Many of the issues that lie at the interface between science and politics involve questions that can be stated in scientific terms but that are in principle beyond the proficiency of science to answer. In a recent paper in Milierva [10, 209 (April 1972)], I proposed the term 'trans-scientific" for such questions. For example, the biological effect on humans of very low level radiation (or of other physical insult, for that matter) will probably never be fully ascertained, simply because of the huge number of animals required to demonstrate an unequivocal effect. Estimates of extremely un'ilkely events (such as a serious reactor accident) can never be made with anything like the scientific validity that one can apply to estimates of events for which there are abundant statistics.In the current attempts to weigh the benefits of technology against its risks, the protagonists often ask for the impossible: scientific answers to questions that are trans-scientific. What the scientist can do in clarifying matters of trans-science differs from what he can do in clarifying matters of science. In the latter case, he can bring to bear his scientific expertise to help establish scientific truth; in the former case, he can, at most, help deirneate where science ends and trans-science begins. We scientists sornetinfles refuse to concede that science has limits. The debate on risks versus benefits would be more fruitful if we recognized these limits.Scientific truth is established by the traditional methods of peer review: only what has value in the intellectual marketplace survives. By contrast, where trans-science is involved, wisdom (rather than truth) nlIst be arr vcd at by somiie other mechanism. Our society is experimenting wt.,th )rrDocedures, either adjudicative or political, for making the delicate iu6ugn-cnts of value that underlie the resolution of trans-scientific quest cns. lThese procedures are much in vogue now as a consequence of tile National Environmental Policy Act. Although these procedures are often niarred by their lack of discipline, even unruliness, such untidiness is, I suspect, inevitable in a democratic society.We s.ientists value our republic of science with its rigorous peer group review. The uninfornmed public is excluded from participation in the affail-s of the republic of science rather as a matter of course. But when what we do transcends science and impinges on the public, we have no c aco;-e but to welconme public participation. Such participation by the Uninta.ated in nmatters that have both scientific and trans-scientific elen.entts n.;y pose sonic threat to the integrity of the republic of science. to coy n nd, however, this is a lesser threat than is the threat to our csc: -sse atic proee55es that would be posed by excluding the pLIthiiC an paw .' .l13_-a in trans-scientific debate.\Xc nr-ist st,iv^to ii14i -ove cur plrocedures for conducting this debate in suc'n a wxy tmal. tihe issL1CS can be aired fully and yet the procedures thenisex,ves cdT3il, bc easily abused. That this is easier ...
