SARS的風險治理：超越技術模型

The Risk Governance of SARS: Beyond the Technical Model

本文採取科技與社會研究觀點，以旅遊警示與居家檢疫這兩大SARS防疫政策的形成與轉變作為研究案列，探查風險治理與科學知識的關係。本文論證風險治理並非依賴技術性資料的技術性決定，也不僅是一種對於科學不確定性的回應。相較於技術模型中的單向線性關係，本文呈現風險治理與科學知識之間存在著多樣的關係：（1）「利益模型」強調利害相關的行動者可能基於社群利益，影響對科學知識的詮釋，以及政策方案的選擇。在SARS防疫過程中，WHO提出以個人為對象的旅遊警訊，符合其作為全球治理機構的正當性；而台灣公衛當局為了回應政治危機，施行了居家檢疫。（2）「科學知識的社會生成」角度認為政策所涉及的流行病學知識生成，有特定的社會脈絡，跟政策制定可能共享同一社會文化空間。本文發現，描述流行病學的資料基礎，以行政區域為疆界而產生，而這種民族國家建立的獨斷地理界線，卻同時成為旅遊警示的劃界基礎。流行病學資料描繪的圖像與指標，凸顯病患的傳染網絡，淡化「接觸而未傳染」的圖像，強化居家檢疫的必要性。（3）「政策引發不確定性」的文獻指出，治理政策也可能進一步產生科學不確定性，而不僅是處理不確定性的工具。從旅遊警示解除的困境，到居家隔離指認對象的爭議，預警措施的展開看似為了處理不確定性，卻在實行與解除這些措施時，常引發新的不確定性。同時考量上述的關係，風險治理與科學知識的圖像也就更複雜，更需要將「社會面」帶進來；本文主張必須打破學術的分工，讓科學治理成為社會人文重視的議題。

This article discusses the linkages between scientific knowledge and risk governance from the perspectives of science, technology, and society studies (STS), by investigating the formations and transformations of two major SARS prevention Measures- a travel advisory issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) and a home quarantine issued by the Taiwanese government. Moving beyond the 'technical model' that emphasizes a one-way, linear relation between science and risk governance, we offer three alternative perspectives: (1) The interest model: Stakeholders act based on their own group interests, which have a strong impact on their interpretations of scientific 'facts' and their choice of governance policies. (2) The social production of scientific knowledge: The investigation centers on the social contexts of knowledge production, which may share the same social and cultural space as policy-making. (3) Scientific uncertainty stimulated by policymaking: Such literature stresses that policies like precautionary measures not only serve as a strategy for managing scientific uncertainty, but also intensify or trigger scientific uncertainty. Based on the three perspectives, first we argue that by adopting a travel advisory, the WHO enhanced its legitimacy of governing global risk; by issuing a home quarantine, public health authorities attempted to lessen its political crisis. Second, the administrative regions produced the descriptive epidemiology of SARS, and thus arbitrary geographic lines became the boundaries of travel advisories. The epidemiological data presentation emphasizes the transmission between patients and neglects the image of 'contacting but not being infected,' thus intensifying the need for home quarantine. Third, the controversy about the criteria for lifting the travel advisory and identifying the people who need quarantine shows the limitations of reducing uncertainties when implementing precautionary principles. Moreover, the policies that follow such principles often generate new uncertainties. To analyze such dynamics, there is a need to bring 'social' perspectives into research on scientific governance. The endeavour calls for further breaking down the academic division of labour between those who choose to focus on the social and those who focus on the scientific.