ARE Europeans anti-science? Listening to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who made a major speech on science at the Royal Society in London last week, you could be forgiven for thinking so. Blair used as his theme a view of Europe expressed by biotech researchers in Bangalore, India. 鈥淭hey saw us as completely overrun by protestors and pressure groups who used emotion to drive out reason,鈥� he said. Is this a true picture of modern Europe?
No. In practice, few people are anti-science per se. Yet huge numbers of Europeans will have no truck with genetically modified crops, and Britons have a long tradition of animal rights campaigning. In the US, a powerful lobby opposes any research linked to abortion, such as work on stem cells. These views are not simply born of ignorance, they are shaped in part by cultural, religious and political beliefs. People all over the world oppose any research that increases the power of multinational companies, for example. So Blair鈥檚 recipe for avoiding protest鈥攁 better understanding of science and its role鈥攎ay not be the magic solution he imagines.
Protest movements all have fanatical fringes. The worst are the anti-abortionists and animal rights campaigners who intimidate, beat up or kill researchers. But they are not representative of the public at large. Yet in his speech Blair made little distinction between extremists and people who hold strong, informed objections to research of one type or another. Take one of his themes: experiments on primates. Even senior biologists question the need for many of these experiments. In any test involving animals, we must be sure that the expected outcomes can justify any suffering, and the bar must be set higher for primates. As for the public, Blair should not worry that it will be swayed by extreme views. Opinion polls show that people are quite capable of weighing animal suffering against potential medical breakthroughs. People ask 鈥渨hat鈥檚 in it for me?鈥�, and if the payoff isn鈥檛 high enough you can kiss public support goodbye.
Advertisement
On biotechnology, Blair鈥檚 thinly disguised annoyance at public opposition shines through more clearly. We know that originally he thought GM crops were good business and favoured giving them the go-ahead. Only widespread discontent forced his government to set up farm-scale trials of the plants to test their impact on the environment. So is it anti-science that drives popular opinion? No. The public, once again, asks 鈥渨hat鈥檚 in it for me?鈥� And the answer at present is 鈥渘ot a lot鈥�.
The economic and environmental payoffs from GM crops are marginal at best (18 May 2002, p 44). But, as Blair ackowledges, there are still unanswered questions about the potential impact of GM crops on biodiversity. Genes added to maize, for example, are turning up in other varieties on other farms. Worse, last week, a European Union report warned that this gene flow would threaten the organic status of farms if even 10 per cent of farmland is put under GM crops. Is it anti-science to suggest that GM crops should be made infertile before they can be grown commercially?
Blair rightly calls for a 鈥渞obust, engaging dialogue with the public鈥�. Perhaps the government should set up citizens鈥� juries similar to those that advise the Danish parliament. But Blair should decide what role his government will play in these proceedings鈥攚itness, counsel, jury or judge. A document leaked to The Sunday Times shows Downing Street is considering a PR campaign on GM crops even before Britain鈥檚 farm-scale trials have ended. The timing here is at odds with his own professed desire for a system in which 鈥渟cience tells us the facts and then we make the judgements鈥�.
The world is becoming ever more complicated. As the public finds out more about science and its implications, the diversity of opinions will grow. More debate is essential, but Blair had better prepare himself for conclusions he doesn鈥檛 like.
