In today’s rapidly evolving science and technology landscape, new challenges have emerged for decision-makers. While traditional expert systems excel at science and technology (S&T) decision-making within specific domains, they struggle to address complex issues spanning multiple fields. To effectively tackle the growing complexities of S&T decision-making, solutions should be sought within the theoretical framework of S&T decision-making itself.

Historical evolution

Scientific and democratic elements in S&T decision-making sometimes align and sometimes conflict. The evolution of S&T decision-making theories can be broadly divided into three stages: authoritative decision-making, democratic decision-making, and integrative decision-making.

Authoritative decision-making theory emerged in the 1930s. Theories such as technocracy and expert governance asserted that scientists and technical experts, as rational and value-neutral actors, should be granted the authority to make decisions on scientific and technological matters, with their expertise fully accepted and trusted by both policymakers and the public.

Democratic decision-making theory emerged in the 1970s as the harmful effects of widespread technological advances. Meanwhile, frequent incidents of scientific misconduct severely undermined public trust in the scientific community. The legitimacy of authoritative decision-making was called into question, triggering a movement for the democratization of science in Western societies.

Integrative decision-making theory took shape in the early 21st century. While democratic decision-making somewhat alleviated the legitimacy crisis surrounding S&T decision-making, it also introduced new dilemmas—the overextension of lay participation and the rise of scientific populism. As a resonse, integrative decision-making theory seeks to mitigate excessive tensions between expert authority and public participation.

Real-world challenges

In practice, established S&T decision-making theories are ill-equipped to address contemporary challenges, with three critical issues standing out.

Decontextualization: In the 21st-century, the risks associated with S&T are shaped by a combination of technological, social, cultural, and political factors. However, existing decision-making theories tend to reduce complex technological controversies to purely technical debates or democratic discussions.

Delayed decision-making: Democratic and integrative decision-making models typically involve lengthy democratic procedures, potentially leading to prolonged delays in crucial decisions. Consequently, countries risk missing windows of opportunity for achieving breakthroughs amid fierce global competition.

Unreliability of expertise: Expert knowledge, while indispensable, is not infallible. Scientists possess essential information about technological development and its attendant risks, and thus are expected to offer informed, high-quality advice. However, as “economic men,” they may prioritize personal interests or even commit serious ethical violations. Furthermore, due to the growing interdisciplinarity of modern science, it is becoming increasingly challenging for individuals or institutions to master expert knowledge.

Optimization pathways

To improve S&T decision-making theories in response to new risks and challenges, three key approaches can be adopted:

Enhancing interdisciplinary dialogue: While research on S&T decision-making already spans diverse fields, meaningful communication and cooperation across these fields remain limited, impeding the development of a unified theoretical framework to inform practice. Building a distributed research network will enable different disciplines to complement each other and fully leverage their unique strengths.

Harnessing digital and intelligent technologies: Emerging technologies like big data and AI show immense potential in supporting S&T decision-making. Integrating digital and intelligent technologies with theoretical research on intelligent decision-making can catalyze much-needed reforms in S&T decision-making mechanisms in the digital age.

Developing multi-stakeholder collaborative decision-making models: At the national level, a tripartite decision-making system, led by the government and engaging both experts and the public, should be built to incorporate diverse perspectives into S&T decision-making processes. At the international level, it is essential to uphold the philosophy of open development and strengthen global cooperation in S&T governance.

Shen Dongxiang is an associate professor from the School of Marxism at Chongqing Open University. Qiu Desheng is a professor from the Department of Philosophy at Southwest University.