ABSTRACT

In this chapter, I evaluate whether each of Lawless's cases proved true or false in light of 30 years of further knowledge. Given the caveats I presented in the previous chapter, this task may seem intellectually untenable. Nearly all public alarms are controversial, and opponents of a technology predictably appraise risks as higher (and benefits lower) than proponents do. Feuding experts have ample room to disagree legitimately over the existence or severity of a hazard. Making matters worse, ideological differences between experts, while seemingly unrelated to the scientific question, may encourage conflicting claims. One socially constructed claim is as valid as its opposite, critics of my approach might argue, so any choice between them comes down to politics.