In a modern technological society, “disclosing risk” is not merely an act of transmitting information. It is a highly political and ethical act of translating complex engineering figures into a “language” that the public can comprehend. I realize that we cannot know every risk, nor do we need to know every risk. Where, then, is the appropriate line?
The Paradox of Transparency: Communication or Evasion?
Suppose a manufacturer or engineer discloses every single figure with total transparency. If they were to publish tens of thousands of pages of design data and probability density functions, would that be a “disclosure,” or would it be an act of “burying” the truth to evade responsibility?
Tossing raw data that the public cannot digest can actually be a sophisticated way of concealing the truth. Ultimately, the core of risk disclosure is “context,” not “quantity.” Providing the “minimum basis for judgment” so that a user can decide whether to use a product or not—that is the primary goal the duty to inform must aim for.
Guidelines for ‘Perceivable Risk’
I see the scope of risk disclosure being determined across three distinct layers:
- Routine Risk: Statistically accepted errors, such as heat generated during operation or faint noise. These are subjects for “design control” rather than disclosure.
- Contingent Risk: Risks arising from user negligence or specific circumstances. There is an obligation to alert the user to these through “warning labels.”
- Systemic Risk: Fatal risks caused by design flaws or the fundamental limits of physical laws. These move beyond disclosure and into the realm of “sales bans” or “social consensus.”
The boundary of obligation depends on “whether the user can cope.” If a risk can be avoided through user caution, it must be disclosed in detail. However, disclosing the probabilistic errors of a massive system that an individual cannot control (e.g., the probability of gravity changing tomorrow) only serves to increase anxiety.
Power as a Translator of Trust
Ultimately, the duty to inform is a “duty to translate.” Power is generated in the process of translating engineering language ($\sigma$, probability) into everyday language (safety, danger). As an expert, I have the power to either minimize or exaggerate risk.
In this context, the scope of mandated disclosure must lie in the “guarantee of choice.” Disclosing that “taking this medicine carries a 0.1% chance of side effects” allows the user to choose whether to undergo treatment despite the risk. Conversely, the reason the minute probability of an aircraft engine failure is not disclosed to every passenger is that the passenger has no alternative to control or choose from in that situation. Instead, that responsibility is shouldered entirely by the system and the state.
Disclosure Should Be a ‘Promise,’ Not Just Knowledge
The duty to inform is not about turning the user into an engineer. It must be a declaration of a promise: “This is the extent of the area we cannot control, and yet, we will take responsibility for it.”
I believe the boundary of risk disclosure should be set at a line that protects “dignified ignorance.” We must allow users to maintain their daily tranquility, while honestly informing them when the system reaches a threshold it can no longer sustain. Precisely because we cannot disclose every risk, the duty to inform should be an “affirmation of trust” rather than a mere “disclosure of information.”
We still believe in the religion called science, but the priests of that religion—the engineers—have an obligation to at least tell the followers when it is time to run away.
Leave a Reply