Taking a page from the innovators' handbook could provide a different and better way to think about the risks that come along with – and sometimes stem from – new technologies.
Maths! It can turn poor darts players into slightly better ones.
We've missed plenty of early warnings about past scientific breakthroughs. Is it neo-Luddite to proceed with caution as an innovator?
New FAA guidelines call for consumers to register drones over a certain weight. As more and more drones take to the skies, we'll see how amateur use influences the development of UAS technologies.
The innovation report fails to mention the risk of bias for researchers collaborating with industry. We must ensure that researchers maintain their independence.
We accept the risks of flooding because the costs of making our towns and cities flood-proof are too high.
Our gut reactions to controversial issues like hydraulic fracturing can be powerful, but information can still change our minds.
The end-of-year shopping whirlwind is underway. How does your credit card issuer watch out for fraudulent purchases on your account amid all those transactions?
Obama's trips to vastly different areas – New Orleans and Alaska – laid bare the rising costs of adapting to climate change, now and in the future.
Are you at risk from natural disasters? Research shows media reports could actually reduce people's perceptions of risk.
It is too easy to blame naked greed for rising CEO pay. New research signals that bosses are being compensated for the risk of the chop.
England face a high stakes game to stay in the World Cup, but pro-gamblers can help
We need to carefully assess nanomaterials to ensure their safety, but there are questions over whether the existing practice of risk assessment is up to the task.
A Deal or No Deal-inspired experiment shows people act with excessive caution when they're in the limelight.
Vaccines have always had potential side effects but they remain our best defence against far more dangerous infectious diseases.
Our natural difficulties in thinking about the future, low probabilities and considering risk make many of our views about nuclear power problematic.
Shell is going back to the Arctic to explore offshore drilling, but the company and the Department of Interior are not using the best practices for avoiding the risk of a spill.
We cannot eliminate the inherent risks of nuclear power but it is rigorously monitored and has a proven performance of delivering zero-carbon electricity.
If the Opt Out movement has gained ground, it is not without reason. Testing has not only pushed learning out, but taught people how to "game" the system.
The stats for 2014 have been compiled and shark attacks and fatalities are down worldwide. The numbers are truly tiny. Why do we fixate on this vanishingly rare possibility?