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
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|