Discussing Sci/Tech Risks Hurts Consensus Efforts

Thomas Jefferson once wrote to John Adams that, “Truth between candid minds can never do harm.” But times have changed, and new research shows that discussion of the risks and benefits associated with emerging science and technology actually hurts efforts to build consensus on those issues.

A paper published this month by Risk Analysis finds that people’s opinions on sci/tech issues become even further entrenched after discussion. The result? No matter what side of an issue I started out on, I’m always right and you’re always wrong. (So that’s why the Flat Earth Society still exists!)

This means that people who are concerned about the risks associated with an emerging science or technology become more convinced of those risks as a result of talking about it. At the same time, those who are drawn to the potential benefits of new sci/tech perceive the benefits as being greater the more they talk about it.

This highlights the difficulties facing policy leaders as they try to engage the public on high-profile sci/tech issues, ranging from climate change to stem cell research. “Government agencies view research on these issues as vital and necessary for the country’s future, but building public consensus for that research is becoming increasingly difficult,” says NC State University’s Andrew Binder, lead author of the paper.

The paper doesn’t really provide answers, but it does help us better understand the problem – and can hopefully inform the way that policymakers and researchers engage the public when it comes to science and technology.

With luck, some day members of the general public may even be willing to change their minds based on evidence.