Brave New World?
FRANKENFOODS! MAD Siamese Sheep! Designer Babies! This is the view of scientific discovery often propounded by the modern media, which with its hunger for sensationalism, can present a distorted view of the issues and only serves to arouse public fears. There is increasing concern that new technologies have been introduced without thorough enough testing to identify the possible dangers. Unfortunately for the scientists, such fears are not easily dispelled by any amount of scientific evidence.
Part of the problem is that scientists speak a different language from the rest of us. Even as a science student, I find the jargon-filled foreign language of textbooks and some scientists hard to translate. The scientific community suffer from a condition of communicationitis. The public's trust can only be gained if scientists can make themselves understood. The public should be provided with all the facts in an easily digestible form so that they can make informed decisions about whether to embrace or reject a new technology.
The problem is made infinitely worse when scientists disagree about the 'facts' so that the public receives conflicting messages. For instance, in the midst of the BSE crisis, government scientific advisers insisted that BSE could not be transmitted to humans by consuming contaminated beef. This assurance was found to be false and it is not surprising that doubt is being cast over scientific claims. Some researchers or campaigners actually manipulate or falsify data to support their beliefs. Environmental groups used data that over-exaggerated the decline in numbers of African elephants leading to a ban in ivory trade in 1989. Unfortunately, this conduct poses a real problem for genuine conservationists. Fraud throughout the scientific community is counterproductive and undermines the trust of both the public and fellow scientists alike.
All alcohol raises blood pressure but beer apparently doesn't due to its vitamin B6 content. Hairdryers may promote brain cancer or memory loss by emitting an electromagnetic field. Similarly, there is a chance that microwave radiation from your mobile phone may fry your brain. The problem is that the public is bombarded with conflicting evidence from competing scientific studies. The effects being looked for are often vanishingly small so that the probability of a reproducible result is equally small. The other danger is the existence of "confounding factors". For example, coffee drinkers may also be more likely to smoke. Therefore, any study that investigates the possible risk factors of smoking needs to take a person's coffee-drinking habits into account and so on. Risk perception is highly subjective. Scientists are never in a position to say that something is 100% harmless but total certainty is what the public yearns. The bottom line is that people will worry about even a remote risk to health. To make matters worse, the law of statistics is such that you will occasionally get a false 'positive' just by chance. In non-scientist speak: it seems that there is a risk when in fact there is none
The average scientist is so engrossed in their own research that they do not have time to get involved in public debates. Many 'expect' the public to see the value of their work without an accompanying explanation. However, it is clear that this is no longer the way forward. Scientists and the public should be working together in order to make sensible decisions about new technology as we enter the new millennium. Each case is different and there are often no clear 'right' or 'wrong' answers. However, I believe that good old-fashioned communication is the key to finding common ground...
Stem Cells
In August, research on human embryos was given the go ahead. Stem cells are special because they can develop into almost any type of tissue. This offers great potential for growing your own organs in order to replace 'faulty' tissues. Nerve cells could replace cells damaged by Parkinson's disease or by a stroke. But these stem cells are found in embryos. Embryonic research is an ethical minefield: pro-life groups believe that conception marks the beginning of a new life, so the embryo should be treated as a human being. Others believe that respect increases as the embryo develops and that research on embryos should be allowed given the potential therapeutic benefits to a large number of people suffering from curable disorders. It could be possible to derive stem cells from adult tissues, such as bone marrow. Some researchers are even attempting to activate stem cells in the brain by using targeted drugs. Current issues such as cloning, GM foods and food safety are highly emotive and scientists should be prepared to present an objective viewpoint. This is no easy task, especially when personal beliefs and strong emotions are involved.
GM Foods
Prince Charles attacked plant biotechnology and GM foods by saying that we are playing God. He believes that we should "use science to understand what nature is, not to change [it]." However, artificial selection dates back at least 10,000 years to the agricultural revolution. Humans have unconsciously selected grain that is easy to harvest and grow in monoculture. A more obvious example of the way we interfere with nature is modern medicine, which saves people who would otherwise have died. Although the Prince's argument may be flawed, he has raised an issue that needs to be addressed, particularly concerning GM food. The planting of GM crops, even to 'test' whether they dangerous carries risks because it is possible that GM pollen can travel long distances. The surrounding wildlife may also be affected in ways that we may not fully understand at present. Therefore, it pays to be cautious when entering unknown territory.
16th Nov 2000