Dumbocracy

Dumbocracy Examples of public "demagoguery" that you quote in your editorial1 are quite conspicuous. Unfortunately, your appeal to "our most eminent researchers" to "lead the debates on the scientific merits of stem cells" in existing situations will only make things worse; that is, decisions less rational and public confidence more abused. The problem is that "our most eminent researchers" are mostly a thoroughly corrupt crowd, who put their personal financial interests, including gains in the companies they own and ever-increasing public funding of their research, above any honest assessment. As long as our academic institutions remain indifferent to, or even encourage, the widespread conflicts of interest, "eminent researchers" should be kept away from public discussions. Alexander Kolchinsky, PhD Health Front Line, Ltd. Champaign, Ill. alexkolc@insightbb.com *** I just read your "Discussion Good, Dumbocracy Bad" editorial1 in the June 16 issue of The Scientist. Contrary to the thrust of your editorial, many of us in the scientific community believe that the best (indeed, only) way to avoid a "dumbocracy" is "good (and balanced) discussion," that is, understanding the distinction between facts and values. There is no disputing that facts (as articulated by the "experts") are, indeed, a critical part of the public policy equation. Respecting the testimony of people (e.g., "patient advocates") whose facts may be suspect but whose values are the stuff of democratic debate, is, however, the other half of the whole. Espousing--never mind encouraging--even more scientific elitism than presently exists is not going to get any of us very far down the road of responsible decision-making, nor building trust in the public domain, in the complex world of 21st-century biotechnology. In that context, I respectfully suggest that you might find it enlightening to check out the Web site of Geneforum (www.geneforum.org), a unique, nonprofit organization that I and my colleagues around Oregon birthed four years ago. Its mission, to enhance public understanding, promote civic discourse, and inform genetic policy through the measurement and monitoring of public values, is designed to demonstrate that citizens can educate the experts about the values that bind a community together. Greg Fowler, PhD Department of Public Health & Preventive Medicine Oregon Health & Science University Portland, Ore. gfowler@geneforum.org 1. R. Gallagher, "Discussion good, dumbocracy bad," The Scientist, 17[12]:12, June 16, 2003. *** If dumbocracy rules it is because, when it comes communicating to the general public, scientists remain in their ivory tower. It often seems that it is below scientific status to address popular questions, leaving the proliferation of scientific progress to a press which is dictated by brief and sensational coverage. If researchers should lead the debates they should be prepared to leave their ivory towers not only when a particular issue reaches the news but at any time. A good example is the debate on genetically modified food where so far the scientific community has responded by countering the arguments of anti-GM campaigners, instead of offering a clear insight in both the scientific and ethical thought behind it. The rise of dumbocracy also demonstrates the need of adequate scientific education. Yet many of our most eminent researchers, as you so eloquently put it, seem to consider this a political matter, rather than a scientific one. It raises the question whether science can be seen separately from politics. The physicists that contributed to the development of the hydrogen bomb later became the most ardent supporters of peace as they realized that their invention would not remain a scientific showcase. Invention is science, applying invention is politics. One cannot be seen without the other. Note that politics is meant in the broadest sense and that it does not imply the sacrifice of our independence. Filip Meersman University of Cambridge Department of Chemistry Cambridge, UK fpsm2@cam.ac.uk function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

Dumbocracy

Dumbocracy

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of