Abstract

The assessment of a technology with such a huge societal impact as the Superphoenix project cannot be anything but a transdisciplinary and political event. This project of course is quite extraordinary, a case of Big Science and High Technology. The Superphoenix project belongs to the travaux publics, more particularly the grands travaux, those necessities of every state’s sovereignty and power. As such they represent greatness and even glory, they breathe a sense of mystery. But from the perspective of public disbelief these cathedrals of modern times breathe nothing but deceit and thievery.The Superphoenix project is very specific. Nevertheless it suits well as an example of how new technologies should not be conceived and implemented: it functions as a bad example. Professor Hériard shows the tragedy of a socalled technology push: the development of a new technology pushed by preoccupied engineers and a single-minded interest group. It is evident that, for an innovation to be successful, should be implemented otherwise. The technology push option is very risky: the innovation threatens to fossilize even before functioning.According to Hériard, instead of the monologue of this technology push, a dialogue should take place: a debate on the various technical, economic, political and cultural dimensions of a technology, a debate in which professionals and the public should participate. The key concept in Hériard’s position is mediation: the necessity of the mediation of the various dimensions, technical and non-technical, within the process of technological innovation. Mediation: in French médiation, in German: Vermittlung.Dialogue and debate are the vehicles that transport this mediation. Dialogue and debate are indeed of great value in the best possible world of technology. The implementation of a new technology and even the conception itself, the technological idea, are of a social character, are societal phenomenona. The mediation of various dimensions however is not and cannot be proposed as a simple answer. This mediation confronts us with the problem of complexity, i.e, the complexity of the technological innovation itself, and the complexity of professional ethics.Hériard demonstrates with his case-study of the Superphoenix project the importance of mediation. I am supposed to criticize Hériard’s statements, but I prefer to stress that with regard to technology, with regard to the way we handle and evaluate technologies, we do indeed have to think in terms of mediation. With my remarks, I intend to elaborate a little bit on this mediation. I will try to give a sort of philosophical explanation of this concept. And perhaps professor Hériard doesn’t agree with the way I understand his intentions. In that case my remarks are perhaps part of a critical reflection after all