透過您的圖書館登入
IP:18.206.185.68
  • 期刊

獨大的科學理性與隱沒(默)的社會理性之“對話”-在地公眾、科學專家與國家的風險文化探討

"Dialogue" between Monopolistic Scientific Rationality and Tacit (Submerged) Social Rationality: A Discussion of Risk Culture between Local Public, Scientists, and the State

摘要


本文從風險感知與風險溝通觀點出發,分析在全球科技競爭的發展下,在地社會之公眾、科學專家與國家間對科技風險(case塞因改造產品(GMO))之認知與互動關係。文中指出,在地持續隱匿風險的社會系統「重科研、輕風險」,導致主流科學理性結合優勢的科技政策資源,輕易的要展出支配性的科學(制度)論述,而壓抑了生態理性的異議與高度不滿的社會理性,形成了獨大的科學理性與隱沒、隱默的生態與社會理性。 這樣的關係,持續的擴大介於公眾、國家和科學專家間的風險認知鴻溝典落差,合眾對國家與科學專家產生高度的不信任、科學專家不滿國家缺乏風險溝通機制而有誤導科技政策或喪失科研正當性之虞、國家制度能耐萎縮於未積極建構風險溝通與社會評估機制。亦即,本文重點在於,此種隱匿風險的在地社會系統如何毀壞信任,並累積不可預測的科技社會後果。 為實質檢討發展高科技國家與社會的路徑,本文建議,應審視在地、後進國家的特殊問題脈絡,以制度性的建構風險溝通與評估等機制,積極性地介入並重新形塑科學、合眾與國家的關係。

並列摘要


In light of risk perception and risk communication, this article analyzes the perceptions and interaction relationship between the local public, scientific experts, and the state toward technological risks, e.g. genetically modified organisms (GMO), under the development of global technological competitiveness. This article also points out that ”valuing scientific research and neglecting its risk” in a local social system which is continually surrounded with hidden risks would result in combination of mainstream scientific rationality and prominent technological policy resources. A dominant scientific view (system) easily develops and oppresses the opposite opinions from ecological rationality and high discontent of social rationality. As a result, monopoly of scientific rationality and submergence of ecological and social rationality are formed. This relationship lies in the gap of risk perceptions between the public, the state, and scientific experts: the public highly distrust scientists and specialists; scientists and specialists are dissatisfied with the state for lacking of a risk communication mechanism with the doubt of technological policy being misled or legitimacy of scientific research being deprived; the institutional capacity withers for not actively constructing a risk communication mechanism and social risk assessment. Namely, this article explores how a local social system surrounded with hidden risks devastates trust and accumulates unpredictable technological social consequences. In order to review and examine the development of high-tech countries and society, this article suggests that a sequence of particular problems in local and less advanced countries should be carefully examined based on an institutional constructed mechanism of risk communication and assessment. Also, active interventions are critical for reshaping the relationship between science, the public, and the nation.

參考文獻


周桂田(2002)。在地化風險之實踐與理論缺口----遲滯型高科技風險社會。台灣社會研究季刊。45,69-122。
周桂田(2000)。生物科技產業與社會風險----遲滯型高科技風險社會。台灣社會研究季刊。39,75-119。
(2001).Mapping and Interpreting Societal Responses to Genetically Modified Crops and Food.Social Studies of Science.31(1),151-160.
Arkin, Elaine Bratic(1989).Effective Risk Communication.Plenum Press.
Beck, Ulrich(1986).Risikogesellschaft. Auf dem Weg in einen andere Moderne.Suhrkamp.

被引用紀錄


李成鈞(2011)。風險分析在歐盟食品安全管理體系中之實踐與挑戰〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2011.00261
邱智民(2010)。公民參與科技風險決策之評估:以英國基改作物與食品公共辯論為例〔碩士論文,淡江大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6846%2fTKU.2010.01127
吳佩真(2010)。風險社會與通識教育:台灣博雅書院興起之探討〔碩士論文,國立交通大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6842%2fNCTU.2010.00790
陳柚伶(2017)。政府風險溝通之研究-以日本福島核災事故後調整特定地區食品輸台管制措施為例〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201702839
丁逸年(2016)。聳動媒體與風險知覺:探討餿水油事件之相關報導〔碩士論文,國立臺灣大學〕。華藝線上圖書館。https://doi.org/10.6342%2fNTU201610021

延伸閱讀