Technosphère vs écosphère. Choix technologiques et menaces environnementales :signaux faibles, controverses et décisions

We are witnessing ever more rapid advances in science and technology, with a potential and actual impact on an extremely wide range of applications that have social, economic and ecological consequences requiring an early investigation of their concomitant positive outcomes and risks. This investigation could be based on identifying the “weak signals” that futures studies specialists often refer to, and which are defined here, although the authors warn that the definition may be controversial. It would therefore be helpful if the definition could be aired more widely and, if possible, the subject of use in “consultative governance”.
The article by Sylvie Faucheux and Martin O’Connor first discusses several recent controversies provoked by observed or potential threats to the environment, linked to technological decisions taken on a more or less democratic basis: Seveso, the ozone layer, acid rain, “mad cow disease”, radioactive waste, and genetically modified organisms. They highlight, in each case, the (weak) signals that should have been taken into consideration in the decision-making process.
While recognizing that many decisions have to be taken despite the absence of scientific certainty, the authors stress the need to develop procedures and consultative bodies that would bring together experts with differing opinions and actors who, also, hold differing opinions. They argue that such procedures probably are the forerunners of new styles of “consultative governance” that should be developed.
Lastly, the authors evaluate recent experiences of consultation undertaken along these lines, through such mechanisms as “focus groups” and “citizens’ juries” but also, at a more general level, through “foresight” programmes that are being developed in a number of countries. These experiments could, in their view, prefigure the forms that governance will need to take on to deal with growing uncertainty, and therefore increasing controversy.