SPectator, April 29, 1972 s cIENcE S Peaking out
8ernard Dixon
4Should scientists attempt to speak with a elpeitnon v: la)0,, ievvpoint, so that the public ', Where the community of science !Lands [tin n genetic engineering, for example, h Atol sarne vvay as they know where [tin n genetic engineering, for example, h Atol sarne vvay as they know where socierit.can Medical Association stands on 41sed Medicine?" The Goo question is raised byJune ' the cireld-Toulrnin in her contribution to tiohiha Foundation symposium Civilisas: soti ,a4t1 Science, just published by A tiiiea•Led Scientifi ac Publishers. It reflects stiernttla which confronts scientists and as rittific societies with increasing urgency ,kbo heY wrestle with new uncertainties _I itIvollit their role in society. At present, the km ent of scientific bodies in political itati social debate is minimal, Such organ}alerts believe that while it is their seeriiless to discuss the nuts and bolts of dEbatee' they are under no compulsion to krea e s its social consequences, Even in an triajor.tleh as biological warfare the vast hs nintY, Of professional biologists felt . tivecui their business or duty to be ac bat4,e°11cerned. Only after considerable atair;-age bickering was a resolution ,_ittul_,Werk on biological warfare even tvlicro'u at the International Congress for 1°14Y, held in Mexico City in August, 1970. But the resolution was debated, and approved, and helped to swell political pressure towards the Convention on Biological Weapons recently signed by the Powers.
Another positive example is the interest taken by the American Chemical Society in the question of chemical warfare. After many years of opposition to the idea that the US government should sign the Geneva Protocol banning chemical weapons, the Society reversed its position two years ago in response to pressure from its own Committee on Chemistry and Public Affairs.
Even in the United States, such developments are unusual. In general, research workers remain reticent about political action. Many American scientists knew, for example, that fall-out shelters built in the US in the late 'fifties would be largely ineffective. Yet when a soundly-based body called the Scientists' Committee on Radiation was set up to inform the public of this fact, important scientific societies in the country did not support it. Scientists believed that they had done their job by collecting, analysing, and writing up the relevant information. It was up to others to decide what action to take.
This is very much the mood of scientific societies in Britain, where attempts to interest scientists in political activity meet even less enthusiasm. In general, this is not a result of sinister chicanery, arrogant impatience with 'the laity,' or a sell-out to industry or the military — as argued by some of the more extreme contemporary critics of science. To a large degree it reflects a simple but profound difference in outlook between scientists on the one hand and such indivi duals as politicians and economists. This comes out clearly in an exchange betwen two other contributors to the Ciba symposium. Sir Peter Medawar pointed out that Britain's Medical Research Council and the National Academy of Sciences in the US had both produced treatises on the hazards of radiation, from which "the message was that the pollution of the world with ionising radiation should be stopped." That did not amount to political intervention, suggested the historian Sir Alan Bullock. "It had political implications," Medawar replied. But it was only when scientists went further, Bullock argued, and urged that financial priority be given to this or that project, that they were being political. Medawar: "Institutions may expedite the investigation of such matters . . but institutional authority automatically attracts to itself repudiation or malicious criticism, simply because it is official and a pronouncement." Bullock: "Politics are not made by pronouncements."
And that is the crux of the matter. Many scientists, deeply concerned, like Sir Peter Medawar, about the social implications of their work, do not speak with the nuances of conventional politics and have little taste for poltical activity. There are, on the other hand, mediocre scientists who have boundless enthusiasm for politics. And that really is worrying. Mediocre science in a clever politician can be a dangerous combination.
Previous page
