<<Excellence and Opportunity>>

Extracts from the White Paper published by the Office of Science and
Technology yesterday at http://www.dti.gov.uk/ost/aboutost/dtiwhite/

Consumers will support investment in science if it helps to deliver products
they value. But, in addition, public confidence in the whole notion of
science must be strong and well founded. People must feel that science is
serving society and that it is properly regulated, open and accountable. The
BSE crisis and the controversy over GM foods have raised questions about the
value of scientific progress in society. These are questions we should ask.
It is in the public interest, in the interests of scientists and in the
interests of companies seeking to exploit science commercially that they are
addressed. We need a more systematic and independent approach to satisfy
public concerns about the risks created by scientific innovation. When
science delivers innovations that improve people's lives with minimal risk
that they understand, they support it wholeheartedly. Science and innovation
need a stable and transparent framework of public support within which they
can develop...

Science must be our servant and not our master. Public acceptance of science
cannot be taken for granted. The challenge for scientists is to engage with
people in debate about the benefits of what they do; Government must
complement this by providing a strong and open framework of regulation,
supported by scientific evidence and independent scientific advice...

The Government is committed to learning the lessons from recent
controversies over BSE and genetically modified food ...

We will create a robust and transparent framework to address consumer
concerns over safety. As a first step we will:
* implement stronger guidelines from the Chief Scientific Adviser on how
scientific advice should be used in drawing up Government policy
* publish a code of practice for all scientific advisory committees
committing them to high levels of openness and transparency in their work
When the applications of science are properly regulated and address clear
human needs, they win public support.

Our aim is to make science more exciting for all our children. We have
therefore announced that:
* 2001/02 will be Science Year, raising the profile of science and
technology in schools and with teachers and parents. The year aims to
increase pupils' interest and to promote science as fun, exciting and
relevant to everyday life.
And we are improving the science curriculum; we need to give teenagers
opportunities to ask questions, challenge accepted facts and think
creatively about science. From September 2000, the curriculum will have
greater emphasis on practical science (investigation and experimentation).
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority is doing a full review of the
science curriculum to make it more relevant to the 21st century.
* As part of Science Year, the Government will establish a new Science
Ambassadors' programme. Top science students will form links with their old
school or college, inform pupils about their own experiences and provide
coaching and mentoring. The programme will reach out in particular to those
schools from which few pupils go to university to study science and
engineering. It will inspire young people to aim high and help them in
deciding on study and career choices. It will help to widen access to
university and will provide personal development opportunities for the
science students themselves...

[Chapter 4 champions the public as consumers links their protection with
competition policy.] When a new product seems to offer only minimal
improvements to the quality of life or the range of choices available, at an
unacceptably high level of risk, then consumers are unlikely to adopt it.
Most people in Britain are positive about science - over two-thirds agree
that science and technology are making our lives healthier, easier and more
comfortable...

The media also have a vital role to play. The public framework for assessing
risks must be open to public scrutiny at every stage. As a society we can no
longer, if we ever could, expect people to trust blindly in Government and
scientists to get it right. Consumers will feel confident only if risks from
new technologies are questioned and challenged in an open and informed
way...

Public trust is vital to innovation. That trust is easily lost and hard to
win back. People in Britain generally support science and innovation.
However, the recent controversies over BSE and genetically modified foods
show that the public are also concerned about risks, particularly when they
involve food and health. We must not dismiss these worries, nor get them out
of hand. Were a climate of distrust to build up around science, it could
drive scientists away from the UK and in the long run impoverish us...

<<Public dialogue>>
Expert scientific advisory committees are absolutely essential to our
society. Without the knowledge and wisdom of the people who give up their
time to serve on them, we would not be able to identify or manage the risks
from science, or gain the benefits of scientific advances. We all owe them a
debt of gratitude.
But members of scientific advisory committees would agree that science is
too important to be left only to scientists. Their knowledge, and their
assessment of risks, is only one dimension of the challenge for society.
When science raises profound ethical and social issues, the whole of society
needs to take part in the debate.
The Government is establishing new strategic bodies to help facilitate
dialogue. The Food Standards Agency has this as an important part of its
role, integrated with its regulatory responsibilities. Two new biotechnology
commissions, the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and
Environment Biotechnology Commission established alongside the Food
Standards Agency, have representatives from all interested groups, and a
remit to facilitate public debate. They report to Ministers in the devolved
administrations as well as UK Ministers...

If people are to have a confident relationship with science, it is important
that there are plenty of opportunities for them to learn about recent
scientific developments and to debate their value. This point was recently
emphasised by the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee in their
report 'Science and Society', which has made a valuable contribution to this
debate.
OST is conducting a review of science communication, working closely with
the Wellcome Trust, aiming to improve understanding of the best ways to
communicate science and to conduct effective dialogue. And scientists need
skills to participate in the debate: we will build on existing Research
Council initiatives to help scientists understand how to communicate their
work...




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%