FROM CASES OF HYSTERIA TO THE THERAPEUTIC SOCIETY
237
other domain of knowledge. Does it follow that non-scientists should
have some say in the decision making prophecies that define and shape
the work of the professional scientific community? Should non–
experts have anything to say about scientific methodology and
epistemology? After centuries of scientific racism, scientific sexism,
and scientific domination of nature one ;11.ight have thought that this
was a pertinent question to ask.
I freely admit that science does have a point of view, but not that our
point of view is racist, sexist, or dominates nature--it dominates our think–
ing about nature, but nature is what dominates our structures. However,
there is an issue: science is powerful and affects our lives; an important
question is whether non-scientists should have anything to say about sci–
ence. That is an interesting and legitimate question to which I would like
to propose an answer. When it comes to the methodology, when it comes
to the way science is conducted, clearly it is scientists, the experts who have
to decide. To say that non-experts should decide is like saying that a pas–
senger on a plane should be asked for his opinion on what the pilot should
do when in a difficult situation. Pilots may make wrong decisions, but even
if
they don't always do it right, they have the best chance.
But where values are involved, when the issue is the way science affects
society, there are situations that should not be decided by the experts. They
must involve everyone. Here we get into really serious problems. People
feel so frightened and left out because they often are excluded from the
decisions that affect their own lives by experts who say "you just don't
know enough." I think that is too bad. To know enough to be able to assess
the risks and to make an intelligent decision about many of the questions
that are asked is not as difficult as is believed .
Consider the recent bruhaha about electric lines and spending billions
of dollars to move them, etc. Some of the discussion reflects what can best
be described as bleak ignorance. It really doesn't take more than a week to
learn enough electromagnetic theory to comprehend why those of us who
understand it believe that the supposed adverse effects are not there. Of
course anything is possible. But do we want to protect against hypotheti–
cal possibili ties for which we have no evidence whatsoever? We have to
assess risks. And it's not all that hard to obtain knowledge so that we can
all participate in decisions. I think non-experts must be involved in these
decisions . I think it is possible for non-scientists to learn what they need
to know about science. Science departments (with some outstanding
exceptions) have probably not been as responsive as they should. But it
can, it must be done. In this world ignorance of science is as much a hand–
icap as illiteracy. What is required is not "science studies." What we need,
instead, is that all of us study more science.
