Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):113-130 (2004)
AbstractThis 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.
Similar books and articles
Expertise and public ignorance.Evan M. Selinger - 2003 - Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 15 (3-4):375-386.
Expert and non-expert knowledge in medical practice.Ingemar Nordin - 2000 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3 (3):295-302.
Consensus of expertise: The role of consensus of experts in formulating public policy and estimating facts.Robert M. Veatch - 1991 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):427-445.
Idealizing science and demonizing experts: An intellectual history of expert evidence.Jennifer Mnookin - manuscript
Conflicting expert testimony and the search for gravitational waves.Ben Almassi - 2009 - Philosophy of Science 76 (5):570-584.
The bioethicist as public intellectual.Kayhan P. Parsi & Karen E. Geraghty - 2004 - American Journal of Bioethics 4 (1):17 – 23.
The Balance Between Expertise and Authority in Citizen Engagement About New Biotechnology.David Castle - 2006 - Techne 9 (3):1-13.
Accounting for the Appeal to the Authority of Experts.Jean Goodwin - 2011 - Argumentation 25 (3):285-296.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Ethical Discourse on the Use of Genetically Modified Crops: A Review of Academic Publications in the Fields of Ecology and Environmental Ethics. [REVIEW]Daniel Gregorowius, Petra Lindemann-Matthies & Markus Huppenbauer - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (3):265-293.
“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.
References found in this work
Public Participation Methods: A Framework for Evaluation.Lynn J. Frewer & Gene Rowe - 2000 - Science, Technology, and Human Values 25 (1):3-29.
Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science.S. O. Funtowicz & J. R. Ravetz - 1992 - In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (eds.), Social Theories of Risk. Praeger. pp. 251-274.
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.
Consumer exit, voice, and loyalty: Indicative, legitimation, and regulatory role in agricultural and food ethics. [REVIEW]Terry Newholm - 2000 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 12 (2):153-164.