許厝分校遷校爭議是一場「被製造的科學爭議」嗎？

Was Controversy over the Relocation of Ciaotou Elementary School’s Syucuo Branch a“Manufactured Scientific Controversy”?

本文通過檢視國家衛生研究院（國衛院）與台塑企業（台塑）之間的論述，以探討許厝分校遷校爭議。本文認為台塑使用了「製造科學爭議」的策略來攻擊國衛院的研究結果。不過，「被製造的科學爭議」此一概念並不完全適用於分析本案例，因為國衛院的研究結果包括了使用TdGA作為生物標記以推論學童的致癌風險，對於評估一般群體的致癌風險這是個新穎的方法。因而，國衛院的結果並不完全是個「定論」，也不是全世界相關專家的「共識」。繼而，本文認為台塑實際上在公共領域使用「製造科學爭議」的策略來扭曲國衛院所帶來的「科研進展」（包含有效而帶有不確定性的科學推論），使得公眾誤以為國衛院的研究結果是肯定錯誤的。不論其策略成功與否，台塑都混淆了政策制定者以及公眾的視聽，讓他們無法理解學生為什麼可能面對不確定健康風險的科學理由。這一結果也還干擾了許厝分校應否遷校的討論。

This paper investigates the controversy over the relocation of Ciaotou Elementary School’s Syucuo Branch (CESSB) by examining the arguments between the National Health Research Institutes (NHRI) and Formosa Plastic Group (FPG). I argue that FPG used the strategies of“manufacturing scientific controversy”to attack the research results of NHRI. Yet, the concept of“manufactured scientific controversy”is not entirely applicable to analyzing the case because the research results of NHRI involved the use of TdGA as a biomarker for inferring the risk of cancer in schoolchildren, which was a novel approach to assessing the risk of the general population. Hence, NHRI’s findings were not entirely“conclusive”and did not represent a global consensus among relevant experts. Then, I argue that FPG indeed used the strategies of“manufacturing scientific controversy”in the public sphere to distort the“research progress”made by NHRI, which included valid scientific inferences but with uncertainties, so that the public would misunderstand that the NHRI’s research results were unquestionably incorrect. Whether their strategy was successful or not FPG confused policy-makers and the public, preventing them from understanding the scientific reasoning behind why students might face uncertain health risks. This result also interfered with the discussion of whether or not the CESSB should be relocated.