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。
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.