DISSENTING OPINION — GRANT APPLICATION 423 ADVISORY PANEL ON INTERGENERATIONAL HAZARD COMMUNICATION Convened by the Office of Environmental Management, U.S. Department of Energy Submitted by: Peter Kaye, Doctor of Cultural Anthropology, Stanford University. Re: Application submitted by Alan Penn, Professor of Cognitive Archaeology, Princeton University
I. The Majority's Decision
The committee has voted 5-2 to recommend funding for research for the above application in the amount of $298,500. I write separately to record my disagreement with this outcome.
II. Summary of the Proposal
The applicant proposes the creation of an 80 foot tall multi-material construction sitting on 7 acres of land. The stated goal is to keep future generations from entering the land under which nuclear waste is buried. The applicant argues that the dimensions and forced perceptions of the proposed structure invoke an evolutionary defense mechanism that causes a strong deterrent effect on potential viewers.
III. Grounds for Dissent
We are tasked with finding a channel of communication that will stand for a time that exceeds recorded human history. I do not argue that a solution cannot utilize negative emotions. It might be that for such a solution to be effective, it is required. However, the solution must not create a harm that eclipses the problem at hand. The majority has disregarded the immense psychological toll that this proposal will likely inflict for as long as it stands, having declined to treat such damage as material.
I do not argue that this proposal will be ineffective in its stated goal— on the contrary, I believe that it would prove highly effective. However, I do not believe the harm this proposal will otherwise cause can be justified or quantified.
The approved proposal will take what was, by Mr. Penn's own admission, a completely internal construction and make it reality. “…these are best compared to form constants, hypnagogic hallucinations and fever dreams from which intense fear derives from the weight and movement of geometric patterns.” (Appl. 423, ¶ 45). For all the scientific and historic evidence that Mr. Penn has shown the committee, he offers us no concrete explanation of where the reaction stems from, the effects of near-constant exposure on residents, nor how this exposure would impact peoples over generations. He is satisfied with showing us that this reaction exists, but not why it exists.
Mr. Penn's demonstration of this phenomenon should have been evidence enough on its own for the committee that this proposal is unacceptable. More than one member of our committee, including those in the majority, retired to their homes for the better part of a week before reconvening to continue our discussions with the proposal. Those in the majority have taken this to be proof of the proposal’s effectiveness, a reaction that is frankly astounding to me. This reaction was merely to a computer generated model viewed in a virtual reality space. What then, would a reaction to the physical model be? How long would its impact last on those viewers?
I do not easily believe my colleagues intend to set aside ethical considerations of such an immense psychological stressor. It takes little imagination to guess what kind of damage such a structure will have on the psyche of those that reside near enough to the area to view it daily, or on those future generations who might stumble upon it if it is made manifest.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons I would reject this proposal in its entirety. Should the applicant wish to address these concerns, I would suggest in particular that they present strong evidence contrary to the claims above. Identifying the cause of such a reaction should be treated not as a secondary consideration but as the central one.
Peter Kaye, Advisory Panel on Intergenerational Hazard Communication