Public Policy

Technology is a blessing wrapped in a curse; it can carry you far, but it can drop you hard, and in a New York minute.

Paul Quinnett, Darwin's Bass, 1996.

Introduction

How does a society evaluate and regulate risks associated with technology? K.S. Shrader-Frechette, in her book, Risk and Rationality: Philosophical Foundations for Populist Reforms, provides some workable principles for societies to use in their efforts at risk management.

Compass

Key Questions

What are some pragmatic and ethical approaches for the public to take in evaluating risk and setting technology policy?

Examples

Risk Perceptions and Public Policy

Shrader-Frechette seeks workable solutions for wise public policy formation. She describes the dilemmas faced in risk assessment, controversies that arise in public debate about risk, and unethical technology policies and then suggests guidelines for good technology policy formation.

Five Dilemmas of Risk Assessment

Public policy is formulated within the context of risk perceptions, which, in turn, reflect the public's opinions of the quality of risk assessment. Risk assessors must estimate as closely as possible the potential hazards of new technology. Their assessments are evaluated by a public that desires that social and ethical as well as technical criteria be used in making risk assessments. Risk assessors and the public then face dilemmas in their attempts to balance technical evaluations with the public's desires for nontechnical input into risk assessment.

The Fact-Value Dilemma: Risk evaluations cannot be both wholly factual/scientific and wholly sanctioned via democratic processes because lay persons want ethical/moral considerations to be taken into account.
The Standardization Dilemma Risk assessors seek standardization of evaluation criteria to avoid the appearance of arbitrariness. But local groups want them to take into account their special conditions.
The Contributors Dilemma Risk assessment can be costly to undertake. Thus, many potential hazards are not examined. In addition, aggregate effects of subthreashold levels of risk often go untested. Pesticides A and B might be considered safe, for example, but are these pesticides safe when they both are applied to the same crop?
The De Minimis Dilemma How safe is safe enough? Declaring a threshold level at which to define negligible risk is a difficult task when citizens hold different expectations of safety.
The Consent Dilemma Persons most affected by risk are sometimes those persons least able to give consent. Persons who lack the economic means and political access to challenge public policy might also be the ones who bear most of the burden of potential hazards.

Of course, no perfect solution exists to resolve these dilemmas. Shrader-Frechette's interest is in bringing these contradictions to light so the public can openly discuss competing agendas as part of the policy making process.

Attacks on the Public's Aversion to Risk

When the public does not accept the risk definitions of technical experts, experts typically blame the public for their reluctance to adopt the innovation. Shrader-Frechette reviews some of the accusations directed at a skeptical public delivered by technical experts and a counterpoint to each accusation.

The public is anti-technology: The public engages in irrational witch hunts against new technologies. The public has inconsistent fears of technology. Opponents are motivated by sectarian, antitechnology sentiment, choose to be panic struck about imagined dangers from technology rather than real threats to the economy or education. They serve their own moral purpose by attacking new technologies.
Counterargument: It is not irrational to question the efficacy of new technologies that have come under criticism. Imagine yourself walking a well-trusted path through the woods, a path you have taken many times before. You hear a rustle in the leaves at your feet. Do you investigate the source of the sound? Of course you do. Our species would not have survived on Earth this long if we were not genetically hard wired to be skeptical. Thus, challenging the efficacy of new technologies is not irrational; it is very rational. Furthermore, challenging new technology is the responsibility of the active citizen; democracies require questioning to work well.
Opponents of new technology are remote from power and influence: They are ineffectuals, distrustful of those in the center of power. They are anti-industry and therefore opposed to new technologies developed by industry.
Counterargument: Risk choices are determined largely by philosophy and psychology, not place in the social structure. This argument is not consistent with the facts of powerful persons also being opposed to various technologies. The moniker, "big business" does instill a sense of mistrust in the American public. But, in fact, most of the time the public embraces new technologies.
Laypersons ignore the fact that society is getting safer: Critics of technology fail to recognize that life is getting longer, not shorter; health is better, not worse.
Counterargument: Distribution of risk is important also. And so are moral/ethical considerations in regard to how advances are made to improving longevity and safety.
The public will never be satisfied with anything but 100% safety: The public is unrealistic in their expectations of safety.
Counterargument: The public has the right, in fact, a responsibility, to challenge new technology, to ask questions and seek understandable answers.

Shrader-Frechette notes that attributions of motives to laypersons oftentimes are inappropriate and unfounded. She suggests that we must develop a new theory of rationality that respects the responsibilities and viewpoints of active citizens.

Public Policy in Developing Countries

Shrader-Frechette points out the sometimes developed countries explain away unethical dissemination of known hazardous technology to developing nations with rationalizations about their efforts at promoting progress. She describes five such rationalizations:

The Isolationist Strategy: Abide by current laws only in imposing risk. That is, if a known hazardous technology (e.g., DDT in pesticides) is not illegal in the developing country then it is ok to sell this technology in that country. The problem with this strategy is that the developed nation knows that the laws of the underdeveloped nation are inadequate to reduce risk.
The Social Progress Strategy: Hazards are a necessary evil for social progress. But, ask Shrader-Frechette, progress for whom and at what risks for the local population?
The Countervailing-Benefits Strategy: Recipients of banned products are better off than they would be without them (i.e., the benefits outweigh the costs). But, are some costs preventable evils that never should be allowed?
The Consent Strategy: If persons in the host country agree to accept the risk, then it is ethical to impose it upon them. But, can the people of host countries give informed consent?
The Reasonable-Possibility Strategy: It is impossible to prevent use of banned products. But, we regulate industry all the time and can regulate ourselves in host countries.

Shrader-Frechette implores citizens in developed countries to extend the same ethics to developing countries they impose upon themselves in setting technology policy.

Technology and Public Policy

What should be the role of government and industry in protecting the public from exposure to unnecessary risks? This question lies at the heart of technology public policy formation. Shrader-Frechette suggests guidelines that can be used to help formulate wise technology public policy.

Minimizing harm is more important than providing good.
Because they have fewer financial resources, the public needs more protection than does industry.
Consumers need self-determination--the chance to reject new technologies.
Societies need to stress the importance of values and long-term economic gain vs. short-term economic benefits.

Summary

Shrader-Frechette points out that technology policy making is not an unambiguous process. Risk assessors and policymakers face dilemmas in their attempts to be objective and fair and also take into account special needs and interests. Research and development organizations sometimes become frustrated with a skeptical public. And it can sometimes be too easy to rationalize unethical dissemination of hazardous technologies for the sake of profits. Shrader-Frechette offers guidelines to help citizens form wise technology policy.