Incertidumbre, ambivalencia y confianza. Percepción social del riesgo de contaminación por agroquímicos.

Leonardo Vaccarezza

doi:10.48160/18517072re40.601

Authors

Leonardo Vaccarezza IESCT-UNQ

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.48160/18517072re40.601

Keywords:

risk, uncertainty, ambivalence, agricultural technology

Abstract

The development of science and technology has an impact over the public perception of technology, leading to the development of specific concepts: risk, risk perception, risk acceptance, uncertainty, ambivalence, and trust in science. Based on data obtained from a survey addressed to college students, this paper discusses an issue that has been widely publicized through mass media –the effects on health and the environment of the expansion of soybean cultivation in Argentina, and the agrochemical practices linked to it–, as a good example to explore the relationships among risk-related concepts. As it was found that there is a relative independence between the indicators of these concepts, it is possible to suggest that attitudes and social representations of the surveyed public about science and technology are embodying ambiguous positions. A distinction regarding the concept of uncertainty is empirically worked out, following respective theoretical currents: the one that defines uncertainty as knowledge insufficiency and the other that emphasizes the emotional aspects of the lack of certainty. Cognitive uncertainty and risk perception are relatively independent of ambivalence, which means the coexistence of contradictory values regarding technology in the same individual and that trust in scientists and technologists is not derived from the assignment of ignorance, but from their image as being compelled by conflicting interests regarding moral rules related to science.

References

Bárcena, A. et al. (eds.) (2004), Los transgénicos en América Latina y el Caribe: un debate abierto, Santiago de Chile, cepal.

Bauman, Z. (1991), Modernity and Ambivalence, Oxford, Polity Press-Blackwell.

Beck, U. (1992), Risk Society, Londres, Sage.

Blok, A., M. Jensen y P. Kaltoft (2008), “Social identities and risk: expert and lay imaginations on pesticide use”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 17, N° 2, pp. 189-209.

Bravo, A. L. et al. (2010), Los señores de la soja. La agricultura transgénica en América Latina, Buenos Aires, Clacso.

Funtowicz, S. y J. Ravetz (1993), Epistemología política. Ciencia con la gente, Buenos Aires, Centro Editor de América Latina.

Giarracca, N. y M. Teubal (2005), El campo argentino en la encrucijada. Estrategias y resistencias sociales, ecos en la ciudad, Buenos Aires, Alianza.

Irwin A. y M. Michael (2003), Science, Social Theory and Public Knowledge, Maidenhead, Open University Press.

Kerr, A., S. Cunningham-Burley y R. Tutton (2007), “Shifting subject positions: experts and lay people in public dialogue”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, N° 3, pp. 385-410.

Luján, J. L. y O. Todt (2007), “Precaution in public: the social perception of the role of science and values in policy making”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 16, N° 1, pp. 97-109.

Mc Cormick, S. (2007), “Democratizing Science Movements: A New Framework for Mobilization and Contestation”, Social Studies of Science, vol. 37, N° 4, pp. 609-623.

Michael, M. (1996), “Ignoring science: discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science, en A. Irwin y B. Winner, Misunderstandig science?: The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Cambridge University Press, pp. 107-125.

Pengue, W. (2000), Cultivos transgénicos. ¿Hacia dónde vamos? Algunos efectos sobre el ambiente, la sociedad y la economía de la nueva “recombinación” tecnológica, Buenos Aires, Programa de Ciencia y Tecnología para América Latina y el Caribe, Unesco.

Powell, M. et al. (2007), “Exploring lay uncertainty about an environmental health risk”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 16, N° 3, pp. 323-343.

Priest, S. (2006), “Public discourse and scientific controversy: a spiral-of-silence. Analisys of Biothecnology opinion in United State”, Science Communication, vol. 28, N° 2, pp. 195-215.

Scott, A. y R. Du Plessis (2008), “Eliciting situated knowledges about new technologies”, Public Understanding of Science, vol. 17, N° 1, pp. 105-119.

Sztompka, P. (2006), Trust: a Sociological Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Torres Albero, C. (2005), “La ambivalencia ante la ciencia y la tecnología”, Revista Internacional de Sociología, N° 42, pp. 9-38.

Trigo, E. et al. (2004), Los transgénicos en la agricultura argentina, Montreal, International Institute for Sustainable Development.

Tutton, R. (2007), “Constructing participation in genetic databases: citizenship, governance and ambivalence”, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol. 32, N° 2, pp. 172-195.

Wynne, B. (1992), “Uncertainty and environmental learning”, Global Environmental Change, vol. 2, N° 2, pp. 111-127.

Yearly, S. (2000), “Making systematic sense of public discontents with expert knowledge:two analytical approaches and a case study”, Public Understanding of Science, 9, pp. 105-122.