Here is my letter to The Times on the so-called 'anti-science' problem. I
have very little hope they will print it.
David King
I was sad to see Tony Blair referring to anti-GM food campaigners as
'anti-science' ('Blair condemns protesters who towards science', May 20th).
I am a scientist who has been deeply involved in the movement critical of
genetic engineering for the past 12 years, but I have yet to meet anyone who
was genuinely against science. This is not surprising, because any grown-up
knows that this society cannot continue without science and scientists. I
have met many people who are acutely aware of the defects of our current
scientific understanding, for example of environmental processes, and of the
ways that these defects tend not be mentioned by the pro-GM lobby, or are
obscured by hype about medical revolutions. Indeed, the anti-GM movement is
rightly proud of its 'geek-power', which insists on excavating uncomfortable
scientific evidence. Most of all, I have met people who have seen through
the fairy story of the 'neutrality' and 'objectivity' of science and are
shocked, as I still am, by the way that science is controlled and directed
by the power interests that run our society.
To the extent that there is 'anti-science' feeling in this country, it is a
reaction to the technocracy which increasingly dominates our lives. Even
those who have not studied the history and philosophy of science can easily
sense that the environmental and food safety disasters, not to mention the
impending resurgence of eugenics, stem from the inner logic of that
technocracy, and are not just some unfortunate sporadic accidents. No doubt
some of the protest against particular aspects of science have been, as Mr
Blair complains, 'over the top'. But such actions spring from the feelings
of powerlessness that our technocracy engenders.
Of course, the powerful always portray their critics, whether it be anti-GM
protesters or anti-colonial freedom fighters, as violent and irrational and
the system they support as reasonable and enlightened. But the real issue
is not whether we should be pro- or anti-science, but which science we
should support and how it should be governed. If Mr Blair wants to address
the real issues, he should stop bashing the critics as anti-science, and
instead, with a little humility, start to listen.
Dr. David King
[log in to unmask]
These are my personal views and do not represent the position of Human
Genetics Alert
Human Genetics Alert
Unit 112 Aberdeen House
22-24 Highbury Grove
London N5 2EA
t +44 (0)20 7704 6100
f +44 (0)20 7359 8423
[log in to unmask]
www.hgalert.org
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on the public understanding of science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Richard Ellam
Sent: 21 May 2002 14:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Blair condemns protesters who thwart science
----------
>From: David S King <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Blair condemns protesters who thwart science
>Date: Tue, May 21, 2002, 11:31
>
> I'd be interested to hear list members' views on Tony Blair's statements.
> Is it simply an anti-science fashion?
>
No, but then Mr Blair (and most of the protesters) need to learn to
distinguish between science and technology. Indeed most of the 'Science'
that people are up in arms about is really technology based on the fruits of
scientific enquiry.
If you are an opponent of Nuclear Power, GM Food, or whatever, you stand a
much better chance of making a strong case against your particular bete noir
if you understand and appreciate the science behind the technology.
When we communicate science, whether informally or in schools and colleges
we need to distinguish between scientific knowledge and its technological
applications, and to make it clear that they are very different things,
which are driven by totally different motives.
So, understanding the physiscs of nuclear fission (and the intellectual
effort made to bring forth this knowledge in the first place) does not mean
that you have to agree with the application of this knowledge to nuclear
reactors or bombs. But, if you don't have the grounding in physics you may
not be able to assemble the most cogent arguments for not developing
technologies based on this knowledge.
Richard Ellam
L M Interactive
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the
message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list
archive,
can be found at the list web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and
science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
