快猫短视频

Note: This article contains the edited highlights of the interview, as published in the print edition of 快猫短视频. You can read the entire interview.

Audio:

On the eve of delivering a lecture on the future of British science, the prime minister Tony Blair talked to Jeremy Webb. 快猫短视频s should stop worrying about the small stuff, he says, and start to engage in public debate on the big issues.

How good were you at science at school?

I鈥檓 very open about this: I was very poor at science at school. I鈥檝e become a lot more interested in it in later life, and I鈥檝e also started to regret that when I was younger I didn鈥檛 engage with it more fully.

Why didn鈥檛 you?

I found the basic concepts difficult to understand. It鈥檚 only in later life I鈥檝e started to think about it more and look at it more. It鈥檚 also only as a political leader that I鈥檝e really taken to the importance of science to the country鈥檚 future, and that鈥檚 how I鈥檝e come to it now. So I don鈥檛 pretend any scientific knowledge but I do think I understand its importance to Britain鈥檚 future.

What do you think are the virtues of science?

For the future of the economy, it is almost as important as economic stability. If we do not take the opportunities that are there for us in science then we are not going to have a successful modern economy. We will be outcompeted on labour costs. It is our human capital that is the most important and it is at the cutting edge of science that our human capital can be best exploited for the country鈥檚 future. We鈥檝e got to give the country a great deal more confidence about science and its place in the future. Britain has been very good at invention and discovery and not so good at its commercial exploitation. For me, those two things go together.

鈥淲e鈥檝e got to give the country more confidence about science and its place in the future鈥�

How do you bridge the gap between science as an academic interest 鈥� discovering more about the universe 鈥� and science as a commercial enterprise?

You need a certain amount of pure research, and the excitement and creativity of scientific discovery. But if you also have universities and research centres sufficiently in tune with what is going on in the private sector, then hopefully discoveries will be made that have a real utility. I want to create a sense that when people are moving into science and research they are moving into an area that is going to have a big economic payback.

Is there a danger in making science so close to business that you lose that sense of scientists as impartial 鈥� or is that idea past its time?

The more enthusiasm and inspiration you get around science, the more people realise that there are practical applications of science that are immensely exciting and rewarding. That generates support for the whole field of science. There are difficult issues to do with conflicts of interest that come up from time to time but I think that pales into insignificance given the huge boost that comes from science, for example when developing practical ways of meeting the challenge of climate change.

You鈥檝e been in power during two extraordinary science-related occurrences: the refusal of people to accept genetically modified crops, and the refusal of parents to have their children vaccinated with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. What have you learned from those experiences?

The first is to be very careful about the media and its reporting of these things. The reporting of MMR was disgraceful. There was no real scientific basis for the allegations that were made and it鈥檚 caused a great deal of difficulty. GM, I think, is a different issue. We鈥檝e also had stem-cell research, where the outcome has been rather different and more positive. The lesson I鈥檝e learned is that it鈥檚 best to start with the public good. In the GM debate, I used to say to people that a lot of the lifesaving drugs now being produced are the product of the same type of science as GM crops. If we鈥檇 started through medicine and then looked at the other aspects of GM, we would have made it an issue to do with the public good rather than with letting American companies in, which is what it seemed to be for some people. This is why scientists need to interact with the public to explain things. Once you explain these things, people at least see another point of view.

In certain areas, we seem to be moving away from rational thought, whether it鈥檚 the rise of fundamentalist religious beliefs or the use of unproven therapies. Do you see this shift?

I don鈥檛. I think most people today have a rational view about science. My advice for the scientific community would be, fight the battles you need to fight. I wouldn鈥檛 bother fighting a great battle over, say, homeopathy. It鈥檚 not going to determine the future of the world. What is going to determine the future of the world is the scientific community explaining the science of genetics and how it develops, or the issues to do with climate change. There is a dimension that concerns and frightens scientists, let alone other people, because as the science progresses there are so many possibilities. Genetics, for example, is immensely exciting, but there will be massive questions around it. This is why the scientific community has got to come out and engage in a very strong and deep dialogue with wider society.

One subject that is of great concern to scientists is creationism. There has been a suggestion that creationism is being taught in some British schools. What are your views on this?

This can be hugely exaggerated. I鈥檝e visited one of the schools in question and as far as I鈥檓 aware they are teaching the curriculum in a normal way. If I notice creationism becoming the mainstream of the education system in this country then that鈥檚 the time to start worrying. As I鈥檝e said, it鈥檚 really important for science to fight the battles it needs to fight. When something like MMR arises, or stem cells, that鈥檚 the time to have a real debate.

What about the other big battle: climate change. Where do you go from here in that fight?

The next step is to get a framework agreed with the major countries with a binding set of agreements for when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. I set up this process with the G8 countries along with China, India, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa. The agreements will incentivise private business and industry to go after the scientific and technological solutions. They鈥檙e out there, they just need to be developed and brought to market. Getting the right carbon price is absolutely vital for doing this. We should be world leaders in this area, so let鈥檚 do that.

How do you do that?

You do that not only through investing in renewables 鈥� we鈥檙e putting in several hundred million pounds 鈥� but also explaining to our business and academic world that there is going to be this opportunity. The same applies, more controversially, if we develop the new nuclear power stations. At least half the European countries are thinking about the next stages of nuclear power. Again, we have expertise in this area and we should develop it. Clean energy, clean coal, renewables, energy efficiency 鈥� this is going to be a vast market.