Science Magazine posted an article in the April 1st 2011 issue called “Scientific Consensus on Great Quake Came Too Late.” The authors main thread of focus was on the evolution of discovery that a great quake was indeed overdue for Japan in 2001, the debates over how these findings should influence policies surrounding disaster mitigations and scientific consensus on the findings that supported the likelihood of such a catastrophic event. The author highlighted the fact that even though there was consensus around the science, there was very little response or influence of these findings on assessments of risk, preparedness or technology safety reviews. There was further argument for increasing the science findings to society in order to bolster responses and risk assessments. But by incorporating society into risk assessments, is the process simply going to end with, as Barbara Young says in her book See Through Science, “the danger is that risk assessment- however participatory- merely digs us deeper into the hole of that we are trying to escape from.” In this book she cautions of “risk society” in which a society focuses solely upon risk assessment and fails to consider other very important questions that should be asked but aren’t due to “ignorance and ambiguity.” This focus upon “is it safe?” questions can be applied to the quake discoveries or any other scientific finding or technology. Would the citizens of Japan have known to ask the right questions about this new information and form an appropriate risk assessment and preparedness plan through educated processes focusing on more than just simple risk? By shifting the focus away from safety and onto more significant questions posed by Young such as: “ What will it mean for me and my family? Why this technology? Why not another? Who needs it? Who is controlling it?” and so on the citizens or person asking the questions are posed for much more complete pictures of the actual issue and how to manage the technology or information. If these questions had been posed to the Japanese society regarding the potential for a devastating quake that would bring ruin to Japan, would the outcome have been any different? By different I mean, would Japan have utilized upstream public engagement and changed route on some technologies such as their nuclear facilities and used risk assessments and preparedness conversations to alter hardiness of the plant. Perhaps, but one obstacle to facilitating such holistic conversations with society is the fact that generally experts are the ones with the information who know the right questions to ask. This is typically why the conversations tend to stay around the issue of safety and fail to address further issues. So how can public engagement address the salient issues while avoiding ambiguity and ignorance that threatens effectiveness of involving society?
Author Rayner in a 2009 article in Energy Policy further illustrates the issues of the deficit of public understanding and ignorance to the real questions of technology assessment outside of risk. Rayner examines the role of public understanding and trust by generating different versions for societal misunderstandings. The first is an issue of knowledge of facts that cannot be understood by the public because they do not have the knowledge to truly be capable of assessing benefits and risks. The second is focused upon the possibility that the public may not understand the processes of science inquiry and the limits involved in science. The third is an issue of trust in science claims. Rayner contends that the issue of risk is really only effectively examined and defined through incorporation of trust, liability and consent. With so many factors in making appropriate assessments of technologies/science and their potential outcomes, public engagement experts and scientists hoping to further public engagement certainly have their work cut out for them as these challenges pose significant obstacles that are conquerable but will most certainly take time.
No comments:
Post a Comment