Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

A RECURRENT finding of public opinion polls is that scientists are to
be trusted but politicians are not. Two reports published last week throw
some healthy scepticism on this simplistic formulation, while properly emphasising
the difficulties that face the responsible use of science in public policy.

The first was the interim report of Sir John May’s inquiry into the
case of the Maguire seven – six members of the Maguire family and a family
friend – convicted of manufacturing bombs for the IRA largely on the basis
of forensic evidence given at their trial. The interpretation placed on
this evidence is now seen as dubious. In particular, the report claims that
senior scientists from the Ministry of Defence used ‘an element of calculation’
to withhold evidence which could have suggested that the traces of nitroglycerine
on the defendants’ hands had come from innocent sources.

The second report was from the House of Commons agriculture committee
on BSE, the so-called ‘mad-cow’ disease. This warned explicitly of the dangers
of politicians justifying their actions (or, in the BSE case, their lack
of action) by refusing to go beyond the ‘best scientific advice’ in order
to satisfy public anxiety.

The committee’s conclusion deserves quoting directly. It says the Minister
of Agriculture should be ready to take further steps than those recommended
by his scientific advisers, adding that ‘scientists do not automatically
command public trust, particularly when they are in disagreement with each
´Ç³Ù³ó±ð°ù’.

The message may be a frustrating one for those scientists who would
like to see instant action to implement what to them are obvious solutions
to pressing social problems. But the health of a democracy is measured by
a society’s ability to make sensible use of scientists’ advice without becoming
infatuated by it – in other words, without accepting it uncritically.

The message has recently been learnt the hard way in the Soviet Union.
Last week’s party congress passed a resolution claiming that the scientific
community had ‘broken the confidence of the people’ by, for example, suppressing
information on the health dangers of the Chernobyl accident and issuing
‘assertions of absolute safety’. The situation in the West is not so extreme.
But as last week’s two reports suggest, the lesson is still one that bears
repeating.