按预告今日结帖，呵呵，接下来进行利益的再分配～～
如果有仍宝贵建议，欢迎开新贴讨论，本人出分～～

上次就说过要找些东西来折腾一下，呵呵。我的译文在1楼，大家可以参照，以便讨论。要求是：最终译文不仅要准确表达原来的意思，而且说起来要足够通顺，能有好的表达方式尽可能用最好的。也就是“信+达+比较雅”啦。


本帖最后将转为悬赏帖，就算一点意思，呵呵

The relationship between risk assessors and risk managers is highly variable among nations and regulatory contexts. One reason is the relative concern in different risk assessment contexts for relevance and independence from biases. Clearly, if a risk assessment does not provide the information needed by a risk manager, it is largely a wasted effort. Therefore, the risk manager must provide the charge to the risk assessors, and should be available to inform the judgments that must be made on the basis of policy rather than fact in the course of the assessment. On the other hand, risk managers have biases that cause them to prefer certain outcomes to risk assessments a priori. Therefore, if a risk manager is too involved in the technical analyses, the results will appear biased and may in fact be biased. Therefore, the original guidance for risk assessment in the US federal government emphasized the need to isolate the risk manager who is politically accountable from the technical experts who must provide a credibly unbiased application of science (NRC 1983). Since then, the pendulum has swung to the other extreme so that the same august body has called for extensive input by risk managers and stakeholders (NRC 1994). As suggested in the previous paragraph, the rela¬tionship is also influenced by the extent to which the risk assessment is routine. Site-specific assessments and unconventional or high-profile assessments are more likely to receive attention from a risk manager.