Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge

Abstract

concerns descend into fear, which is amplified by parts of the media . . . We need, therefore, a robust engaging dialogue with the public. We need to re-establish trust and confidence in the way that science can demonstrate new opportunities, and offer new solutions.' Nowhere is public concern over scientific advances and expert judgement more evident than in the sphere of the environment, chiefly because there is a clear link between many of the current debates surrounding issues such as GMOs and climate change, and concern over public health. It is the crucial issue of the tension between expert/scientific opinion, and citizen knowledge and participation related to the environment, that Fischer addresses in this book. The book is presented in four parts. The first sets the scene and reviews the literature on the interrelated themes of democratic theory, public participation, environmental policy and sociology of science, drawing valuable links between different elements of these diverse fields. Fischer draws heavily on the work of a number of well-known authors including Foucault, Wynne and especially Beck. Beck's (1992) 'risk society' is used as the 'theoretical backdrop' to Fischer's book, starting with the proposition that although technical and scientific progress was traditionally celebrated for producing material goods and thereby increasing social welfare, 'more and more people have come to recognise that technical risks involved in the production of many of these goods have risen to such a level that they become more troublesome than the traditional risks associated with material scarcity' (p. 49). Development of the theory and practice of environmental risks as a result of the production of material goods is the specific theme of Part n. This section is particularly useful in offering a wide range of case studies illustrating different risks mainly from the United States and Europe. Part II concludes with an interesting discussion of NIMB Yism and NIAB Yism and their roots in public distrust of science. Fischer follows the sentiments of authors such as Slovic (1993) in arguing that risk assessments conducted by scientists often do little or nothing to persuade the general public that particular technologies are relatively safe, and therefore should be socially acceptable. He argues that the public has rejected traditional risk assessment because it is based mainly cm technical