Crossing the Line – “Science” and “Decisions” Facing Emerging Technologies

Abstract

The discussion in this special section has been stimulated by the National Research Council report: “Science and Decisions. Advancing Risk Assessment” [1]. In this title, two different domains are simultaneously linked and held apart by the word “and”. This word reveals the problem addressed in this special section. Science is comfortable in its own self-referential domain of theory-driven observation, methodical data generation, and hypothetical, i.e. provisional, knowledge production. Science’s world cannot be sustained without proper alimentation; hence, there is a lot of pressure to deliver “useful knowledge,” which is defined as the kind of knowledge that stimulates economic growth. Natural sciences and engineering sciences claim their advantage by providing results with practical functions, or at least results that may lead to functioning technological realities in the near future. Nowadays, even philosophical research is expected to prove its societal impact and usefulness by contributing to more customer-oriented, sustainable, and ethically defendable technological systems [2]. The crossing from “science” to “decisions” is unavoidable and mandatory, so it appears, but the interaction between science and decision-making is not straightforward. The regulator faces a “dilemma” [3]: On the one hand, decision-makers seem to be asking questions that science cannot give clear answers to (e.g., what are the environmental implications of nanotechnology?) under increasing public pressure. On the other hand, scientists provide answers, in ever greater detail, to questions that decision-makers did not ask or are not interested in (e.g., by what mechanisms do carbon nanotubes cause asbestos-like pathogenicity). Science does not deliver certainty, as the discussions about ignorance or non-knowledge illustrate: “Sometimes, to learn more is to discover hidden complexities that make us realize that the mastery we thought we had over phenomena was in part illusory” [4]. The realization of indeterminacies as a universal fact is like an unmovable object which collides with the irresistible force, i.e. the postulate to make decisions: “Only those questions that are in principle undecidable, we can decide” [5]. While we must decide on matters Nanoethics (2015) 9:255–260 DOI 10.1007/s11569-015-0244-z