Hi. A few thoughts

I have been listening to the depleted uranium (DU) debate over the past few
days.

[For those outside Europe, where DU is headline news, the issue concerns the
potential harmful effect of using shells with tips made of uranium in Kosovo
and the Gulf. In these shells, the U-235 has been very much reduced and the
remaining U-235 plus a bit of U-238 packs a really good punch. The debate is
not about those that have been directly killed by these munitions.
Protagonists are arguing that soldiers and peace-keepers who moved in after
battle may be at risk of uranium poisoning, cancer and perhaps more.]

The science of the issue is yet to be resolved but I detect some clear
implications for scientists in the UK from the debate so far:

1) The panic reaction in the UK shows that the separation between scientific
advice and the government remains large. The government is seeking
scientific advice late in the day, so the government must invent policy ad
lib until it sorts the advice out. This is neither good for government or
science.

2) This position is even more disturbing because the current government has
made a strong commitment to evidence-based policy (in which evidence feeds
into policy-making and is not merely a later justification for it). Social
scientists have worked hard to reform the government agenda through
evidence-based policy (and has its own Cabinet Office unit). Science does
not seem to have the same role, it is still called in after rather than
before.

3) The "no evidence for a phenomenon" argument is very strong in science and
is, of course, often used correctly. But the last few days of media coverage
suggests that "no evidence" has become seen as a failure of science, at
least by journalists. The question is asked of scientists: "Why have you not
done the research?"

4) Peer review, much derided by government prior to 1995, is now central to
politicians' arguments. Ministers will not now listen to scientists whose
research has not been published having undergone peer review. Peer review
has always been an academic gold standard, increasingly it is becoming a
political gold standard.

The end result is that the social and political responsibility of scientists
continues to increase. Wolpert aside, many scientists I know will welcome
this. But are scientists really cut out to do this sort of work? They
certainly will not have received training in these issues at university. Can
you do science and politics at the same time, or does this get in the way of
innovation and discovery?

And what is the role of science communicators? How many science centres have
displays and exhibitions on DU in place today?

Andy Boddington