Abstract
This article discusses the conditions under which the use of expert knowledge may provide an adequate response to public concerns about high-tech, late modern risks. Scientific risk estimation has more than once led to expert controversies. When these controversies occur, the public at large – as a media audience – faces a paradoxical situation: on the one hand it must rely on the expertise of scientists as represented in the mass media, but on the other it is confused by competing expert claims in the absence of any clear-cut standard to judge these claims. The question then arises, what expertise can the public trust? I argue that expert controversies cannot be settled by appealing to neutral, impartial expertise, because each use of expert knowledge in applied contexts is inextricably bound up with normative and evaluative assumptions. This value-laden nature of expert contributions, however, does not necessarily force us to adopt a relativist conception of expert knowledge. Nor does it imply active involvement of ordinary citizens in scientific risk estimation – as some authors seem to suggest. The value-laden, or partisan, nature of expert statements rather requires an unbiased process of expert dispute in which experts and counter-experts can participate. Moreover, instead of being a reason for discrediting expert contributions, experts' commitment may enhance public trustworthiness because it enlarges the scope of perspectives taken into account, to include public concerns. Experts who share the same worries as (some of) the public could be expected to voice these worries at the level of expert dispute. Thus, a broadly shaped expert dispute, that is accessible to both proponents and opponents, is a prerequisite for public trust.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Anderson, A., Media, Culture and the Environment(UCL Press, London, 1997).
Beck, U., Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity(Sage, London, 1992).
Bonss, W., R. Hohlfeld, and R. Kollek, “Soziale und kognitive Kontexte des Risikosbegriffs in der Gentechnologie,” in W. Bonns, R. Hohlfeld, and R. Kollek (eds.), Wissenschaft als Kontext-Kontexte der Wissenschaft(Hamburger Institut für Sozialforschung, Hamburg, 1993), pp. 53-67.
Buiter, R., “Biologen gooien met modder [Biologists Throw Mud],” Intermediair(17 February 2000), 113-115.
Burrell, A. and G. Vrieze, “Dutch Consumers' Concern for the Welfare of Laying Hens: Is Purchasing Behaviour Ethically Motivated?” in P. Robinson (ed.), EurSafe 2000. 2nd Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Preprints(Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Copenhagen, 2000), pp. 93-97.
Cvetkovich, G. and R. A. Löfstedt, “Introduction: Social Trust in Risk Management,” in G. Cvetkovich and R. A. Löfstedt (eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk(Earthscan, London, 1999), pp. 1-8.
Davison, A., I. Barns, and R. Schibeci, “Problematic Publics: A Critical Review of Surveys of Public Attitudes to Biotechnology,” Science, Technology, and Human Values22 (1997), 317-348.
Dommelen, A. van, Hazard Identification of Agricultural Biotechnology. Finding Relevant Questions(International Books, Utrecht, 1999).
Funtowicz, S. O. and J. R. Ravetz, “Three Types of Risk Assessment and the emergence of Post-Normal Science,” in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk(Praeger, London, 1992), pp. 251-273.
Gibbons, M., C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P. Scott, and M. Trow, The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies(Sage, London, 1994).
Giddens, A., “Replies and Critiques: Risk, Trust, Reflexivity,” in U. Beck, A. Giddens, and S. Lash (eds.), Reflexive Modernization. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order(Polity Press, Cambridge, 1994), pp. 184-197.
Giddens, A., The Third Way. The Renewal of Social Democracy(Polity Press, Cambridge, 1998).
Gieryn, Th. F., “Boundaries of Science,” in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995), pp. 393-443.
Herkströter, C. A. J., Wat is van waarde? Ondernemingen zijn toe aan een nieuw waardebegrip[What is of Value? Companies are in Need of a New Sense of Values] (Vossiuspers AUP, Amsterdam, 1999).
Huffman, W. E., “New Insights on the Organization of Research: Theory and Evidence for Western Developed Countries,” 2nd Mansholt Lecture, 19 May (Wageningen, 1999).
Korthals, M., “Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics14 (2001), 201-215.
Lidskog, R., “In Science We Trust? On the Relation Between Scientific Knowledge, Risk Consciousness and Public Trust,” Acta Sociologica39 (1996), 31-56.
Löfstedt, R. A. and T. Horlick-Jones, “Environmental Regulation in the UK: Politics, Institutional Change and Public Trust,” in G. Cvetkovich and R. A. Löfstedt (eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk(Earthscan, London, 1999), pp. 73-88.
Martin, B. and E. Richards, “Scientific Knowledge, Controversy, and Public Decision Making,” in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995), pp. 506-526.
McMullin, E., “Scientific Controversy and Its Termination,” in H. T. Engelhardt, Jr. and A. L. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies. Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987), pp. 49-91.
Nelkin, D., “Controversies and the Authority of Science,” in H. T. Engelhardt, Jr. and A. L. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies. Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987), pp. 283-293.
Newholm, T., “Consumer Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Indicative, Legitimation, and Regulatory Role in Agricultural and Food Ethics,” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics12 (2000), 153-164.
Popper, K. R., The Poverty of Historicism(Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1957).
Popper, K. R., The Open Society and Its Enemies. Volume II. The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath(Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1962 (1945)).
Rathenau Institute, “There is Growing Understanding within the Scientific Community for the Questions Arising from Society,” In the Arena of Science and Politics. Annual Report 1998(Rathenau Institute, Den Haag, 1999), pp. 22-27.
Robinson, P. (ed.), EurSafe 2000. 2nd Congress of the European Society for Agricultural and Food Ethics. Preprints(Centre for Bioethics and Risk Assessment, Copenhagen, 2000).
Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer, “Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation,” Science, Technology, and Human Values25(1) (2000), 3-29.
Schomberg, R. von, Argumentatie in de context van een wetenschappelijke controverse. Een analyse van de discussie over de introductie van genetisch gemodificeerde organismen in het milieu[Argumentation in the Context of Scientific Controversy. An Analysis of the Debate on the Environmental Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms] (Eburon, Delft, 1997).
Shrader-Frechette, K. S., “Evaluating the Expertise of Experts,” Risk: Environment, Health, and Safety6 (1995), 115-126.
Slovic, P., “Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy,” in G. Cvetkovich and R. A. Löfstedt (eds.), Social Trust and the Management of Risk(London: Earthscan, London, 1999a), pp. 42-52.
Slovic, P., “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-assessment Battlefield,” Risk Analysis19 (1999b), 689-701.
Weale, A., “Science Advice, Democratic Responsiveness and Public Policy,” Science and Public Policy28(6) (2001), 413-421.
Wynne, B., “Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement,” in S. Krimsky and D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk(Praeger, Westport, 1992), pp. 275-297.
Wynne, B., “Public Understanding of Science,” in S. Jasanoff, G. E. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch (eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies(Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995), pp. 361-388.
Wynne, B., “May the Sheep Safely Graze? A Reflexive View of the Expert-Lay Knowledge Divide,” in S. Lash, B. Szerszynski, and B. Wynne (eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology(Sage, London, 1996), pp. 44-83.
Zwanenberg, P. van and E. Millstone, “Beyond Skeptical Relativism: Evaluating the Social Constructions of Expert Risk Assessments,” Science, Technology, and Human Values25 (2000), 259-282.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Munnichs, G. Whom to Trust? Public Concerns, Late Modern Risks, and Expert Trustworthiness. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17, 113–130 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000017391.41994.d2
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JAGE.0000017391.41994.d2