Can science and technology policy be solved by de-normalizing science?

Science is advancing rapidly, but it can’t explain all phenomena. In the nuclear energy and global warming debate, the application of unconventional science methods can lead to more rational policy decisions.

 

Science is advancing at an incredibly fast pace, and it tells us about the causes and effects of many phenomena. However, science has its limitations, and it is impossible to explain all phenomena with science alone. Therefore, it is difficult to make policy decisions about technologies that are not fully explained by science. This becomes even more difficult when you consider the interests of the different groups involved in science and technology policy. How can this problem be solved? There are many ways, but in this article, I’ll focus on the de-normalized science method, which uses extended facts and extended communities. I’ll start by introducing examples from the book Science Controversies That Changed the World where science has failed to provide accurate information and science policymaking has been compromised, and then applying the unconventional science method to solve them.
The first example is the debate over the use of nuclear energy. Since the August 1953 speech on the use of nuclear energy for peace, nuclear power has provided humanity with a lot of energy, but the debate on the use of nuclear energy is still active. Proponents of nuclear energy emphasize that nuclear power is environmentally friendly because it does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unlike fossil fuel-fired power generation, and is cheaper than fossil fuels. They also argue that significant improvements in technology have solved the biggest problem with nuclear power: safety. On the other hand, opponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is not environmentally friendly in that nuclear waste, a byproduct of nuclear power generation, will remain in the environment for tens of thousands of years. They also argue that nuclear power is not cheap if you consider the entire process and add insurance premiums for accidents instead of just looking at the operating price of a nuclear power plant, and that safety concerns have not been fully addressed with current technology. These two opposing opinions on the use of nuclear energy are due to the fact that science has not provided accurate information on nuclear power generation, and each side has its own favorable outcome to suit its interests. Therefore, there is a difficulty in determining scientific and technological policies for nuclear energy use, and a way to solve it is needed.
The second example is the debate about global climate change. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc in the southern United States, and the South Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is at risk of being submerged by sea level rise. There are also many other extreme weather events occurring around the world, such as the rapid melting of Arctic glaciers, which is threatening polar bears with extinction. These extreme weather events are taking a huge toll on humanity, and global warming has been blamed for many of them. Global warming causes the Earth’s stable ecosystem and material environment to collapse, resulting in extreme weather events. Although it is almost accepted as orthodoxy that global warming is the cause of extreme weather events, there is still debate about the cause of global warming. Those who believe that fossil fuels are the primary cause of global warming argue that excessive use of fossil fuels over a long period of time is causing the Earth’s temperature to rise, and warn that continued use of fossil fuels will lead to more severe extreme weather events, such as the disruption of the ocean conveyor belt. Those who believe that fossil fuels are not the primary cause of global warming argue that global warming is just part of a natural cycle, and that fossil fuel use does not have a significant impact on the planet as a whole. Even in this debate, the two opposing views on the cause of global warming are due to the fact that science has not provided accurate information. It is difficult to determine whether fossil fuels are indeed the cause of global warming because each side presents only the evidence that favors their interests. This makes it difficult to reach a consensus on policies for fossil fuel use, and a solution is needed.
As the two examples above show, the problem is that science is not doing its job correctly. If science could accurately calculate and present the safety issues and costs of nuclear power generation, we would be able to make a more rational decision based on scientific findings, rather than debating the pros and cons of nuclear power. Similarly, if science could accurately calculate the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, we would be able to determine the amount of fossil fuels we use with reasonable accuracy. To address the value debates that arise from this lack of a role for science, Jerome Labetz and Silvio Puntozzi have coined the concept of “de-normalized science”. De-normalized science is a solution strategy for problems that can no longer be solved using normal science approaches. Unlike traditional problem-solving approaches that rely entirely on science, this strategy seeks to solve problems using extended facts and extended communities. Extended facts means building on scientific knowledge, but also including knowledge from the humanities and social sciences, as well as local and civic knowledge. It is a strategy to reduce uncertainty as much as possible and produce “trusted knowledge” in every way possible. An expanded community is a problem-solving group that is appropriate to the expanded facts and maximizes the participation of stakeholders and experts in the humanities and social sciences, as well as scientists and bureaucrats. This is a strategy to minimize conflicts of interest and values while making reliable judgments.
In the case of the debate for and against nuclear energy utilization, we applied the method to solve the problem by holding a citizen consensus meeting that allowed the general public to participate in scientific and technological decisions. Although the general public is not an expert and lacks scientific knowledge, they acquired scientific knowledge through pre-meeting and personal study, and listened to experts during the meeting to compensate for their lack of knowledge. As a result, confrontation was reduced and a consensus was reached on the decision to utilize nuclear energy. In the second case, the problem could be solved by applying the de-normalized science method to open up avenues for public participation in science and technology decisions. As in the first case, holding a citizen consensus meeting or otherwise engaging the public would reduce the confrontation between the two conflicting positions, making it easier to reach a consensus.
As societies become increasingly complex and competing interests become the basis for value judgments, there are many problems that science cannot solve. Expert-level scientific approaches are needed to solve these problems, but when they are not enough, the application of de-normalized science methods can help solve social problems in a more rational and sensible way.