• NASUNO Fuzuki
  Ph.D student, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, The University of Tokyo

Imagine a monster from the sea, a UFO from the sky, or sometimes a serious disease like COVID-19 threatening our society and lives. In manga, anime and other fictional works, as well as in reality, in times of crisis we rely on doctors, scholars, and other experts, much like the white-coated characters called "Dr. XX."

In fictional stories, problems are often ingeniously solved by new inventions by "Dr. XX." Yet in other stories, characters stand up to a mad scientist who wants to throw the world into chaos. But what about experts in the real world?

Take the example of COVID-19. Can we simply think of the mRNA vaccine, for which two "doctors" were awarded the Nobel Prize, as the kind of invention seen in fictional stories? The mRNA vaccine was put to practical use in mid-December 2020 to combat the pandemic following the outbreak that began in March of the same year. During this period, when we had no effective countermeasures based on science and technology in place, people did not allow the risk of COVID-19 to go unchecked. Experts and governments in various countries created rules about how to deal with the infection. In Japan, for example, the "rules" included calls to avoid ‘sanmitsu’ - known as the "three Cs" (confined spaces, crowded places, and close contact) - reducing the opening hours of shops and other business establishments, and practicing self-restraint. In this paper, the term "rules" refers broadly to the overall social institutions, including laws, social norms, and the general atmosphere among people that govern people's behavior in society. Returning to the topic of COVID-19, research and development based on expert knowledge in cutting-edge science and technology, such as vaccines, did not immediately solve the problem. In the case of the mRNA vaccine, the problem was solved only after rules were established to confirm safety, promote a sense of security among the public, and determine ways to supply the vaccine domestically.

Through their knowledge of cutting-edge science, technology and medicine, experts play a vital role in helping society manage risk. However, there is another dimension beyond expert knowledge, as this alone is not enough to protect the society and people's lives from risk. The establishment of rules that shape our society - such as laws and regulations, administrative systems and corporate agreements - is necessary for expert knowledge to respond effectively to risk. In other words, rules are important as well.

Now here's the problem: If both experts and rules are important, how can we interact with both elements at the same time? Which should take precedence, and how should we coordinate them?

On the one hand, there is the position that we should give priority to opinions formed by experts through academic discussion. On the other hand, there is the position that we should emphasize the values and institutions of a democratic society and limit the role of expert findings to advice and suggestions.

Both positions have valid arguments, which can sometimes lead to intensified conflicts between the two sides. In order to prevent such confrontation and the resulting confusion, it is necessary to establish "rules regarding experts," even if these rules do not constitute a broader social agreement: "rules for experts" designed to protect experts and provide them with a basis for implementing their expert opinions in society, or "rules for interacting with experts" intended to contain the excesses of experts and prioritize the values of the people. Both types of rules are needed in an appropriate balance, depending on the society and the crisis at hand.

This is similar to the relationship between the state power and its citizens. The state can both support and harm its citizens. That is why modern society is built on a social contract, such as a constitution, to ensure a healthy relationship between the state and its citizens. However, compared with the centuries-long establishment of modern states, the relationship between experts and citizens in Japanese society with regard to science and technology, which emerged as a social issue in the second half of the 20th century, is disproportionately immature in relation to the development of science and technology.

However, this is not to say that Japanese society is in any way lawless. In Japanese society, not a day goes by without hearing the opinions of experts in the media, and experts have participated in various aspects of the government's rule-making, including measures against COVID-19. It could be said that civil society has high expectations from the role of experts, and experts have responded accordingly. On the other hand, slander and defamation of experts on social media cannot be ignored, which in some cases can lead to a lack of trust in experts and disregard for their opinions. As shown, views on the role of experts in society are mixed, ranging from high expectations to harsh criticism. This issue has become particularly apparent in the wake of COVID-19. There have been discussions about the future of expert advisory bodies and the relationship between government and experts. Some of these discussions are still ongoing, with governments and experts at the center of the debate to formulate specific rules.

However, as noted above, the relationship between citizens and expert knowledge remains immature. For example, there has not been enough debate in the media, politics, and government to allow a wide range of diverse citizens to participate in the rulemaking discussions. As we look to the future of making "rules regarding experts," we must also strive to create a society that fosters healthy relationships with diverse groups of people.

Essay All Discours