In this blog post, we will examine the limitations of science through the examples of nuclear power and climate change, and explore how post-normal science can offer solutions for policy-making.
Science is advancing at a rapid pace, providing us with information on the causes and effects of many phenomena. However, science has its limitations, and it is impossible to explain all phenomena through science alone. Therefore, it is difficult to make policy decisions regarding technologies that cannot be fully explained by science. This task becomes even more difficult when the interests of various groups involved in science and technology policy are taken into consideration. How can this problem be solved? There are various ways to do this, but in this article, we will focus on the trans-normal science approach, which utilizes extended facts and extended communities. First, we will introduce cases from the book Science Debates That Changed the World where science failed to provide accurate information, leading to problems in science policy decisions, and then we will try to solve them by applying the trans-normal science approach.
The first case is the debate over the use of nuclear energy. Since the speech “Atomic Energy for Peace” in August 1953, humanity has obtained a great deal of energy through nuclear power generation, but the debate over the use of nuclear energy continues to rage. Those who advocate the use of nuclear energy emphasize that, unlike fossil fuel-based power generation, nuclear power does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and is therefore environmentally friendly and cheaper than fossil fuels. They also argue that technological improvements have solved the biggest problem with nuclear power, which is safety. On the other hand, opponents of nuclear energy argue that nuclear power is not environmentally friendly because nuclear waste, a byproduct of nuclear power generation, must be stored in nuclear waste repositories for tens of thousands of years, which places a burden on the environment. Furthermore, they argue that nuclear power is not cheap when considering the entire process rather than just the operating costs of nuclear power plants, and that safety issues have not been completely resolved with current technology. These two opposing views on the use of nuclear energy are based on the fact that science has not provided accurate information on nuclear power, allowing each side to present only the results that are favorable to their interests. Therefore, it is difficult to determine science and technology policies on the use of nuclear energy, and a solution is needed.
The second case is the debate on global climate change. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused massive damage to the southern United States, and the island nation of Tuvalu in the South Pacific is in danger of being submerged by rising sea levels. In addition, glaciers in the Arctic are melting at a rapid pace, putting polar bears at risk of extinction, and many other abnormal weather phenomena are occurring around the world. These abnormal weather phenomena are causing enormous damage to humanity, and global warming is being identified as the cause of these recent abnormal weather phenomena. Global warming is causing the collapse of the Earth’s stable ecosystem and material environment, leading to abnormal weather phenomena. Although it is widely accepted that global warming is the cause of abnormal weather phenomena, there is still debate about the causes of global warming. Those who point to fossil fuels as the main cause of global warming argue that excessive use of fossil fuels over a long period of time is raising the Earth’s temperature, and warn that if the use of fossil fuels continues, more serious abnormal climate phenomena, such as the disruption of the ocean conveyor belt, will occur. On the other hand, those who argue that fossil fuels are not the main cause of global warming claim that global warming is merely a natural cycle and that the use of fossil fuels does not have a significant impact on the entire planet. In this debate, the two opposing views on the causes of global warming are due to the fact that science has not been able to provide accurate information. It is difficult to determine whether fossil fuels are actually the cause of global warming because each side presents only arguments that are favorable to their own interests. Therefore, it is difficult to reach a consensus on fossil fuel use policies, and a solution is needed.
As seen in the two cases above, the problem is that science is not fulfilling its role properly. If science could accurately calculate and present the safety issues and necessary costs of nuclear power, it would be possible to make a more rational decision based on scientific results without a debate on the pros and cons of nuclear power. Furthermore, if science could accurately calculate the impact of fossil fuels on global warming, it would be possible to reasonably and accurately determine the amount of fossil fuels to be used. To resolve the value disputes arising from this absence of science, Jerome Ravetz and Silvio Puntavich devised the concept of “post-normal science.” Post-normal science is a solution strategy for situations where problems can no longer be solved using the normal science approach. Unlike traditional problem-solving methods that rely entirely on science, this solution strategy attempts to solve problems using expanded facts and expanded communities. Expanded facts refer to knowledge that is based on scientific knowledge but also encompasses the humanities and social sciences, and further includes local and civic knowledge. This strategy aims to minimize uncertainty and produce “reliable knowledge” through all possible means. An expanded community is a problem-solving group that is appropriate for expanded facts, and its composition ensures the maximum participation of not only scientists and bureaucrats but also experts in the humanities and social sciences and stakeholders. This strategy aims to make reliable judgments while minimizing conflicts of interests and values.
How would applying transdisciplinary science work in the two cases above? In fact, in the case of the debate over the use of nuclear energy, transdisciplinary science was applied to resolve the issue by holding a citizens’ consensus meeting that allowed the general public to participate in scientific and technological decisions. The general public lacks scientific knowledge because they are not experts, but they acquired scientific knowledge through preliminary meetings and individual study, and supplemented their knowledge by listening to experts during the conference. As a result, the conflict over the decision on the use of nuclear energy was reduced, and a consensus was reached. In the second case, applying the trans-normal science method and opening the way for the public to participate in scientific and technological decisions would also solve the problem. As in the first case, holding a citizens’ consensus conference or encouraging public participation in other ways would reduce the conflict between the two opposing positions, making it easier to reach a consensus.
As society becomes increasingly complex and mutual interests become the basis for value judgments, there are more and more problems that cannot be solved by science alone. Expert-level scientific approaches are necessary to solve these problems, but when they are insufficient, applying transnormal science methods can help solve social problems in a more rational and logical manner.
