127
level, rather than keeping “discovering hidden patients” forever, and to direct society towards looking ahead by promoting the rebuilding and redevelopment of
divided local communities.
6.2.10 Who Must Decide the Criteria to Certify Victims
for Compensation Before Relevant Scientific Knowledge
is Sufficiently Accumulated, and How? (Time
Consuming Nature of Science)
Time is needed to scientifically clarify something. Therefore, it is necessary to ask
who must decide the criteria of for certifying victims for compensation before relevant scientific knowledge is sufficiently accumulated, and how. Some people
believe that when problems occur, the cause must be scientifically identified first,
and then actions must be taken to resolve problems by taking proper and sufficient
measures based on scientific evidence. They expect that the certification criteria for
victim compensation must be based on, and decisions made according to scientific
evidence. Although some time is required, science must identify the cause and
develop the countermeasures in the end. Accordingly, a certain level of risk must be
tolerated for the sake of society’s overall progress (including economic growth).
Others believe that science is always a dynamic process and that scientific clarification is time-consuming. Thus, such people think that society must decide the
certification criteria from the viewpoint of other social values such as ethics and
human rights, before science provides a clear knowledge base for humanitarian reasons. In the case of Minamata disease, scientific knowledge is important for explaining the cause(s) of the disease and for describing the extent of damage. However,
science does not tell which level of damage must be compensated. These criteria
have changed over time because people in society have gradually prioritized individual human rights and health more and more.
Society tends to wait for more convincing (conclusive) scientific evidence. From
the perspective of the aforementioned first type of people who can tolerate the risk
caused by insufficient scientific knowledge, the other type of people who prioritize
human rights, and including the right to a safe environment conducive to good
health, appear to incite society by raising unrealistic concepts, and “do not recognize how the society as well as its economy actually behaves. However, reality and
truth are positioned just between the views of these two types. Thanks to the people
with the more practical, humanitarian view, the number of victims finding relief has
increased over the years. Thanks to the people with the more theoretical, societyfirst view, society has somehow managed to move forward.
6 Role in Framing in Sustainability Science ― The Case of Minamata Disease
level, rather than keeping “discovering hidden patients” forever, and to direct society towards looking ahead by promoting the rebuilding and redevelopment of
divided local communities.
6.2.10 Who Must Decide the Criteria to Certify Victims
for Compensation Before Relevant Scientific Knowledge
is Sufficiently Accumulated, and How? (Time
Consuming Nature of Science)
Time is needed to scientifically clarify something. Therefore, it is necessary to ask
who must decide the criteria of for certifying victims for compensation before relevant scientific knowledge is sufficiently accumulated, and how. Some people
believe that when problems occur, the cause must be scientifically identified first,
and then actions must be taken to resolve problems by taking proper and sufficient
measures based on scientific evidence. They expect that the certification criteria for
victim compensation must be based on, and decisions made according to scientific
evidence. Although some time is required, science must identify the cause and
develop the countermeasures in the end. Accordingly, a certain level of risk must be
tolerated for the sake of society’s overall progress (including economic growth).
Others believe that science is always a dynamic process and that scientific clarification is time-consuming. Thus, such people think that society must decide the
certification criteria from the viewpoint of other social values such as ethics and
human rights, before science provides a clear knowledge base for humanitarian reasons. In the case of Minamata disease, scientific knowledge is important for explaining the cause(s) of the disease and for describing the extent of damage. However,
science does not tell which level of damage must be compensated. These criteria
have changed over time because people in society have gradually prioritized individual human rights and health more and more.
Society tends to wait for more convincing (conclusive) scientific evidence. From
the perspective of the aforementioned first type of people who can tolerate the risk
caused by insufficient scientific knowledge, the other type of people who prioritize
human rights, and including the right to a safe environment conducive to good
health, appear to incite society by raising unrealistic concepts, and “do not recognize how the society as well as its economy actually behaves. However, reality and
truth are positioned just between the views of these two types. Thanks to the people
with the more practical, humanitarian view, the number of victims finding relief has
increased over the years. Thanks to the people with the more theoretical, societyfirst view, society has somehow managed to move forward.
6 Role in Framing in Sustainability Science ― The Case of Minamata Disease