Last not least, I want to address the question: What can scientists and science institutions do to deal with systemic risks and the obvious attenuation due to public perception? As I pointed out, our usual learning mode of trial and
error is totally inadequate for dealing with non-linear cause-effect chains with sudden tipping points. However, trial and error as a heuristic is deeply engrained in our learning process. So, we need to create a virtual environment in which we can simulate trial and error. If the virtual error occurs people can experience what it means to trespass these tipping points. Fortunately, these negative experiences are only simulations and not real events. But they can sensitise people not to wait for negative feedback before changing their behaviour and lifestyles. This method of virtual preparation for relying on anticipation rather than trial and error is effective only when the simulations are framed in a form of a plausible, easy-to-grasp and credible narrative.
It has to be so convincing that people conclude, ‘Oh, if that is really happen-ing, I better change now before this kind of disaster approaches.’ The simula-tions need to be not only scientifically well designed. They also need to be so well visualised that people feel as if they were real. This task is not trivial and requires a joint effort between excellent modellers, natural scientists, social scientists, communication specialists and psychologists. I may even be wise to include professional writers and science fiction authors.
Beyond encouraging anticipation, it is crucial to include people more in collective decision making. Once you get people engaged in making decisions collectively for their community, they are much more willing and determined to learn about the complexities in which they operate. If they sit around a regular table in a pub, they will not care much about facts and complex ities;
they know what is right for the world and nobody can make them change their opinion. However, if you are invited to join a round table with other citizens, the situation transforms dramatically. You are aware that your opin-ion and your judgment will have an impact on the wellbeing of the commu-nity in which you live. You feel more accountable for all the preferences that you articulate. We have accumulated good evidence that people in the situ-ation of collective decision making are, firstly, more willing to look into more complex relationships and deal prudently with uncertainties and ambiguities.
Secondly, they are willing to resolve conflicts by looking into the trade-offs between different options and consider not only the conse quences for them-selves but also for others who ideally are all represented at the round table.
For this to happen we need excellent opportunities and open spaces that pro-vide such a catalytic service to the communities. Social scientists are capable of investigating and designing the appropriate institutional structures and processes in which people are encouraged to develop the civic virtue of evidence-informed and value-based collective decision making.
The last point I would like to raise may be more contested than the two I just elaborated on. The recent development in the sociology of science and knowl-edge towards a postmodern understanding of science as one narrative among others is, in my eyes, a disservice to society. My main argument is that all our efforts to explicitly mention and characterise uncertainty, to stress the sto-chastic nature of what we know and to point out the various ambiguities in the interpretation of complex relationships, helps society obtain a more accurate and more truthful representation of what we frame as reality than their gut feelings or intuition. We should make it very clear that through sciences we are able to set boundaries of legitimate knowledge. To step outside of these boundaries means that we accept knowledge claims that are either absurd, lacking evidence or that are mere wishful thinking. That is where scientists are really needed because normal intuition is not a good guide if you try to make inferences about complex systems. Scientists should be encouraged to make these boundaries more visible and pronounced in public discourse.
‘Everything goes’ is not an adequate response to complex challenges and even less so when dealing with complex risks. True is also: To resolve complex prob-lems we cannot rely only on systematic scientific knowledge, we also need ex-periential or tacit knowledge but without scientific knowledge and its rigorous methodological approach we are likely to fall prey to ‘comfortable’ illusions or manifestations of special interests and value camps. We need science as a watchdog for what we really know about a phenomenon and the relation-ships between phenomena. Only on that premise can science fulfil its role as an honest broker in societal discourse. If we talk about complex systems and their impacts, nothing is better than a very good, rigorous scientific analysis.
We should be proud of what science has offered and still can offer to society.
While science is not the only actor, it is an indispensable one when it comes to the identification, analysis, and governance of systemic risks.
Further Reading
Lucas, K., Renn, O., & Jaeger, C. (2018). Systemic risks: Theory and mathematical modeling. Advanced Theory and Simulations, 1(11), 1800051.
Lucas, K., Renn, O., Jaeger, C., & Yang, S. (2018). Systemic risks: a homomorphic approach on the basis of complexity science. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 9(3), 292–305.
Renn, O. (2019). Gefühlte Wahrheiten: Orientierung in Zeiten postfaktischer Verun-sicherung. Opladen; Berlin; Toronto: Verlag Barbara Budrich.
Renn, O. (2014). Das Risikoparadox. Warum wir uns vor dem Falschen fürchten.
Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch.
Renn, O. (2014). Stakeholder Involvement in Risk Governance. London: Ark Group.
Renn, O., & Schweizer, P. J. (2009). Inclusive risk governance: concepts and appli-cation to environmental policy making. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 174–185.
Schweizer, P. J. (2019). Systemic risks–concepts and challenges for risk gover-nance. Journal of Risk Research, 1–16.
Bärbel Friedrich
German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina
On behalf of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, it is a great pleasure for me to welcome you all to the second international confer-ence of the series ‘Crossing Boundaries in Sciconfer-ence’ titled ‘The Mystery of Risks – How Can Science Help Reconcile Perception and Assessment?’ I am de lighted that so many representatives of the scientific community are attending this event here in Potsdam, the capital of the federal state of Brandenburg.
Please let me introduce myself: my name is Bärbel Friedrich and I am a microbiologist by profession and served as Vice President of the Leopoldina for 10 years. As one of the two chairpersons of the Joint Committee on the Handling of Security-Relevant Research, I am involved in the organisation of this meeting. The Joint Committee is a body which was set up by the German Research Foundation and the Leopoldina to raise awareness of dual-use aspects of research and to strengthen the responsible handling of security- relevant research and the sustainable self-regulation of sciences and human-ities in Germany in the long term.
In 2008, the Leopoldina was appointed the German National Academy of Sciences. In this capacity, one of its central and most prominent tasks is to provide science-based advice to policy makers in Germany and the public.
The Leopoldina also publishes joint statements with other German, European, and international academies on a regular basis. It promotes scientific and public debate, supports young scientists, confers awards for scientific achievements and even conducts research projects. The Academy voices its opinion on great challenges with relevance to our society and identifies major scientific developments that are likely to become important in the future.
This includes topics such as how to execute the precautionary principle in the context of emerging pandemics, global climate change, political instabil-ities and economic globalisation, which are subject of discussion during the next two days.
The conference format ‘Crossing Boundaries in Science’ of the Leo-pol dina is meant to stimulate discussions between areas of research that
are particularly dependent on new modes of interdisciplinary cooperation and method transfer. The first international conference, entitled ‘Modelling Nature and Society – Can We Control the World?’ took place in Weimar in June 2016. Its objective was to provide an overview and discuss current attempts to understand and control complex systems in nature and society using scien-tific modelling.
This second conference, which was generously funded by the Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und Halbach-Foundation is focussing on the role of science in the perception, assessment and handling of risks in our increasingly com-plex world. This includes the frequent overestimation of risks associated for example with terrorism, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence or vaccina-tion but also the prevalent underestimavaccina-tion of risks associated with common causes of destruction, illness and death. The scientific community attempting to assess and communicate these risks on the basis of evidence is often con-fronted with the situation that public risk perception follows more subjective and emotional principles.
During the three-day conference, 18 scientists from areas such as soci-ol ogy, economy, philosophy, psychsoci-ology, medicine, meteorsoci-ology and bisoci-ology will discuss the following questions:
• Have our lives become riskier or do we simply know too much about poten-tial risks?
• How are risks socially constructed?
• What risks are commonly underestimated or overestimated?
• Does the precautionary principle hinder innovation and progress?
• Do we face more complex risks in times of globalisation?
• What are the origins, probabilities and time scales of certain risks and how can we reliably cope with these risks on a scientific basis?
• How can science help to reconcile the systematic misperception of risks?
• Are scientists responsible for creating new risks when providing new knowl-edge that may be misused for harmful purposes?
• What are some science-based strategies to mitigate risks and how can we promote risk literacy?
I hope that this meeting provides an opportunity for productive discussions among scientists from many research areas related to risk assessment. I wish all participants a rewarding symposium.