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.
Keywords expert controversies  late modern risks  public trust
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/B:JAGE.0000017391.41994.d2
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,039
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.Lynn J. Frewer & Gene Rowe - 2000 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 25 (1):3-29.
Taking Consumers Seriously: Two Concepts of Consumer Sovereignty. [REVIEW]Michiel Korthals - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 14 (2):201-215.
Risk and Social Learning: Reification to Engagement.Brian Wynne - 1992 - In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk. Praeger. pp. 275--297.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

“Consent and Consensus in Policies Related to Food – Five Core Values”.Helena Röcklinsberg - 2006 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (3):285-299.
Evoking Trust in the Nutrition Counselor: Why Should We Be Trusted? [REVIEW]Jacqui Gingras - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 18 (1):57-74.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
68 ( #168,672 of 2,506,010 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
3 ( #209,628 of 2,506,010 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes