Prime Minister champions science

YORKSHIRE — A speech scheduled for yesterday at The Royal Society, promising to discuss 'The importance of Science', was never going to set hearts afire, even if given by the Prime Minister. But, as the event was heralded with a few carefully placed news stories hinting that Tony Blair would square up to animal rights extremists and protesters against genetically modified crops, perhaps a few more people paid attention than would have done otherwise.Those who do read the speech will be surprised. The controversial issues are discussed, but in the context of a speech that takes as its main thrust the relationship and relevance of science to society. Admitting that science poses hard questions of moral judgment — old chestnuts include how to apply the invention of nuclear fusion; new ones such issues as cloning — Blair argued that "The answer is not to disinvent nuclear fusion. The answer is that with scientific advance, we need greater moral fibre, better judgement, and stronger analysis of how to use knowledge for good not ill."Making a political dig at the previous administration's handling of BSE (and omitting any mention of his own government's handling of foot-and-mouth disease) Blair pointed out that science can get blamed when really the fault lies elsewhere. Though the biological and physical sciences were given equal attention, there were some nuggets especially for the biomedical and biological research community. Clearly, Blair thinks stem cell research is a good thing and that animal rights extremists and protesters who rip up experimental fields of GM crops are a bad thing. Of stem cells, he said, "I want to make the UK the best place in the world for this research, so in time our scientists, together with those we are attracting from overseas, can develop new therapies to tackle brain and spinal cord repair, Alzheimer's disease and other degenerative diseases, such as Parkinson's."Stepping into the mine field surrounding the use of animals in research, he said that Cambridge University's plans for a new neurological research center may not go ahead because protesters object to scientists testing potential cures for disorders such as Parkinson's on primates. "We cannot have vital work stifled simply because it is controversial," he told the Royal Society.Even though Blair's speech reiterates support for science in controversial areas, to report these comments shorn of his wider argument about science and society would be misleading. His real message was that if government, society and science are to successfully find ways to cope with all that science is currently making possible, then there needs to be more open and mature communication between science and society. This message echoes that of a seminal report on Science and Society produced two years ago by a House of Lords Select Committee. The thrust of the report's argument, says Robert Terry, a senior policy advisor at The Wellcome Trust, was that the phrase 'public understanding of science' is condescending and implies that if the public could only learn enough, then everything would be all right. This signally failed with GM crops, says Terry, "because the more the public learned, the less they liked them." The alternative to the didactic approach, says Terry, is public consultation and open meetings. This is a message that the government seems to have taken to heart during the past couple of years, and Blair pointed out that the Food Standards Agency and Human Genetics Commission, among others, now hold meetings in public and publish minutes on the web. Clearly, this is something that he views as important. "The benefits of science will only be exploited through a renewed compact between science and society, based on a proper understanding of what science is trying to achieve," Blair told the Royal Society.Midway through the speech there was a short commercial break during which Blair summarized his government's increased spending on science. Despite the positive emphasis placed on the numbers — more money has gone into some science and university infrastructure — the picture is a little more confused when the UK is compared with its competitors. The UK spends less as a percentage of its GDP (1.83%) on science than most of the other G7 countries. The science, engineering and technology indicators for 2001 produced by the Office of Science and Technology show that only Italy and Canada spend less of their GDP on science than the UK. By comparison, in 1998 (the last year for which figures from all G7 countries are available) Japan spent 3%, the US 2.6%, Germany 2.4% and France 2.2%. The UK's spending as a percentage of GDP has remained constant at 1.8% since 1997, only rising to 1.83% in the predicted figures for 2001. Though it fell under the previous government, as a percentage of GDP it was always above 1.8%. (These percentages are for total spending, including government, industry and charity funding.)Despite the inevitable party politics, the tone of Blair's speech was in general philosophical. Rejecting the concept of two cultures, Blair argued that science is one part of a spectrum of human cultural activity, along with art and the humanities, that answers a deep human need to understand. If he can get that message across, he will have made significant progress in revealing the heart of science to a wider public.

Prime Minister champions science

Tony Blair discussed the importance of science to society at The Royal Society yesterday.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of