Technical Controversies over Public Policy — from fluoridation to fracking and climate change
Review by Marc-Denis Weitze
How can controversies be dealt with such that they prove fruitful? What are the aims when communicating controversies? Should controversies be ended by pronouncing a judgement or by mediation?
Controversies are the fuel which is driving science and technology: They highlight the pros and cons of new technologies, expose the weak spots of either side, help to evaluate both usefulness and possible hazards for people and the environment — and therefore serve as a means of technology assessment. Allan Mazur has thought and worked for decades on the evolution, handling and ending of controversies from the perspective of empirical sociology. His work has always been based upon concrete case studies. In this book Mazur discusses characteristics and patterns of technology-based controversies that have attained prominence in the media.
Mazur asks: “Given the same scientific knowledge, why do some governments or publics favour a controversial technology while others oppose it?”. This is a central puzzle of controversies. Based upon an extensive analysis of many controversies, Mazur considers it would be naïve to think that if the scientific facts are known, this would end the controversy. He elaborates that at the core of any technology-based controversy is a dispute between experts, both about the facts and about policy preferences. It is this interplay of knowledge and values that makes controversies so challenging, and not only from the perspective of a sociologist.
Mazur describes current examples of controversies and shows that there are only a few prominent technology-based controversies at a given time in the media. In his descriptions of how controversies arise, escalate and end, Mazur stresses the role of the mass media — specifically, their partisan amplification and agenda-setting function (e.g. for the case of climate change, examined in chapter 1). He identifies three factors for the escalation of controversies (again strongly related to mass media):
- first, whether the sides involved in a dispute have access to journalists,
- second, whether the controversial topic fits the current news agenda and
- third, whether it is at all newsworthy.
Throughout his work, Mazur focuses on the mass media as both amplifiers and platforms for controversies. He mentions social media only two or three times as “additional” factors. The reader might be wondering whether it would be worthwhile to analyse the function of social media in controversies in more detail: will they change the evolution, amplification and features of controversies? Will there be new players with key roles in the escalation-stage of controversies? Will completely new controversial topics come into focus? Will there be more controversies at a given time, and will they evolve at a faster pace?
Mazur reminds us that there is plenty of “wiggle room” in science and technology, as has become clear from decades of research in the field of science and technology studies: facts of science and technology come with uncertainties, ambiguities, alternative interpretations. And real-world problems are, in many cases, incompletely defined. This means that essentially most controversies cannot be resolved.
Consequently, Mazur asks: How can controversies be dealt with such that they prove fruitful? What are the aims when communicating controversies? Should controversies be ended by pronouncing a judgement or by mediation? One main message from Mazur to communicators is: Differentiate between activist partisans, who are knowledgeable about the issues and who embed their position in a larger ideological framework, and passive members of the general public, for whom relevant questions are generally too complex to follow.
Mazur realises that the roles of experts, scientists and communicators can become blurred in controversies. He analyses disputes between experts and shows examples of where the roles of scientists, experts and partisans overlap and where scientific, ideological and rhetorical argumentation are all muddled up. Then, communication of controversies can come close to propaganda for only one side. Mazur emphasises that a more transparent definition of roles, would make controversies even more functional and fruitful for our society.
Marc-Denis Weitze is Head of Technology Communication at the Munich office of acatech (German Academy of Science and Engineering). He teaches science communication at Technische Universität München, and is co-author with WM Heckl of Wissenschaftskommunikation (Springer 2016).
