Can science be directed?
The fourth Greenpeace/New Scientist debate looked at controlling the direction and application of science and technology. Scientific knowledge is essential for understanding and protecting the environment. Threats like ozone depletion and climate change are only understood through the medium of scientific investigation.
At the same time one of the criticisms levelled at Greenpeace is that we are 'not scientific'. This happens when we can see - as is the case in discussions on chemical controls, for example - 'science' is being used as an obstacle to environmental protection.
So what is the agenda for science and can it be controlled? And if so is it desirable? Why is it that we spend billions on GM and only a fraction of that on understanding our ecology? Why does science and technology benefit the rich much more than the poor? Should ordinary people be given a serious stake in making decisions about science? These were just some of the key issues.
Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal.
Made a series of points about the relationship of science to society; that secrecy was mistaken, the need for scientists to inform the public although their views should have no special weight in the decision making, that scientists should care about what happens to the knowledge they generate. The notion of pure research is somewhat simplistic and always has been. It is right that for ethical and risk-related reasons certain areas of research should be put off-limits - and also areas where developments could allow mischievous applications too easily. He ended on a plea to reduce inequality because of the nightmarish scenarios that cheap biotechnology in the wrong hands could bring.
Read the speech
Hear the speech (High quality MP3 6.8Mb)
Hear the speech (Low quality MP3 2.5Mb)
Steve Fuller, professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, and author of The Governance of Science.
Made a plea for democratisation of science, particularly in the form of the consensus conference, which has now been used in many countries with good results. His view was that the public were not anti-science but were crying out for a voice in the decisions made on science and technology agendas. Democratising science would be a way of taking it back to its history - the Enlightenment ideal was that all could participate in debate and decisions around scientific innovations.
Read the speech
Hear the speech (High quality MP3 6.8Mb)
Hear the speech (Low quality MP3 2.5Mb)
William Stuart
Gave a historical perspective from his time as Government Chief Scientist. In his view the 1970s had been the 'dark ages' for UK science which began to be lifted through the realisation of the important potential of science for helping with many world problems and by aiming science at gaining a commercially competitive edge to business. The Technology Foresight programme gave a much better grounding for science in developing particular areas, and in the future he believed that the main mass of scientists should be given a broad direction, with only the very best scientists left to themselves. However he questioned whether ultimately our arrangements deliver value for money.
Read the speech
Hear the speech (High quality MP3 6.8Mb)
Hear the speech (Low quality MP3 2.5Mb)
Vandana Shiva, physicist, leading environmental activist, and author of Biopiracy: the Plunder of Nature and Knowledge.
Argued that science had always been directed through funding. Now there was a need to assess the impact of that direction because of increased commercialisation and because of the ability these developments had to impact on the public. The effect of commercialisation was to undermine the process of peer review, and independent science is becoming almost impossible. She was highly critical of the speech made by Tony Blair on science because Bangalore (from where he drew inspiration for his speech) has many protests and problems in relation to its science institutions. He was also erroneously treating science as if it were a 'mystic' that speaks, whereas it actually flows from funding decisions.
Read the speech
Hear the speech (High quality MP3 6.8Mb)
Hear the speech (Low quality MP3 2.5Mb)
As you'll see many issues were raised.
You can also read the transcript from the question and answer session.
