We had a very lively panel discussion on Risk science and Politics at the SRA Annual meeting in Washington, D.C. 11 December, see introduction slides by the panelists @SDGuikema, @RiskWilson, Felicia Wu, Marja Ylönen and Terje Aven: drive.google.com/file/d/1Kpv… Here are some main conclusions from the discussion, as seen from my perspective: 1) Should SRA take positions on public policy issues? “SRA leadership has always declined to do so, believing that it would be impossible—and unfair—to try to represent the diversity of opinions within our membership in such situations.” Gail Charnley, SRA Past President (SRA Newsletter 2000(1) This has not changed. 2) Risk science is mainly about developing knowledge. There is a fundamental difference between practices aiming at developing the best knowledge (science) and support of specific policies aiming at changing society (politics) 3) Risk science is engaged in policy analysis (e.g. analyzing strengths and weaknesses of alternative policies) 4) Risk science and SRA need to be much better on science translation: There is a strong need for suitable material and processes that can guide policy makers, decision-makers, politicians, … on issues related to risk and risk analysis. Currently such material and processes are only available to a limited degree. 5) Every individual has the right to endorse, support, vote for, etc. whatever policies they wish to 6) Members of for example a scientific committee (such as on food), will mainly act as scientists, but also make recommendations on what is acceptable risk, which is political