In addition, social networks are becoming one of the main venues for
communications and distribution of information without any review and vetting of
information. The fact that social networks operate instantaneously does not help
conventional media to convey information that has been vetted and therefore, is
always delayed. The delayed release of vetted information by conventional means
also increases the potential for early spread of misinformation, which can be difficult to combat after the fact.
Regarding the contentious issue of GMOs, the risk of potential side effects
overwhelms the discussion about the benefits in the public. While there is no
scientific evidence supporting any claims of detrimental side effects of GMOs in the
modification of approved food [10, 11], social media is dominated by claims of
disastrous effects on animals and human consumers. Not only is a large portion of
the animal feed in the US already genetically modified [12] without any obvious
effect, GMOs need to play a critical role in addressing the enormous and expanding
malnutrition in many developing countries specifically in Africa or India [13]. The
development and utilization of vaccines have prevented devastating epidemics
decimating whole communities and regions in the past. While vaccination is
associated with a small health risk, this risk is insignificant in comparison to the risk
of foregoing vaccinations. Recent increases in measles epidemics in the US reflect
the emerging challenges by experts to convince the public about the benefits vs. the
risk associated with vaccination [14].
The opposition to GMOs or vaccination is largely driven by the misperception of
risk, as the general public often overestimates the detrimental effects and underestimates or is not aware of the benefits and the effects of not adopting these
technologies. GMOs have another challenge in that it is a new and advanced
The Institute of Resilient Communities
209
technological, societal, health, or other causes.
The concept of resilience often appears provocative to the public, as it implies
the possibility for more disruptions or accidents to happen. However, this is exactly
what has to be realized: the fact that there is a finite probability for events with
potentially disastrous consequences to happen. We need to enhance our resilience
in order to be better prepared so we can minimize the physical and “measurable”
impact as well as the psychological and emotional health impact. Only an informed
public and educated decision-makers are able to provide an effective response to a
disruption. The necessity for a better-informed public on advanced technologies or
more broadly for a “technologically literate citizen” is not new [9]. As we can see,
for example, from the events associated with Fukushima, in the discussion about
vaccinations or genetically modified organisms (GMOs) the public, particularly in
the United States but also globally, is susceptible to a perceived risk, rather than a
factual risk. Unfortunately, the concept of risk is not well understood in the public
and therefore, any discussion about risk is dominated by the potential impact of an
event, rather than both the impact and the probability of an event. As a matter of
fact, the likelihood for a disastrous event to happen is often neglected. The misperception of the concept of risk in the public is compounded by the fact that the
potential impact can easily be used in the media to capture attention and increase
readership. In addition, social networks are becoming one of the main venues for
communications and distribution of information without any review and vetting of
information. The fact that social networks operate instantaneously does not help
conventional media to convey information that has been vetted and therefore, is
always delayed. The delayed release of vetted information by conventional means
also increases the potential for early spread of misinformation, which can be difficult to combat after the fact.
Regarding the contentious issue of GMOs, the risk of potential side effects
overwhelms the discussion about the benefits in the public. While there is no
scientific evidence supporting any claims of detrimental side effects of GMOs in the
modification of approved food [10, 11], social media is dominated by claims of
disastrous effects on animals and human consumers. Not only is a large portion of
the animal feed in the US already genetically modified [12] without any obvious
effect, GMOs need to play a critical role in addressing the enormous and expanding
malnutrition in many developing countries specifically in Africa or India [13]. The
development and utilization of vaccines have prevented devastating epidemics
decimating whole communities and regions in the past. While vaccination is
associated with a small health risk, this risk is insignificant in comparison to the risk
of foregoing vaccinations. Recent increases in measles epidemics in the US reflect
the emerging challenges by experts to convince the public about the benefits vs. the
risk associated with vaccination [14].
The opposition to GMOs or vaccination is largely driven by the misperception of
risk, as the general public often overestimates the detrimental effects and underestimates or is not aware of the benefits and the effects of not adopting these
technologies. GMOs have another challenge in that it is a new and advanced
The Institute of Resilient Communities
209