I think the heart of Lewis Wolpert's article is his attempt to narrow the
remit which he thinks the committee should have been addressing: "Their
lordships claim there is a crisis of confidence... [but] is this a question
of science or handling of the issues by politicians?" "How many of our
actions in our day-to-day lives are affected by our knowledge, or ignorance
of science? My impression is very, very few."
The Lord's enquiry was about science and society - i.e. the interface
between a body of knowledge/practice and the wider society. This interface
is a messy place, with all sorts of different interest groups involved -
only some of who are scientists.
Take the current controversy on HIV/AIDS in South Africa, on which I posted
last week. "Bad" scientists, "good" scientists, African policymakers,
Western policymakers, Western business, the media, and activists of various
colours are all jostling for position. Members of the public, meanwhile,
are dying preventable deaths.
Is this a purely scientific issue? No. Are scientists at fault? No. But
that does not mean that looking at the issue from the point of view of
science, scientists, and the public understanding of science is futile. It
throws great light on the controversy (as, of course, does looking at the
economics and politics of the disease and efforts to tackle it).
David
Ps. May I note that I consider Andy's willingness to summarise articles,
events etc. a great service to the group?
-------------------------------------
David Steven
River Path Associates
Check out: http://www.votemonkey.com
http://www.riverpath.com
[log in to unmask]
+44 (0)1202 849993 (work)
+44 (0)7939 038832 (mobile)
61a West Borough, Wimborne, Dorset, BH21 1LX, UK
-----Original Message-----
From: PUB (E-mail) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 26 April 2000 08:23
To: Psci-Com (E-mail)
Subject: Wolpert on Jenkin
You may recall that Lord Jenkin referred to an forthcoming article by Lewis
Wolpert which would be critical of the House of Lords report. That article
has now forth come and was published in Saturday's Independent. The full
text is on http://www.globalarchive.ft.com/, search for "Wolpert."
Here is a quick summary:
Science versus politics: Who do you trust?
Wolpert questions whether the crisis of confidence over BSE, GM, etc. is a
question of science or the handling of the issues by politicians. He asks
"Is the public really distrustful of science as if there were no distinction
between biology and astronomy? Are there really many people who no longer
contribute to medical charities because they do not trust science? I doubt
it."
Lewis makes a distinction between public distrust and individual's actions
noting that "it is easy to be negative about science if it does not affect
your actions." The public do not need to know about science for most of
their day-to-day lives, for example, when riding a bike or using a computer.
"Does it matter if you cannot tell the real difference between a virus and a
bacterium provided you know, for example, that antibiotics such as
penicillin have no affect on viruses?"
The House of Lords do not explain why the public should trust science. The
public is more in need of understanding scientific method than knowledge of
science.
Wolpert repeats his familiar science is hard argument and rejects the Lords
suggestion to put lay members on scientific committees as "tokenism."
Then having dismissed their Lordships' recommendations and, by implication
much public understanding activity, he concludes:
"Science is central to our culture and the public should have easy access to
science and scientists."
Andy Boddington
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|