The human paradox - Risk-shy adventurers need to be involved in science
We humans are a hard lot to fathom sometimes. On the one hand, we can be fearless risk takers. Polynesian migrants, for example, set out on dangerous voyages into the unknown. They faced very long odds indeed on finding somewhere suitable to settle – let alone finding dry land. Centuries later, astronauts showed the same alacrity when they allowed themselves to be hurtled moonwards on a very uncertain journey, controlled by what now seems scarily primitive technology.
On the other hand, we also show great aversion to risk. Novel situations or technologies that carry statistically miniscule levels of risk can engender deep mistrust.
According to science communication specialist Professor Julian Cribb, this paradox in our make-up is simply a function of the way we’ve evolved. Speaking at the recent Biosecurity Summit in Wellington, Professor Cribb presented Shock factor: Public perceptions of risk in biosecurity and science.
Professor Julian Cribb
He said it is in our nature to be adventurous, but we have also evolved many strategies to avoid risk and prolong our lives. And when applied to developments in science, we greet new advances both with enthusiasm – and with great suspicion. Today, this has been compounded by much science being conducted in secrecy by governments and large corporations.
“The period from the 17th to the 19th century was one of great scientific freedom,” Professor Cribb explained, “but the 20th century was a period of strong control over science by governments. Science became secretive and associated with dangerous outcomes, such as weapons of mass destruction. Since the end of the Cold War, science has become dissociated from delivery of public goods. Rather it is seen as serving the interests of global corporates through technologies such as nanotechnology, cloning, genetic engineering and xenotransplantation.
“The mistrust of science that many feel today has profound impacts on research, its funding and adoption by society. Institutions no longer received unqualified public support.”
He said science needs to acknowledge that people want to be part of the innovation process, and impart their collective wisdom through a ‘knowledge democracy’ in which both lay and technical points of view are heeded.
The media has a crucial role in this process. Professor Cribb said it is commonly thought that the media focuses perversely on bad news. However, in reality, the media is driven by what consumers want. “Today’s media are part of a delicate early warning system which identifies public perceptions of risk and channels these back to science and governments.”
The discipline of biosecurity had plenty to learn from this phenomenon of public mistrust of science and the desire to engage in science decisions, Professor Cribb said.
“It will take more than just clever advertisements,” he warned. “The public needs to be able to engage in what you’re doing and to understand its importance.
“Biosecurity also depends on understanding what you have and how you can protect it. There’s an acute shortage of those skills at present.”
Professor Cribb said about two-thirds of New Zealand species were still unrecorded, but the discovery science that is needed to help close this gap is traditionally done within the public sector. This work is now often shouldered aside by commercial imperatives, he observed.
The public needs to know about this, and to tell the Government what they feel on the issue of protecting our biodiversity, he said.
Applying the principles of knowledge democracy covers both lanes of the two-way street that is biosecurity, Professor Cribb concluded.
“People need to know what we have that is worth protecting, and how science can help by keeping out pests and diseases. They also need to know what we have in New Zealand that could threaten the biosecurity of other countries. They need to know what they can do to avoid causing harm in other places.
“Biosecurity needs to solicit the public’s sanction for this process to work. The more we trust the public, the more they will trust the science that supports biosecurity.”
Return to:
Page last updated: 30 April 2008