國家在風險治理的角色—以奈米國家型計畫為例

Abstract

本論文採取深度訪談與次及資料分析法，研究政府在奈米科技研發與風險控管中的角色，以行政院奈米國家型計畫為研究主體。 東亞三國，台灣、南韓與日本，由於其發展的脈絡與歐美等西方國家不同，被歸類為發展型國家。主要特色為公私部門的緊密合作及菁英官僚組織，政府藉由不同的機制扶植國內產業發展，加上完善的官僚系統，使得政府的決策得以有效執行。對發展型國家而言，政府一向扮演相當重要的角色，但在全球化與自由市場的概念下，政府角色正逐漸消退。 當前各國皆致力於創新產業的發展，諸如：生技產業、基因改造工程、生物辨識系統及奈米產業，然而從之前的風險案例已經證明，若放任產業毫無限制地發展，勢必對人類生活造成更大的威脅。因此在全球化與自由市場的概念下，仍應該留給政府一個監督的角色，不僅扶植產業的發展，同時也應該考量風險的生成與應對。對台灣來說，政府投注相當高額的經費協助奈米產業的發展及應用，但目前我們尚未看到政府在風險控管上面的顯著發展，奈米本身是一個高度不確定性的科技，除了奈米科技研發過程的控管外，該技術在產品中的應用也應該受到監督。 本文的二、三章先介紹奈米技術與奈米國家型計畫，在第四章的部份開始說明各國對奈米科技的投資狀況、奈米科技應用的層面與可能產生的風險，在潛在危害的部份分為環境、人體健康及社會倫理三方面說明。 從第五章開始，奈米國家型計畫的相關專家訪談說明了，國家仍延續發展型國家的模式介入產業的發展，將大量的資金與研究資源投入技術與產業結合的研究，在風險控管的部份則相對比重極小。研究者及官員皆承認風險控管的重要性，在國家型計畫中將這部份的工作交由環保署、衛生署及勞委會的EHS計畫負責，官員們認為這樣的風險控管是足夠的，但對公衛及風險研究學者而言則是不足的。在第六章的部份，筆者論述國家在風險治理中的角色，由於國家型計劃整合並運用國家資源執行，因此除了技術的研發外，政府也應該運用這些資源進行奈米風險控管的研究與執行。 在國家創新體系的發展脈絡之下，產業發展被視為是政府首要目標，科學被視為視中立而客觀的學科技術，因此產業發展所帶來的風險議題也在這種科學中立客觀的價值體系中被定義，在官方與科學家共謀之下，環境變化、危害等事項皆被量化為數據資料，使得「不具科學知識」的居民與關心人士等這些外行人被排除在科學領域之外。然而，科學是否是中立客觀的學科？高科技產業的原料、設備等均來自國外，國內產商與台灣官方投注大量資源在創新和改良製程，卻未曾關注生產過程與原料對人類健康和環境的危害，當惡果產生時，學者承接官方資源進行污染調查，官方建構出來的污染鑑定機制，使得學者陷入污染內容、種類、濃度等瑣碎的調查中，但與身體及環境相關的污染事實，卻常被忽略而推託。這套科學機制運作的背後，便是台灣長期以來，以創新體系、經濟發展掛帥的意識形態，過去一直認為科學能解決問題，成為經濟發展的最佳助手，但實際上，科技常常帶來自身無法解決的問題，其後果則讓所有人承擔。 目前對奈米的毒性證據尚處於模糊不清的階段，沒有任何一個科學家能夠保證奈米商品不會對健康或環境安全帶來威脅，但在各國奈米商品中慢慢發現一些潛在的危害，而透過當前的全球化商品網絡，這些商品及潛在的危害都成為跨國界、跨領域的風險。本文認為任何新興的商品及產業發展之初，政府就應該要提出一定的規範管制，理想的風險治理架構應該是考量到奈米的不確定性，加上各個先進國家風險治理的架構，來發展出適合台灣的奈米風險治理框架。本研究藉著台灣的科技發展歷史，以及發展型國家模型，研究當前台灣風險感知的缺乏，同時希望能夠避免過去科技專家獨大的情景，將「科技專家」與「科技外行人」中間的差異縮小，設計出一個「共善」的、具有風險感知的發展架構。

The three countries of East Asia, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan, because of their context and the development were different from Europe, the United States and other Western countries, were classified as development-oriented countries. The main feature is the close cooperation between the public and private sectors and bureaucratic elite organizations, through different mechanisms to foster the development of domestic industries, making the Government’s decision to effective implementation. The Government has been playing an important role in the development of a country, but in the context of globalization and the free market concept, the role of government is gradually dissipated. States are now committed to the development of creative industries, such as: the biotechnology industry, GM project and nanotechnology industry. But the risk form the percendented case has proven that if unrestricted laissez-faire industries develop, it will pose a greater threat to human life. Therefore, the Government should still be left to a supervisory role, not only to foster the development of industries, but also should consider the generation and response of risk. To Taiwan, the Government is betting the high level of funding to assist the development of nanotechnology industry and applications, but we have not yet seen the Government’s constructive doings in risk control of nanotechnology. Nanotechnology itself is a high degree of uncertainty in science and technology, in addition to the development process control, the technology of the products should also be supervised. Nanotechnology industry will bring substantial business opportunities, but will also trigger unknown risks. The current evidence of the toxicity of nanotechnology is still in the stage of ambiguity. No scientist can guarantee that nano products are free from health or environmental safety threats. But in some countries, it is gradually found that some potential hazards in some nanotechnology products. And the current globalization of goods through the network, these products and potential hazards are a cross-border, cross-cutting risk. In the development of a national innovation system context, industrial development was seen as the primary objective, and the science was seen as neutral and objective. In the co-operation with scientists, environmental changes and hazards are quantified as data, making the “non-scientific knowledge” public and laymen were excluded from the scientific fields. However, the raw materials and equipments of high-tech industries are all from abroad, while Taiwan’s Government invests a lot of resources in innovation and improvement processes, but does not concern the production process and raw materials on human health and environmental hazards. Behind the operation of the science mechanism is the ideology of the innovation system and economic development - oriented. In the past, it has always thought that science can solve any problem and become the best economic development aide. In fact, technology often brings problems they can’t solve, and its consequences are abided by everyone. In this paper, this point of view is that any new goods and the beginning of industrial development, the Government should regulate to a certain control. The ideal risk management framework should be taking into consideration the uncertainty of nanotechnology, couple with various advanced countries in the risk management frameworks suitable to the development of Taiwan’s nanotechnology risk governance.