Ian Gibson joins the battle for science
 
The Human Embryology Bill, many of whose proposals have been around for four years or more, has raised again the issue of science and public understanding.

MPs have discussed so-called ‘saviour siblings’, pre-implantation diagnosis of genetic traits, stem cells from hybrid embryos, the need for a father and so on, in relation to the Bill. When first investigated by the Select Committee on Science and Technology in early 2005, only half the committee attended the discussions. Others walked out, in a charged atmosphere which had no relation with party affiliation. I was called Dr Frankenstein by a Labour MP and the Daily Mail. 

Since then, in a more erudite environment dominated by peers, a similar scrutiny of the Bill was undertaken by a Joint Committee of the House, resulting in overall consensus for the Bill. Several people boycotted most of the scrutiny sessions.

The issue has been polarised around the granting by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority of licences for research into hybrid human-animal cells, before Parliamentary scrutiny of issues such as when life begins and the need for new medical research areas. The issue dominates the media again, with some of us being called into the debate against the Catholic Church. Some newspapers are for the Bill, and others are against.

The point of this article is not to discuss the details of the Bill or the science and religion, or even abortion which looks likely to be tagged on to the Bill as a crude afterthought. Instead I hope to address the problem of MPs’, the public’s and the media’s understanding of the proposals and the science.

Trust and ignorance

My experience talking to each of these groups is that they have a good feel for the problems which are being addressed, without any understanding of the reality of the science.

The media either takes the positions that the science is OK (scientists are to be trusted) or they are taking a sceptical view of the science (scientists have gone too far, are playing God). Then there are those who believe in other technologies, and that other cells (such as adult stem cells) will provide eventual cures. Many of the public remain indifferent, while others trust their God or church or the scientists. MPs who wish to make a balanced decision are not clear on what is possible and what actual chance there is for a cure for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer and so on. 

Poor interaction

One thing is clear. Despite the problem being around for four years, the scientific establishment, with their media centres and new PR focus, has not seen it coming, leaving many people uneasy and unsure of the issues. There is to be a late surge of explanation by the scientists – but is it too late? As in the GM debate, the media has pounced on the issue and taken it into our homes. For all the committees, professors and learned scientists on the subject, ‘events dear boy’ happen, and once more illustrate the poor interaction between public and scientists. We still hear it often that ‘if they only understood the science’ all would be well. This antideluvian attitude remains in our scientific population.

Parliament is the place where the debate happens, but here again the parliamentarians are confused. The only real interaction between MPs and scientists takes place in committee hearings. One thing has been made clear to me in this debate: select committees do little to enlighten the chambers, and have little influence. Not every MP has the time or the inclination to engage with committee reports. It is time for scientists to get out beyond the committees and explain the consequences, both scientific and social, of the developments.

Battle for science 

I would urge scientists and organisations to produce briefing notes on their research. These notes should explain what the research is for, its risks and potential for success, and how new technology may help its progress now and in the future. These notes should then be sent to all MPs, to journalists and commentators, to the science media and the mainstream media, followed up with personal meetings where possible. Fill the letters pages and then post it on your website!

The debate must not be polarised around religion and uninformed scare stories. It must be based on evidence. We must make the case for new technologies or we risk losing their benefits to fear and mass hysteria. The battle for science is once again on the agenda.
 
Dr Ian Gibson is MP for Norwich North