5:15 PM - 6:30 PM
[HCG27-P03] Does science give us THE answer? (2)
Issues centering on scientific advice
Keywords:scientific advice, COVID-19, risk of nuclear technology, science and technology studies (STS)
It has been discussed the relationship between the risk of nuclear utilization and geoscience, the role of scientist and engineer in the previous sessions. The author has analyzed those issues from the perspectives of interactions and gaps between science and engineering, their views on risk and safety behind the social mechanism and their senses of vocation, and pursued the better way to overcome the obstacles centering on them. This year, he would like to discuss the issues centering on so-called "scientific advice" in geo science field, in comparison with the case of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Before the 10th anniversary of the 3.11 complex disaster, the world faced the pandemic. The role, function and method of effective scientific advice to the policy has been attracted the public attention.
We have witnessed a wide-spread suspicion among the public that the relevant "experts" distort their scientific advice to government and society because of their own political and social interests, or politicians and bureaucrats cherry-pick or just neglect the expert's advices to protect themselves from public criticism. Very similar arguments were observed in the 3.11 disaster. We even saw the word Goyo-gakusha (lap-dog expert) again when people criticized the governmental public health advisors, exactly same to the Fukushima nuclear disaster case.
It was reasonable to use the word to criticize nuclear experts because they had a strong interest to trivialize the magnitude of the nuclear disaster to protect their nuclear technology, however, epidemiologist, virologist and pharmacologist could never share the interest with the COVID virus itself nor COVID-19 syndrome. Rather, it should even be advantageous to them to build a social consensus that the pandemic is more serious than the other people thought. Thus, it is questionable to use the same Goyo-gakusha rhetoric to critically analyze the problems behind the shortcomings of (Japanese) government's counter measures.
It must have a universal implication to answer this question for geoscientists who are involved in or interested in the relationship between the geoscience and the risks of nuclear technology. By touching upon the relevant frameworks on scientific advice in the field of STS, this paper try to answer the question.
Before the 10th anniversary of the 3.11 complex disaster, the world faced the pandemic. The role, function and method of effective scientific advice to the policy has been attracted the public attention.
We have witnessed a wide-spread suspicion among the public that the relevant "experts" distort their scientific advice to government and society because of their own political and social interests, or politicians and bureaucrats cherry-pick or just neglect the expert's advices to protect themselves from public criticism. Very similar arguments were observed in the 3.11 disaster. We even saw the word Goyo-gakusha (lap-dog expert) again when people criticized the governmental public health advisors, exactly same to the Fukushima nuclear disaster case.
It was reasonable to use the word to criticize nuclear experts because they had a strong interest to trivialize the magnitude of the nuclear disaster to protect their nuclear technology, however, epidemiologist, virologist and pharmacologist could never share the interest with the COVID virus itself nor COVID-19 syndrome. Rather, it should even be advantageous to them to build a social consensus that the pandemic is more serious than the other people thought. Thus, it is questionable to use the same Goyo-gakusha rhetoric to critically analyze the problems behind the shortcomings of (Japanese) government's counter measures.
It must have a universal implication to answer this question for geoscientists who are involved in or interested in the relationship between the geoscience and the risks of nuclear technology. By touching upon the relevant frameworks on scientific advice in the field of STS, this paper try to answer the question.