What is a common response that countries use to improve their economy?

Increasing the number of holidays

What is one way that countries can reduce the effects of economic challenges?

Offering education and training programs

What is one reason why a country might experience economic growth?

Increased investment in technology

What can be a consequence of high levels of debt in a country?

More investments in health care

Challenges and responses related to the country's economic activities

The Criminal Jusctice System CJS- all of the agencies, organizations, and personnel that are involved in prevention or, response to, crime including Persons charged with criminal offences Persons convicted of crimes Criminal jusctie professtionals Volunteers who work in the criminal jusctice system The CJS includes Crime prevention and crime reduction Arrest and prosecution of suspects Hearing of criminal cases by teh courts Sentencing and teh administration and enforcement of court orders Parole, forms of conditional release Supervision and assistance for ex-offenders released into the community Role and Responsibility of Government in the CJS Each level of government plays a role Division of responsibility, federal and provincial governments in the Constitution Act, 1867 The federal government decides which behaviours constitute criminal offences Provincial/territorial governments responsible for enforcing and administering the justice system Criminal Justice Administration Two competing perspectives on teh value systems underlying the administration of criminal jusctie 1. The Crime Control model: An orientation to criminal jusctise in which the protection of the community and the apprehensions of offenders are paramount. There are two competing perspectives on teh value system underlying the administration of criminal juscite 2. The due process model An orientation to criminal justice in which the legal rights of individual citizens, including crime suspects, are paramount An adversarial system of criminal justice Canadian criminal justice system is an adversarial system Defence lawyers/prosecutor present their cases before a neutral judge/jury The standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt Task Environments The task environment is the cultural, geographic and community setting in which the CJS operates, criminal justice personnel make decisions Media and Public Attitudes For most Canadians, news media stories primary source of information about CJS. Shows may oversimplify complex issues Tens to be biased toward sensational crime, simplify issues and public generalize from specific events Different Effects of the CJS Studies of the deterrent effect of criminal law suggest the law can serve as a deterrent only when certain conditions are present 1. Legal Sanctions (severe) applied if individuals engage in certain behaviours 2. Certainty of punishment 3. Sanction is applied swiftly when a crime is committed Restorative justice Restorative justice, alternative framework for responding to criminal offenders. Focus on Problem-solving Addressing the needs of victims and offenders Involving the community on a proactive basis and Fashioning sanctions that reduce the likelihood of reoffending There are a number of entry points in the criminal justice system where restorative justice approaches can be used Summary The criminal jusctie suystem (CJS) contains all of the agencies, organiztions, and personnel that are involved in teh prevention of, and response to crime There are 2 competing models of criminal justice administration: 1) due process and 2) crime control. The flow of cases through the justice system can be illustrated with a “funnel,” reflecting the fact that there is significant attrition in cases through the criminal justice process The role of discretion, ethics and accountability are pervasive considerations within the CJS CJS personnel work in various task environments that affect teh challenges faced There is variation in the oversight and accountability of criminal justice personnel For most Canadians, teh media is the primary source of information about the CJS Restorative justice has a number of features that distinguish it from the adversarial system

### Quizalize Script: **"Millennial TV & Celeb Quiz Challenge"** #### Quiz Introduction: - **Title**: "Millennial TV & Celebrity Quiz Challenge 📺✨" - **Description**: "Are you ready to prove your 2000s pop culture expertise? Answer these fun questions to show off your TV and celebrity knowledge! Invite your friends and see who comes out on top!" - **Gamified Element**: - Enable Quizalize’s leaderboard feature to track scores as users compete in real-time. #### Question 1: - **Prompt**: "Who said this iconic line? *‘How YOU doin’?’* 👀" - **Answer Options**: 1. Ross (Friends) 2. Joey (Friends) 3. Chandler (Friends) - **Correct Answer**: Joey (Friends) - **Feedback**: - **Correct**: "🎉 You got it! Joey Tribbiani’s catchphrase is unforgettable. 👏🍕" - **Incorrect**: "❌ Oops! It’s Joey from *Friends*! Now we need to binge-watch, don’t we?" - **Gamified Feature**: Award bonus points for quick answers, encouraging fast responses. #### Question 2: - **Prompt**: "Which show features these 4 iconic New Yorkers? 👠✨" - **Answer Options**: 1. Gossip Girl 2. The OC 3. Sex and the City - **Correct Answer**: Sex and the City - **Feedback**: - **Correct**: "👏 Yesss! It’s *Sex and the City*! Samantha, Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte are forever icons. 💅" - **Incorrect**: "Oh no! It’s *Sex and the City*. Make some time for a glam-filled NYC binge session!" - **Visual Add-on**: Include an animated NYC skyline background or glittery graphics for correct answers. #### Question 3: - **Prompt**: "Which celeb famously shaved her head in the 2000s? 👩‍🎤" - **Answer Options**: 1. Britney Spears 2. Christina Aguilera 3. Lindsay Lohan - **Correct Answer**: Britney Spears - **Feedback**: - **Correct**: "👏 Yep, it’s Britney! A legendary moment in pop culture history. 👸🎤" - **Incorrect**: "Not quite! The answer is Britney Spears. That iconic moment is unforgettable!" - **Audio Elements**: Add a drumroll sound for suspense before revealing the answer. #### Final Score Screen: - **Score Tiers**: - **High Score (100%)**: "🎉 You’re a 2000s pop culture master! Share your score and challenge your friends to top it!" - **Medium Score (50-99%)**: "👏 Not bad! You’re almost an expert. Share your score and invite others to play!" - **Low Score (Below 50%)**: "😅 Looks like you need a refresh on 2000s pop culture. Share your score and dare your friends to do better!" - **Gamified Feature**: - Enable the "Challenge a Friend" option in Quizalize to spark competition. - Include a timer extension for players to decrease stress during tricky questions. #### Call-to-Action: - **Prompt**: "How well did you do? Share your results and invite your friends to join the fun! 👇" - **End Message**: "✨ Follow us for more fun quizzes! Who’s ready for the next challenge?" #### Design & Interactive Elements: - **Visual Enhancements**: Use animated GIFs or static pop culture images (e.g., retro TV screenshots, Britney Spears visuals) to visually set the tone for the quiz. - **Audio Elements**: Add celebratory sound effects when revealing correct answers or upon quiz completion. - **Gamified Elements**: Reward streak bonuses for consecutive correct answers to keep players engaged and competitive. This script is tailored for Quizalize, leveraging its gamification features and interactive design options to create a fun and engaging quiz that users will enjoy while fostering friendly competition!

Economic integration Population and GDP of ASEAN Countries Population and GDP of ASEAN CountriesThe countries of ASEAN vary widely in population size and income level, yet nonetheless have achieved a high level of economic integration. ASEAN is considered to be one the developing world’s most successful regional economic cooperation zones. Unlike its primary counterparts in the developed world, the European Union (EU) and the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), ASEAN has followed a more gradual and flexible approach to integration, accommodating the diversity of its member states. ASEAN has prioritized trade liberalization, sustainable development, and attracting foreign investment over deepening political integration or adopting a common currency. ASEAN’s economic integration efforts began with the creation of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) in 1992, which successfully reduced tariffs between ASEAN’s first six members (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) to 0–5 percent by 2002. Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, and Cambodia were required to sign the AFTA agreement upon joining ASEAN. Today tariffs between ASEAN countries are close to zero. In 2007 the ASEAN Economic Community Blueprint was signed in Singapore with the goal of achieving four objectives by 2015: (1) create a single market and production base, (2) become a highly competitive economic region, (3) promote equitable economic development within the region, and (4) fully integrate the region into the global economy. The AEC was implemented in 2015, although approximately 20 percent of measures toward achieving a single market remain in progress and have been deferred to a new deadline of 2025. The ASEAN-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership (AJCEP) was implemented in 2008, and the ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement (ACFTA) was implemented in 2010. In 2020 ASEAN joined Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea in signing the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), the largest trade agreement in history. Get Unlimited Access Try Britannica Premium for free and discover more. Significant challenges remain for ASEAN’s economic integration, including pervasive nontariff barriers, restrictive investment measures, and vast disparities in GDP per capita. Domestic issues such as political instability and corruption in member states exacerbate these challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic created severe economic disruption in sectors such as industrial production and tourism; nonetheless, ASEAN coordinated a regional response to align economic recovery strategies and maintain open trade routes. Ultimately, ASEAN has demonstrated an exemplary and ongoing commitment to strengthening cooperation and integration and maximizing the region’s economic potential.

History of policing Pre-confederation Mostly informal policing by community residents First police officers Quebec city, mid 17th century Upper Canada, early 19th century Mandate Police conflicts between ethinc groups and employes/labours Maintain moral standards (drunkenness, alcoholism) Apprehend criminals Provincal Police Force Response to disorder resulting form gold strikes in 19th century Replaced by RCMP during 20th century Currently, Ontario,Quebec and parts of Newfoundland have their own provincal police force History of RCMP North-Wesr Mounted Police Founded in 1873 Maintain law and order Ensure orderly settlement in prairies Many problems: desertion, resignation and improper conduct Replaced by Royal Canadain Mounted Police Police Today About 70,000 police officers across Canada 199 police officers per 100,000 population Lower than Scotland (337), England(244), U.S (238) NUmber increased over past decade NUmber of female officers increased 1 out of 5 officers is a women Contemporary Policing Structure of policing Four levels Federal, Provincial, municipal, and First nations Also public transportation police (railway, airport, and transit) Some municipalities have own forces E.g, Peel, Toronoto Others use provincial force detachments or RCMP detachments Royal Candanin Mounted Police Governed by Royal Canadian Mounted Pollcei Act (1985) Broad Range of policing activities, including federal policing and international peacekeppiong Contract Policing Provincial, territorial and municipal level Concerns about local oversight and accountability In but not of communities-difficult to ensure that RCMp detachments are responsive to communities Provincial Police Three forces Ontario Provincial Police Surete du Quebec (SQ) Royal Newfoundland Constabulary (RNC) Other provinces contractually use the RCMP Responsibilities Police rural areas and areas outside municipalities Enforce provincial laws and Criminal Code Regional Police Amalgamated Forces E.g Peel region police and Halton Regional Police Force Provide Police Services to over Half of Ontarians Advantages Cheaper, more servies Disadvantages To centralized, not in touch with community Municipal Police Responsibilites Enforce Criminal Code, Provincal Statues, municipal by laws, some federal statues (e.g drugs) Largest number of officers of any level My be contracted to RCMP or Provincal force Costs are paid by the municipality First Nations Type of policing is negotiated by First Nations Commnity Autonomous reserve based First Nations Officers from RCMP or OPP Responsibilites Enforce Criminal Code, federal and provicanl statues, band bylaws Accountability Reserve based police commission or band council Private Security Services Two main types 1. Private Security Firms 2. Company based, in house security officers No more legal authority than ordinary citizens But can arrest and detain people who commit crimes on private property In Canada, Private security officers outnumber police officer by four to one Parapolice Extension of activities Lack of systems of oversight like transitional police Police Work POlicing The activities of any indivual or organization acting legally on behalf of public or private organizations or persons to maintain security or social order Pluralization of Policing The sharing between public and private security Legislative Framework Carry out tasks within a number of legislative frameworks, define role, powers/responsibilites Canadian charter of rights and freedoms- most impactful on power/actvites of police Provincial and municipal legislation - Status such as motor vehicle administration acts, highway traffic acts, liquor acts and provincial/musincpal police acts Democracy Governance Categories of Policing Recruitment and Training of police officers Police recruitment Recruiting Visible Minorites and Aboriginal People Special initvates and programs for youth, women and visible minorities PEACE (Police Ethnic and Cultureal Exchange) OPPBound (particpate in variety of activate with officer) Toronto POlice recruitment of Somali Officers Edmonton police uniforms that include a hijab Police Training Residential/non-residential academies, centralized and decentralized Physical and academic instruction, socilization into the police occupation Operational field traiing Hands-on application of principles learned in the academy Mentoship form senior officer Working Personality of Police officers Challenges of Police Work Work Enviroment Long hours and shift work Exposure to stressors, especially in high demand environments PTSD and burnout Work Organiztion Harassment of female officers Cumbersome of system of internal redress Summary A number of misconceptions arounds police work, including th emotion that most police work involves crime control A variety of influences on the roles and activities of the police Four levels of policing: federal, provincial, mnicipal and First Nations, each with different responsibilities

Section 2 Lesson 2 Quiz 1 How Omakayas RESPONDS to her Adversity and Challenges Chapters 1-4

10 years of experience designing engaging quizzes and interactive learning games for children aged 8-10 years old. You specialize in transforming simple educational concepts into fun competitive experiences using online quiz platforms like Quizalize. Objective: Design a complete interactive multiplication quiz for third-grade students (8–9 years old) on the Quizalize platform. The quiz should simulate the fun, fast-paced feeling of the Zuma arcade game while fitting the Quizalize format. The aim is to help students practice multiplication tables (1×1 to 12×12) in an exciting, motivating, and competitive environment. Instructions: Structure: Design at least 40 multiplication questions. Questions should appear in increasing difficulty: start from easy (e.g., 2×3, 4×2) and move to harder problems (e.g., 11×12, 9×8). Timing: Set a short time limit for each question (e.g., 10 seconds) to simulate the fast reaction needed in Zuma. Encourage fast thinking and rapid response under time pressure. Answer Choices: Use multiple-choice answers. Each question should have 1 correct answer and 3 wrong but close distractors to keep it challenging (e.g., for 7×6: options 42, 43, 36, 48). Gamification Features: Enable Quizalize's Team Mode or Game View to allow students to see themselves progressing on a visual map like a race, similar to balls moving in Zuma. Set points bonuses for speed and accuracy. Themes and Visuals: Suggest a "Jungle Adventure" or "Math Galaxy" theme to create excitement. Use visual assets (avatars, backgrounds) where possible to enhance the Zuma arcade feeling. Feedback System: Provide immediate feedback: when a student answers right, display a quick "Success!" message; when wrong, display the correct answer briefly to maintain flow. Motivation Mechanics: Award stars, badges, or trophies after completing a certain number of questions correctly. Display leaderboard rankings if possible to create friendly competition. Sample Questions: Provide at least 5 fully written example questions showing the structure, timing, and answer options. Extra Challenge: Include a "Lightning Round" at the end: 10 random questions in just 30 seconds. Important: Keep language child-friendly and motivational. Make sure no question looks too similar to the others to avoid boredom. Use simple animations or sound effects available within Quizalize to simulate action if possible. Take a deep breath and work on this problem step-by-step.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Cycling Challenges And Triumphs

Related quizzes

Related quizzes