The construction of scientific uncertainty and evidentiary hierarchy in the Camp Carroll controversy

Abstract

The Camp Carroll controversy occurred in the aftermath of testimony given by three veteran United States soldiers, who stated that the Eighth US Army buried Agent Orange at Camp Carroll in South Korea during the late 1970s. This paper focuses on three scientific debates arising from the activities of the ROK–US Joint Investigation Team, which conducted an extensive probe into this allegation over a period of eight months. Critically engaging with Silvio Funtowicz and Jarome Ravetz’s typology of scientific uncertainty, the paper explores how scientific uncertainty is apparent in these debates, and how the Joint Investigation Team determined the hierarchy of evidence when finalizing its report. The main findings are summarized below. The Joint Investigation Team examined interview, documentary, and scientific evidence in order to prove the alleged burial of Agent Orange at Camp Carroll. The investigation faced technical, methodological, and epistemological challenges by various stakeholders. In the absence of contradictory scientific and documentary evidence, the team rejected interview evidence from the former United States Forces Korea veterans, in accordance with a technocratic approach to evidentiary hierarchy. Scientific uncertainty was used as a shield to block the institutional discussion of and therefore revision to the US–ROK Status of Forces Agreement. The conclusion highlights my critical thinking about Funtowicz and Ravetz’s concept of scientific uncertainty.