Scientists must engage, demands Ian Gibson
 
One of my major gripes has always been the troubled relationship between science and politics. It emanated from too many days spent moaning about the funding and systems of higher education, first from my laboratory and then from my office as a Dean of Biological Sciences at the University of East Anglia. It led to my decision to run for Parliamentary office in the first place.

However, there is now a third key player in this debate. When we examine the relationship between science and politics we must ensure we consider how both of these relate to the public. 

Journalists who live in the often disposable world of daily news fear the scholarly research of the professional scientist

Indifference to Nobel science
I was delighted to see this year’s Nobel Prize for medicine awarded to a Brit, Sir Martin Evans. I put down Early Day Motion No. 2087 in the House of Commons congratulating Sir Martin and his team. Please ask your MP to sign it. However I was bitterly disappointed to see that later, in the same week, a talk on stem cell research, due to be given by Sir Martin alongside a bioethics expert, had to be cancelled due to a lack of interest.

Stem cell technology is vital to modern medicine and it is criminal that there is such a gulf between its importance to medicine and interest in the issue in wider society.

Government reorganisation
Over the summer we have gained a new government, a new Prime Minister and a new Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills. This new Department has the potential to revolutionise the way we ‘do’ science in the UK. The Ministers in this new Department have the following portfolios: lifelong learning, further and higher education, science and innovation, skills and intellectual property and quality.

While I would have liked to see secondary education to be included in this mix, it still provides strong framework for developing joined up science policy. If the skills and innovation department works effectively with the higher education department we can ensure that industry and higher education are working together rather than at cross purposes, as has sometimes been the case.

The third partner
In order to make science in the UK successful, it must be engrained into the very fabric of our society. The direct link between industry and education is just one step. The other of course is the media.

Scientists and journalists are almost as disparate breeds as scientists and politicians, so it is inevitable that one would be sceptical of the other and vice versa. Journalists who live in the often disposable world of daily news fear the scholarly research of the professional scientist. Scientists in turn detest the speculative world of the media, and would prefer their work stayed safely in the lab where it cannot be corrupted.

My friend Fiona Fox from the Science Media Centre wrote a fabulous blog earlier this year (1) outlining the difficulties she had getting experts to come forward to discuss the possible causes of a train crash. The reluctance of the experts to provide their views on possible causes left an information gulf which was then filled by far lesser mortals who would have been forced to gather information from second hand sources, or the dreaded Internet.

It is inevitable the press will speculate and natural that scientists do not want to.
However, in order for us to have informed debate about science issues – floods, climate change, bioterrorism, foot and mouth, nanotechnology, ID cards – scientists have an obligation to step out of the laboratory and get their expertise into the public domain. Building long-term links between research institutions and organisations such as the Science Media Centre is one way to do this. 

Scientists in turn detest the speculative world of the media, and would prefer their work stayed safely in the lab where it cannot be corrupted

Court battle
Recently we have seen Al Gore attacked by a Judge who ‘identified’ nine errors in the film An Inconvenient Truth but ruled pupils should be able to see it with a warning. Despite some unlikely claims, the film essentially shows the science of climate change. The anti-science brigade seizes on uncertain fact and confuses the public with a denial of the global warming thesis.

It came as no surprise to discover that the legal battle against the film was funded by ‘business interests with close links to the fuel and mining lobbies’ (Observer, Sunday 14 October). However, I believe having the debate in court was the right thing to do and it will be to the benefit of public understanding of climate science in the long term. The public needs to be assured of the limits of the science as well as the certainties.

Reference
1. http://fionafox.blogspot.com/ ‘Why experts need to
speculate, without speculating’

Dr Ian Gibson is MP for Norwich North