Nuclear Technology and Communication: What Should STS Scholarship Examine?

Abstract

　 The paper examines the limitations of analyzing certain societal challenges and phenomena solely as a problem of “communication,” as well as the perils of misunderstanding such approaches as authentic analytical approaches and unique contributions of science and technology studies (STS). After the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Accident, the use of a real-time simulation system for radionuclide dispersion and its radiological consequences on nuclear emergency (SPEEDI) became a focus of significant controversy. With the pre-disaster planning characterized by unrealistic idealization of and simplistic overdependence on SPEEDI swiftly replaced with a rebuke of it as utterly useless, it was abandoned altogether for future nuclear emergency. Intensity of a public debate can obscure subtle but critical interactions among technoscience, policy, historical backgrounds, and other social factors that are essential to unpack and understand for social-learning from a disaster. I argue that STS at its best attends to those intricate mechanisms and critically interrogate who possesses the most relevant expertise, how to use it to protect people and community, and ultimately, what common goods and societal objectives should be prioritized in times of a crisis or as society in general. Reducing the debate to a communication issue deprives us of this opportunity.