|
SCIENCE SCIENCE AND SOCIETY Geoffrey Catchpole, Member, on 23 February 2001. Since scientists are members of society themselves, the speaker queried the likelihood of any disjunction. Perhaps any `gap' is due to the nature of science itself? Some prominent scientists have claimed it counter-intuitive and thus `strange', whereas others have treated it as a purely practical enterprise. This dichotomy is reflected in the distinction drawn between `blue skies' basic research and that undertaken for industrial or commercial purposes, perhaps? The public welcomes the products of the latter activity but tends to see science as an abstract search for certainties, which can disturb if inherent uncertainties become apparent. Recognising that risk, authorities initiated the Bodmer Report in 1985 which, in effect, concluded that the public must be informed about science. The Royal Society introduced some training for scientists to communicate via the media with the public. In 1993 a White Paper - Realising our potential led to the setting up of a `Technology Foresight' programme, to link scientists, government and industry, and to a Council for Science and Technology, to link government funding with researchers. The research councils were reorganised. Meanwhile, various issues were and are causing some public concerns. These have included, to date, genetics, food, farming and animal welfare; in medicine issues of cloning, animal experimentation, `complementary medicine' and (lately) stem cell research and public consent for procedures. Global issues have arisen, including climate change, sustainability, impact of information technology, the technologies of warfare, etc. Clearly, there are now many issues about which the public has concern about their implications and their validity. There are three major agencies acting between the public and the scientists the media, educational institutions and the government. The media tends to deal with controversial issues, serving a public which generally regards scientists as aloof and amoral, e.g. when Monsanto mixed GM(genetically-modified) seeds with others irrespective of early objections and prior to their recognition that defence of their actions is necessary. Moreover, media popularisation of some aspects of science and technology does not inevitably lead to understanding of their basics. Worries about `risk' have recently greatly increased. (One study has shown that between the 1970s and the 1990s use of that term in popular media articles has increased eightfold.) Many pupils in schools have seen the science curriculum as difficult and uninspiring, since it essentially repeats what is known. Its relevance to everyday life is often not obvious. The products of the system, the scientists, have been criticised as an arrogant coterie, bound to industrial and commercial paymasters and careless of their responsibilities to the public. The universities have not escaped the tenor of such criticism, since they are often held to be in servitude to both external and internal vested interests. The overall situation was recently reviewed by the Commons Select Committee for Science and Technology, concerned primarily with the promotion of national wealth to underpin social programmes. It concluded that R & D (research and development) has not been well served in the U.K. There was little innovation and the university status was low. The `Foresight' programmes were thought unproductive and the subject basis of research councils inhibited interdisciplinary approaches. Within government interdepartmental co-operation was poor. Popular concern over many issues showed how inadequate were the links with the public. The Lords Select Committee for Science and Technology has attempted to grasp such nettles. Their report entitled Science and Society (February 2000) argued that public mistrust does not result primarily from misunderstanding of science, risk and uncertainties, but essentially from lack of dialogue and mutual learning. The public, they believe, is not generally `anti-science'. Scientists "need to develop ethical capabilities and skills in deliberating with others the ethical issues raised". `Organised irresponsibility' and confusion of acceptable risk with unintended consequences need to be addressed. The onus lies with the institutions, which must publish strategies for dialogue, identify best practice and provide feedback to government. In brief, the public must be involved as well as informed. Since then commentators have claimed that polls have shown that research scientists are well aware of their responsibilities, but have little input to programmes which are dictated by councils, suppliers of funds, industry, quangos, etc. who control some £4 billions of public money per annum, ignoring private finance. In July 2000 a White Paper entitled Excellence and opportunity was issued. It concluded that everyone professionally involved with scientific research, from the humblest student to the ministers of government, must be involved in dialogue between themselves and with the public. The advisory committees will assess potential risks, but the media and the public must be consulted. Those funding projects will require hard evidence of attempts at such dialogue. In October 2000 an Office of Science and Technology report, Science and the public, reported some evidence of co-ordination by government (e.g. on stem cell research) and of monitoring of government activities. Many government bodies now seek public responses by announced deadlines, via the media and the Internet. On the vexed issue of special interests in advisory committees, the absolute need for expertise is acknowledged. A `Code' which it believes reflects the good practice already undertaken by many committees is being developed, with public input invited, which requires appropriate declarations of interest and appropriate withdrawals from decision-making when necessary. It believes that objectivity can be achieved through `transparency' procedures.
In discussion, such optimism was queried, since experience shows that vested interests have been dominant to date and research has been skewed to suit those interests industrial and academic. Whether much, if any, progress on that score will be achieved in the near future was doubted. However, it was agreed that dialogue with the public is desirable and the efforts being made to achieve that are to be supported. The issues are often neither clear, nor simple, and it is up to science to make things clear enough for valid judgements to be made. It is up to the educational system to ensure that its products staff, pupils and students have an understanding of the nature, strengths and limitations of science and the sciences. Geoffrey Catchpole
|
