14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
3.3. The current difficulty faced by French society in<br />
developing standards around socio-technical issues<br />
The distrust of experts<br />
The distrust, mentioned above, still applies also to the<br />
experts and their institutions, nurtured by several cases that<br />
remain in our memories:<br />
• The contaminated blood case, in which there was a delay in<br />
the implementation of safety measures.<br />
• The radioactive clouds from the Chernobyl disaster that<br />
‘did not stop at the French border’, their impact being<br />
measurable, contrary to statements made by some French<br />
senior officials at the time.<br />
More recently, it appears clear that the debate on emerging<br />
technologies is often brought before the courts and has<br />
already led to several trials. Successive judgments of various<br />
courts about the installation of relay antennas or the<br />
uprooting of INRA grapevines demonstrate different kinds<br />
of expertise coming not only from scientists but also from<br />
civil society. For their decisions, elected officials, as well as<br />
judges, take into account all these forms of expertise. On<br />
the contrary, scientists are sometimes strongly challenged<br />
in these debates because their analysis tends to exclude<br />
any reference to values or perceptions that often guide<br />
the expertise emanating from associations and civil society.<br />
Public opinion is more and more concerned by conflicts of<br />
interest.<br />
Since the 1990s, France has set up several agencies and<br />
dedicated expertise on <strong>risk</strong>. A wide range of sectors are<br />
included:<br />
• A food safety agency (founded in 1999 following the ‘mad<br />
cow’ case and integrated in 2010 in ANSES, the French<br />
Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health &<br />
Safety)<br />
• Medicines and health products (ANSM, the French<br />
National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety)<br />
• Nuclear safety (IRSN, the French national public expert in<br />
nuclear and radiological <strong>risk</strong>s)<br />
• Industrial environment (INERIS, established by the French<br />
Government in 1990 as the National Competence Centre<br />
for Industrial Safety and Environmental Protection).<br />
The action of these agencies has helped to popularize<br />
the notion of expertise, to highlight the role of experts,<br />
and to provide reports that help build trust and generate<br />
constructive public debates and should be a possible way<br />
ahead.<br />
The development of scientific illiteracy in a context<br />
of rising education<br />
In a context of rising education levels in France (70% of<br />
a given age group now holds the baccalauréat), scientific<br />
expertise is in principle (and logically) questioned and<br />
challenged during public debates. A new paradox has<br />
however appeared: at the same time, the level of scientific<br />
We are no longer in<br />
an information deficit<br />
modelin which it was<br />
easy to blame the public<br />
for not being informed<br />
sufficiently to debate.<br />
culture remains low in a great number of countries (two out<br />
of five Americans do not believe in the theory of evolution; a<br />
large majority of members in the US Republican Party does<br />
not believe in the human source of climate change; most<br />
French citizens turn off the lights as their main step in the<br />
fight against climate change rather than turning down the<br />
heat).<br />
Marie-Françoise Chevallier – Le Guyader reminds us<br />
that the notion of scientific illiteracy, which appeared in the<br />
United States in the mid-1980s, is seen by some as “a social<br />
and political danger affecting states whose development<br />
is based on science and technology”. As she points out,<br />
this danger may induce a new view of public debates, with<br />
a negative answer as to their need! This challenge is even<br />
greater in several cases in which some lobbies — the<br />
merchants of doubt — are working to discredit scientific<br />
messages or to delay any decision (including those of the<br />
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC), focusing<br />
heavily on the uncertainties linked to these decisions.<br />
We are no longer in an information deficit model in which<br />
it was easy to blame the public for not being informed<br />
sufficiently to debate. We are facing a new paradigm:<br />
scientific information is available but, in some cases, its<br />
appropriation and full understanding by the public cannot<br />
really be attained. During the debate, everyone is legitimately<br />
concerned and gives his opinion, but an opinion is not a skill.<br />
A major issue related to the issue of trust is to recognize<br />
the specific skills of scientists and experts. Recent polls<br />
show the current ambiguity of French citizen, who likes<br />
scientists but who is less confident about their statements<br />
about sensitive subjects, as well as in their institutions. They<br />
tend to put more trust in associations and in NGOs.<br />
The difficulty of French society holding real debates<br />
Add to this the difficulty of French society to hold a real<br />
debate, without even making reference to the “discourse<br />
ethics” as stated by Habermas: public meetings more often<br />
correspond to a succession of presentations and questions<br />
from the audience rather than an exchange of arguments<br />
on a subject which should enable a ‘co-built’ solution. Under<br />
these conditions, Marie-Françoise Chevallier – Le Guyader<br />
emphasizes the current difficulty faced by French society<br />
in developing standards around socio-technical issues, the<br />
151