Scientists often complain that people are not rational (理性的) in their opposition to technologies such as nuclear power and genetically modified (GM) crops. From a statistical perspective, these are very safe, and so people's fear can be explained only by emotion, strengthened by ignorance. Electricity from nuclear power has led to far fewer direct deaths than has coalfired power, yet many people are afraid of it, and hardly anyone is afraid of coal plants. Similar arguments can be made about GM crops, which studies have shown are generally safe for most people to eat.
Scientific illiteracy (无知) may be part of the problem. Most of us are afraid of things we don't understand, and studies have shown that scientists tend to be more accepting of potentially risky technologies than laypeople. This suggests that when people know a lot about such technologies, they are usually reassured.
But there's more to the issue than meets the eye. It is true that many of us fear the unknown, but it is also true that we don't care enough about routine risks. Part of the explanation iscomplacency: we tend not to fear the familiar, and thus familiarity can lead us to underestimate risk. The investigation into the Deepwater Horizon blowout and oil spill (原油泄漏) in 2010 showed that complacency—among executives, among engineers and among government officials—was a major cause of that disaster. So the fact that experts are unworried about a threat is not necessarily reassuring.
Scientists also make a mistake when they assume that public concerns are wholly or even mostly about safety. Some people object to GM crops because these crops facilitate the increased use of chemicals. Others have a problem with the social impacts that switching to GM organisms can have on traditional farming communities or with the political implications of leaving a large share of the food supply in the hands of a few corporations.
Geoengineering (地球工程学) to lessen the impacts of climate change is another example. Laypeople as well as scientists are more concerned about oversight (监管) than safety. Who will decide whether this is a good way to deal with climate change? If we undertake the project of setting the global temperature by controlling how much sunlight reaches Earth's surface, who will be included in that "we" and by what process will the "right" global temperature be chosen?
Can we say which group's view is closer to an accurate assessment?
