Science should dictate policy, declares Ian Gibson
 
‘Would you keep your scientist friends in the kitchen? We will be in the front room.’
This was the way we ran parties – with discussion of C4 pathways in one room and anything but science in the other. This reflected the feeling that scientists were geeky – solely interested in the details of their world, with drinks and gossip thrown in. Many scientists remain interested in other things besides science, even if the discussion of David Beckham resorts to the physics of his free kicks. But there is a wide suspicion of science and scientists which extends to the political arena, where they are viewed as ‘on tap but not on top’.

Scientists define

The scarcity of scientists in the political arena is a fact of British life. It explains, I believe, the poor attitude to evidence in policy-making and, indeed, how to handle evidence. It’s no use pretending that the scientist incorporated into decision-making is not ‘on message’, but malleable to be ‘one of us’. This is how the science establishment reacts with government, from the Minister of Science to the Chief Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister.
Scientists are much better at defining problems and moving to investigate them. Politicians are blown in the wind by the media and constituents and often fail to see the real problem. Their job is colossal. In the field of climate change, for example, real issues need to be addressed like car usage, how to heat homes and the personal life style of the individual. A precautionary approval is often the only answer.

Blaming the public

And so we move to address the problem by talking of public understanding of science. We set up committees attached to august bodies to resolve the problems, as if the fault rests with the public.
I have served on several such committees and they always struggled to deliver the message to the public. This, despite the meetings, publications and initiatives at annual conferences like the British Association for the Advancement of Science runs. We don’t have any obvious areas of endeavour around public understanding of Latin, for example. So science remains in a class of its own: too difficult, technical and carried out by a strange class of people.

Scientists’ arrogance

It is true that there is an arrogance amongst many scientists which says that they alone can understand science and related phenomena. This is a necessary view to maintain the discipline of research and study.
The anger around the GM plant issue was not reserved for the biotechnology company alone. Scientists too felt it was enough to do it and the public would follow. They did not: instead, they walked away. It will be interesting to see if the scientific community has learned, as further GM initiatives are declared as a solution in the battle of climate change and its effects in the developing world. I doubt it! 

The scarcity of scientists in the political arena is a fact of British life. It explains the poor attitude to evidence in policy-making and how to handle evidence

The difficulty is compounded by the difference in public attitudes in the US and UK. UK academics en masse hide from the media and have little time for those who indulge it, despite their popularity.
Some even think David Attenborough is not a scientist.
A large sector of the British public remains suspicious, even without evidence of the effect of low radiation, new food crops, drugs and their efficiency, genetic profiling and many other new technologies. Science is now being used in an attempt to amend our abortion policies, and even ‘intelligent design’ is competing with evolution and natural selection to explain our life forms. 

It’s no use pretending that the scientist incorporated into decision-making is not ‘on message’, but malleable to be ‘one of us’

Science must benefit us

It remains for me in subsequent articles to discuss the way forward for science, not just in the UK but internationally. When science and industry develop cures or treatments, it does not benefit science when people even in the UK are denied the treatment. Science and politics intermingle in taking ‘the blame’.
My next article will examine how from primary school to higher education we must start producing scientists, technologists and engineers whose discoveries benefit our lives. Politicians must also understand, translate and develop the messages into delivery plans.
Climate change is a good example. The science has been there for some time and, while politicians may have picked up the gauntlet, delivery of the messages from the scientists presents a real problem. We need to move from this complacency in UK science to an ultra proactive role where science dictates the policy and policy makes demands on the science.

Dr Ian Gibson is MP for Norwich North.