본 논문은 수돗물 불소화를 사례로 환경의 과학기술논쟁의 단일 사례 연구를 국가간 비교연구로 발전시킨다. 호주는 1950년대 불소화정책을 추진하여 67 를 넘는 데 반해 한국은 1980년대 시범사업을 실시하여 불소화율이 낮은 나라이다 호주와 한국은 추진주체로서 치과의사협회와 정부의 역할이 중요한 역할을 수행하며 반면 비판적인 주체 형성에서 차이를 보인다. 호주는 대항과학자그룹이 형성되어 효과성에 대한 독자적인 연구를 수행하여 논쟁을 국제화할 정도로 활성화된 반면 한국은 대항과학자그룹이 형성되지 않고 비과학자 시민운동가에 의해 외국의 비판적인 담론을 수입하여 쟁점화하고 더 많은 담론 수입을 통해 논쟁을 지속하였다. 따라서 대항과학자 형성 여부는 과학사회논쟁의 지속성과 논쟁방향 등에 중요한 역할을 수행한다.

This paper is to develop a comparative study of scientific social controversy focused on the Public Water Fluoridation PWF in Australia and Korea Although the rate of PWF in Australia is higher than in Korea PWF policy was in similar but some different way initiated and supported by the Association of Dentistry and Government in two countries But it is clearly different that its controversy was developed by critical counter experts in Australia at 1980 s while it was done by civil movement oriented non scientist partly with a counter expert in Korea This difference lead to different way of its controversy in Australia and Korea.

This paper is to develop a comparative study of scientific social controversy focused on the Public Water Fluoridation PWF in Australia and Korea Although the rate of PWF in Australia is higher than in Korea PWF policy was in similar but some different way initiated and supported by the Association of Dentistry and Government in two countries But it is clearly different that its controversy was developed by critical counter experts in Australia at 1980 s while it was done by civil movement oriented non scientist partly with a counter expert in Korea This difference lead to different way of its controversy in Australia and Korea.

, , , ,

Controversy, Fluoridation, Counter expert, Local dimension, Global dimension