327 Anais do XXI Seminário Internacional Nanotecnologias, Sociedade e Meio Ambiente desafios jurídicos éticos e sociais para a “grande transição sustentável” (XXI SEMINANOSOMA) scientific information quality is confined to the peer community. Basic Science is represented at articulation point zero of the two axes because it assumes that decision risk and uncertainty levels are zero. The next level, Professional Consultancy, includes the previous level, applied science, but involves more complex problems as it does not refer exclusively to technical aspects, and incorporates other types of agents in addition to scientists, thus encompassing other perspec- tives. In these approaches, scientific theories coexist with profession- al judgements and, consequently, uncertainty is not managed strictly at the technical level but includes more heterogeneous dimensions of trust. In professional consultancy, for instance, it is not possible to pre- dict by replicating situations as in the case of applied science. Decisions are therefore made in unique and unrepeatable situations. The quality of the information and decisions made based on professional judgement cannot be evaluated using the same parameters as scientific data. PNS emerges when uncertainty and the values at stake are high. In particular, when uncertainties are of an epistemological or ethical nature, or whenwhat is at stake in decisions reflects conflicting purposes among the stakeholders taking risks (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1993). Examples of this type of uncertainty and risky decisions are environmental problems (Nogueira 2021). PNS incorporates input from applied science and professional science, but has a very different logic. As the coordinate axes show in Figure 1, the novelty of PNS lies in that it admits the limitations imposed by the high uncertainty of complex problems and, at the same time, accepts conflicting values as part of the problem, and not as externalities. Decision-making regarding complex problems must guarantee high quality scientific information, but also high quality in terms of the inclusion of legitimate perspec- tives and interests from the moment the problem is defined until it is solved. That is, the greater the complexity found on the “x” axis, the greater the diversity in the inclusion of criteria that must be guaran- teed on the “y” axis. Each problem therefore involves an extended peer community. For Funtowicz and Ravetz, this is not a value judgement referring to the need for the democratisation of science. Their position is more substantive in that they argue that the interest and awareness of problems brought by social actors and organisations are attributes that, far frombeing epistemologically distorting, contribute to decision and solution quality. This is a new epistemology (policy), where classically contextual elements (values, interests) are considered intrinsic to the problem and their inclusion is a guarantee of quality (Funtowicz and Ravetz 2008).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjEzNzYz