Risk and public dialogue in the Fukushima story
The public reaction to the radiation from the Fukushima nuclear plant is a revealing case study in the public perception of risk in science. As a number of commentators have noticed, the media coverage of Fukushima, where health effects are still unknown and no deaths have yet occurred, has dwarfed that of the earthquake and tsunami from which thousands have suffered and died.
As David Spiegelhalter, at Cambridge University explained in an article for BBC news “Psychologists have spent years identifying the factors that lead to increased feelings of risk and vulnerability - and escaped radiation from nuclear plants ticks all the boxes”. It is invisible, little understood and unnatural. The accepted wisdom is for governments and companies to be as honest and transparent as possible - highlighting, not hiding, the risks and uncertainties, and providing all the information they can.
Risk is an inherent part of scientific development and no communications strategy can, or should, aim to erase feelings of risk. However, governments can try to encourage a rational and open discussion. While important, one-way communication will only begin to achieve this. Public dialogue is also an essential ingredient, particularly as feelings of risk are increased when people feel they have no control over the issues and their voices are not heard. However, as Lord Sainsbury pointed out at last year’s British Science Festival, it is a mistake to assume that a better-informed public will necessarily be more trusting; the opposite can, in fact, be the case.
The surge of public interest in Fukushima has created a fertile ground for science dialogue on the topic; technical diagrams have appeared in newspapers and many ordinary people have a newly found vocabulary with which to discuss nuclear power. In addition to engaging with the media, scientists and policy makers need to take such opportunities to engage directly with the public on the issue. An interesting comment thread on Andrew Maynard’s blog on the question shows that recent events have prompted scientists to consider how this may best be done.
It’s not yet clear how Fukushima has affected the public perception of nuclear power. As Sciencewise-ERC Steering group member Andy Stirling highlighted in a letter to The Guardian, there is no one ‘answer’ to nuclear power to be discovered with a better understanding of science. The answer lies in the weighing of evidence, and the consideration of risks, values and options. In short, it lies in better dialogue.