‘But what if it doesn’t work?!’
I had lunch yesterday with a local business leader. Inevitably, the conversation came around to creosote railway ties. He has firmly signed up for the “I don’t care if they say the thing will work, what about thalidomide” group.
Based on that logic, we would still be in the stone age because we would never make any scientific advancement that betters ourselves. For example:
Insulin
Anaesthesia
Electricity
Birth control pill
Smoke detector
Waffle-soled running shoes
Paint roller
Cellphone
If we had said “But what if it doesn’t work” each time somebody came up with the idea, we’d have none of those things, not to mention thousands of others.
ArmchairMayor.ca 
I see what you’re saying — I could even add some examples to your list — but I think your argument suffers two major flaws:
1. In the innovations you cite, any testing that exposed humans to risk required (or would require, by today’s standards) the informed consent of the participants. Something we all seem to agree on is that the technological success of this project is uncertain, although the degree of risk to residents depends on whom you talk to. However small the risks (I’m not convinced they’re negligible) they do involve some 80,000+ people, many of whom are non-consenting. The principle of informed consent is applied pretty strictly in research at Canadian universities, but it certainly hasn’t prevented scientific advancement, as you seem to suggest, nor is it likely to precipitate a stone-age relapse.
2. I think you’ve misrepresented your lunch partner’s sentiments. In any in case, my version — and I think this view is widely held — is more like “Prove to me that it works, then we’ll talk”. My point is that the burden of proof (and the associated risk and expense) should lie with the proponent: that’s the gamble inherent in developing a new technology and hoping to profit from it. To many of us it seems that ACC is getting a free ride by shifting the uncertainty and risk onto Kamloops residents (who have little to gain from this even if all goes swimmingly) rather than ‘demonstrating’ this technology elsewhere at their own expense. It’s not about stifling innovation, only placing the responsibility where it belongs. It’s essentially the precautionary principle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle
Skepticism isn’t an impediment to advancing knowledge and innovation. Quite the opposite. History suggests we be more wary of the unquestioning and uncritical than the skeptics. “What if it doesn’t work?” is a legitimate question here, whereas leaders who profess an over-abundance of confidence in the science behind this project make the skeptical hairs on my neck stand up.
LikeLike
This process may be a scientific advancement or a new application of old technology but it is hard to see how it benefits the people of Kamloops. It is a for profit venture to dispose of the hazardous waste products of two very large corporations, but creates very little economic development and has a potentially negative effect on the City’s image. Liability for disposal shifts from original user to a private corporation set up specifically for this project. The application of creosote did not occur in this city. The ties were used across the country. There are many other locations where this facility might be welcome. Transportation is not a critical factor since the railways.would transport them. Sceptism of the science is not a rejection of science, but rather a statement that the “science” is only one factor. That is healthier than blindly following the “experts”.
LikeLike