The Terms of Scientific Debate and the Issue of its Reception
Notes de la rédaction
Excerpts from Prof. Marc Fontecave’s paper
Source: La lettre, no. 37, December 2013
1The theme of global warming has a special status in the environmental debates that animates political and social life, particularly in France.
- 1 (1) D. Pestre, à contre-science, Seuil, 2013.
2Our aim during this symposium is to understand the difficulties and deadlocks faced by our country, and others, with respect to the relations between science, technology and society, the role of scientific progress in economic and social development, the way the media and the political sphere tackle this issue, and finally, the democratic dialogue between the various actors involved: citizens, politicians, scientific experts, etc. We are clearly faced with a paradoxical situation in which citizens are more than ever hoping that scientists will resolve major societal problems – for example regarding health or the development of new energy technology for the large-scale exploitation of renewable energy sources –, yet at the same time they are increasingly seeing science exclusively as a source of tragedy. When medicine is associated at once with the Mediator affair, all the benefits of pharmaceutical research are forgotten. When chemistry is essentially perceived as a source of pollution, everything our quality of life owes to chemical industry products, to molecules, polymers and various materials, is overlooked. And when nuclear energy is exclusively seen as a source of potential disaster, no thought is given to the fact that every day the switch, which affords us the comfort of heating and lighting, is linked to a nuclear power plant, at a relatively competitive energy cost, with a lower impact in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. This paradox is what makes scientific debate so tense, and the necessary political arbitration so difficult. Journalists generally make things worse, as they obviously place far too much emphasis on immediate news and disasters, as well as on consensus, leaving little room for dissident voices to be heard. Virtually none of the environmental questions – nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), shale gas, and even climate change – are safe from these deadlocks. In my view, this situation is due to the exacerbated confrontation between two currently polarized ideologies dominating modern societies. The first is liberal ideology, which organizes society according to the demands of the market, risks and competition, prioritizing short-term action with quick returns on investment. The second is the new environmental ideology that Dominique Pestre, who spoke at this symposium, calls “the ideology of sustainable development” in his latest book1.
3This ideology, which began to emerge 50 years ago with the early debates on nuclear power and the Club of Rome report, calls for a society that is respectful of the environment, collectively devising solutions to society’s problems, based on the principles of both precaution and long-term interests, and asserting unconditionally that “the ecological crisis is the major determining factor of our collective well-being”. This ideology draws on new values that are widely shared by citizens of the world, even if politically they do not always translate into electoral terms, both in France and elsewhere. These values can be summed up as respect for the environment, a relatively recent and, in a way, revolutionary concept. They also include a growing awareness of the fact that the consequences of our current actions will be felt much later and will essentially affect future generations. These values are shared so strongly that anyone who gives the impression of not adhering to them and of prioritizing the satisfaction of very short-term interests without taking long-term impacts into account will be excluded from the debate. Finally, these are values of precaution, which are so important to citizens with growing expectations of protection and security, and therefore of precautionary attitudes, which unfortunately sometimes lead to excessive caution but also to necessary normative policies.
4Unfortunately, like any ideology, it also breeds a number of dogmatic ideas, against which it is increasingly difficult to voice opposition. We need, however, to fight steadfastly the gloomy outlooks that systematically pit humans, science and technology, on the one hand, against nature on the other, mostly envisaging the former solely as sources of destruction of the latter.
5Hence, wherever possible, let us stress that it is not science that generates problems, but the need to feed, heat and transport seven billion people currently living on the planet and ten billion in the future. In particular, energy consumption is expected to double over the next 40 years, if only to meet the demand of over a billion human beings in China, India and Africa, currently faced with dire energy needs. This goal cannot be reached without continuous scientific and technological development, controlled through proper evaluation of the potential risks raised by new technologies.
• Listen to the full paper at www.college-de-france.fr/site/colloque-2013/symposium-2013-10-18-09h10.htm.
• The symposiums papers will be published by Odile Jacob in 2014.
• Opening Address
• Energy and Climate Change Challenges and Opportunities: Dr Chu Goes to Washington. Review of a former US Secretary of Energy’s Experience.
• A Comparative Study of Explorations and Exploitations in the World
• Media, Scientific and Political Taboos, etc. A Strange Era
Anne-Yvonne le Dain
• Knowledge, Politics and Democracy in Countries of the South
• Perspectives from Africa: Science, Politics and Democracy
• The Experience of the FACTS Initiative, the Role of NGOs
• Innovation, Freedom of Research and Societal Choices: the Example of Regenerative Medicine
• Who is Afraid of Research and Innovation?
Freedom of Research and Socially Robust Knowledge
• Regeneration, Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
Nicole Le Douarin
• Scientific Debates and Political Decision-Making:
the Case of Climate Change
• The Terms of the Scientific Debate and the Problem
of its Reception
Jean Jouzel and Marc Fontecave
• Issues Surrounding the Long-Term Economic Management of Problems
• Economic Actors, Civil Society and Political
• Science and Politics: the Question of Institutions
• Making Decisions Differently. Reflections Based
on Citizen Conferences
• What Scientific Journalists Can Do and What They Actually Do
• The City of Science, Science in the City
• Democracy and Managing the Long-Term Future
Table des illustrations
Pour citer cet article
Marc Fontecave, « The Terms of Scientific Debate and the Issue of its Reception », La lettre du Collège de France [En ligne], 8 | mars 2014, mis en ligne le 11 août 2015, consulté le 24 avril 2017. URL : http://lettre-cdf.revues.org/2024Haut de page
© Collège de FranceHaut de page