Which Science or Scientists Can You Trust?

[Guest guest]

25 Feb 2005 10:17:59 -0000

 

 

Which Science or Scientists Can You Trust?

press-release

 

 

 

 

 

The Institute of Science in Society Science Society

Sustainability http://www.i-sis.org.uk

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

========================================================

 

ISIS Press Release 25/02/05

 

ISIS Report - www.i-sis.org.uk

 

Which Science or Scientists Can You Trust?

 

***********************************

 

Michael Meacher told a public conference on Science,

Medicine and the Law in the strongest terms that we need

independent science and scientists who take the

precautionary principle seriously and sweeping changes are

needed in science funding and scientific advice to the

government that ensures the protection of independent

science

 

 

Which scientists?

------------------

 

 

Nobody disagrees that debate over whether we should go ahead

with new technologies should be conducted on the basis of

science, but which science? Independent science or

industrial science? Let me test out a few examples on you.

 

Fifteen years ago a lorry driver accidentally tipped 20

tonnes of aluminium sulphate into the public drinking supply

in north Cornwall – nearby residents and local doctors are

convinced they were poisoned; but two Government enquiries

found no evidence. Whom do you believe?

 

There are childhood leukaemia clusters in villages down the

Cumbrian coast – local residents and independent scientists

think it is the consequence of chronic exposure to low-level

radiation from nearby Sellafield; but the Department of

Industry (DTI) and British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) think it is

nothing to do with local nuclear power stations – their best

explanation is that it is caused by high levels of inward

and outward migration. Whom do you believe?

 

Mark Purdey, a Somerset farmer turned epidemiologist, has

produced detailed evidence to show that BSE was caused by

farmers spreading Phosmetz, an organohosphate (OP), over the

backs of cattle as a prophylaxis, but the Government's MRC

Toxicology Unit - funded by the pharmaceutical company

Zeneca - apparently refuted this theory. Which company held

all rights over the production of Phosmetz? Zeneca. Whom do

you believe?

 

Gulf War Syndrome has been a persistent disabling, and

sometimes lethal, condition since the first war in Kuwait in

1991. Both UK and US soldiers and their independent

scientific advisers are convinced that the soldiers were

poisoned by the OP insecticides that they were liberally

sprayed with. But the MOD and chemical companies insist

there is no evidence for this. Whom do you believe?

 

Well, if you have any doubts, look at what has actually

happened in the past when Government, in the teeth of

overwhelming evidence, have often finally been forced to

back track from entrenched positions that they always said

were supported scientifically.

 

Science can quite often get things wrong.

 

 

Which science?

----------------

 

Government biologists initially refused to accept that power

stations in Britain or Germany could kill fish or trees

hundreds of miles away in Scandinavia; later the idea of

acidification caused by SO 2 was universally accepted.

 

Government scientists originally did not agree that

chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were destroying the ozone layer;

but during the 1987 negotiations on the Montreal Protocol

the industry – ICI and Du Pont – abruptly changed sides, and

ministers and scientists soon fell into line alongside them.

 

The Lawther working party of Government scientists roundly

rejected any idea that health-damaging high levels of lead

in the blood came overwhelmingly from vehicle exhausts, only

to find that after lead-free petrol was introduced, blood-

lead levels fell 70%.

 

The Southwood committee of BSE scientists insisted in 1990

that scrapie in cattle could not cross the species barrier,

only to find by 1996 that it did just that. And there are

many more examples.

 

 

Scientific uncertainty and the precautionary principle

-------------------

 

The only way to deal with these problems is by applying the

precautionary principle. Perhaps the classic formulation of

the precautionary principle was at the Rio Summit in 1992

principle 15: " in order to protect the environment, the

precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states

according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of

serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific

certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-

effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. "

 

That principle survived renegotiation attempts during the

Johannesburg Summit in September 2002, and was reaffirmed in

the Plan of Implementation that resulted from the Summit.

 

Why has this not been adopted by scientists and policy-

makers? There can be only one reason: cynicism of not

disturbing powerful political and economic interests.

 

It is highly disturbing to realise how long it takes for

poisonous chemicals to be banned after scientific evidence

emerged that they were harmful.

 

* Benzene was demonstrated as powerful bone marrow poison in

1897

 

* Acute respiratory effects of asbestos was identified 1898

 

* The ability of PCB to induce chloracne was documented in

1898

 

But it was not until 1960-70s that significant progress was

made in restricting damages caused by these agents.

 

 

Independent scientists vilified

-----------------------------

 

Efforts were made to discredit independent critics, as in

the case of Richard Lacey and Mark Purdey in BSE, & Arpad

Pusztai in GM food, and too many other examples.

 

Data and reports have been regularly suppressed or

publishers intimidated, as in the Great Lakes chemical case.

 

The Southwood Committee on BSE believed a ban on the use of

all cattle brains in human food chain might be justified,

but considered that politically unfeasible.

 

There was also incompetence: the Department of Health was

not informed by MAFF (the then Ministry of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Food, now disbanded) about the emergence of

new disease (BSE) until 17 months after MAFF was first

alerted.

 

 

Pervasive mistrust of science and scientists

----------

 

No wonder that there is a pervasive mistrust of science and

scientists. But the roots for this go deep.

 

First, the Rothschild revolution under Thatcher made the

funding of science much more subservient to business

interests. Over the past two decades, getting finance for

scientific inquiry inimical to the commercial and political

establishments has become increasingly difficult. The

science is owned by a tiny number of very large companies

and they only commission research which they believe will

further their own commercial interests. And when that turns

out not to be the case, as when research turns up results

which may be embarrassing to the company, they are most

often dubbed " commercially confidential " and never

published.

 

In addition, companies have learned that small investments

in endowing chairs, sponsoring research programmes or hiring

professors for out-of-hours projects can produce

disproportionate payoffs in generating reports, articles,

reviews and books, which may not be in the public interest,

but certainly benefit corporate bottom lines. The effects of

corporate generosity - donating millions for this research

laboratory or that scientific programme – can be subtly

corrosive. Other universities regard the donor as a pote

ntial source of funds and try to ensure nothing is said

which might jeopardise big new cash possibilities. And

academics raising embarrassing questions (as they should) -

such as who is paying for the lab; how independent is the

peer review; who profits from the research; is the

university's integrity compromised? – would soon learn that

keeping their heads down is the best way not to risk their

career, let alone future research funding. The message is

clear: making money is good, and dissent is stifled.

Commerce and the truth don't readily mix.

 

A second reason why there is such pervasive mistrust of

science and scientists is that the scientists staffing the

official advisory committees and Government regulatory

bodies in a significant number of cases have financial links

with the industry they are supposed to be independently

advising on and regulating. A recent study found that of the

five scientific committees advising ministers on food and

safety, 40% of committee members had links with the

biotechnology industry, and at least 20% were linked to one

of the Big Three – Monsanto, AstraZeneca, or Novartis. Nor

is that an accident. The civil servants who select

scientists for those bodies tend to look for a preponderant

part of the membership, and particularly the chairperson, to

be `sound', i.e., can be safely relied on not to cause

embarrassment to the Government or industry if difficulties

arise.

 

Third, the culture of spin and intimidation is far more

pervasive than should ever be allowed. The shocking sacking

and vilification of Dr Arpad Pusztai, when he produced GM

research results inconvenient to the Government, bio-tech

industry and the Americans, was no doubt, deliberately

intended as a warning to others if they stepped out of line.

And the threats and insinuations made clear to the only two

independent scientists on the UK Government's GM Science

Panel, Dr Carlo Leifert and Andrew Sterling, demonstrates

all too clearly how viciously the Establishment will fight

to safeguard its own interests.

 

And on spin, how many times have we heard the false argument

that is still regularly deployed by ACRE, the Government's

main GM advisory committee, when it announces that, " there

is no evidence that this GM product is any greater risk to

human health than its non-GM counterpart " . In fact they have

not sought such evidence directly, merely relied on the

biotech companies telling them that their GM product was

`substantially equivalent' to its alleged non-GM analogue.

 

Fourth, science is not, and never has been, a value-free

search for the truth. It is a social construct influenced by

a variety of rules, peer group pressures, and personal and

cultural expectations. It is developed, like all human

thought, from preconceived built-in judgements, assumptions

and dogmas, the more powerful because they are often

unconsciously held.

 

 

So what is to be done?

------------------------

 

What all this means is that science can only be fully

trusted if it is pursued with the most rigorous procedures

that guarantee total independence and freedom from

commercial and political bias. That is far too often not the

case today. The implications for policy are clear.

 

One, if the Government truly wants independent research, it

has to be prepared to pay for it, not lay down, as it has,

that 25% of finance for publicly funded research should come

from private sources, thus forcing the universities into the

hands of corporate sponsors.

 

Two, the Government should also require that no member of

its advisory committee or regulatory bodies should have any

current or recently past financial or commercial link with

the industry concerned.

 

Three, contributors to scientific journals should be

required to make full disclosure of current and prior

funding sources, so that any conflicts of interest can be

exposed and taken into account.

 

Four, we need above all a Government with the political

gumption to stand up to the United States and those

demanding calls from the White House, to stand up to the

biotech companies, and to stand up to big business, and make

clear that there will be no succumbing to dominant political

/economic interests, e.g. no growing of GM crops in this

country until proper, systematic, independent, peer-reviewed

research, which is totally absent at present, has been

carried through and made public which demonstrates beyond

any reasonable doubt whether GM foods are safe or not.

 

We should never forget the words of Winston Churchill, who

said " Science should be on tap, not on top " .

 

This is an edited version of Michael Meacher's keynote

address to the Green Network Conference, Science, Medicine

and the Law, 31 January to 2 February 2005, Royal Institute

of British Architecture, London, UK, which will be published

in issue 26 of Science in Society ( www.i-sis.org.uk )

 

========================================================

This article can be found on the I-SIS website at

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/

 

If you like this original article from the Institute of

Science in Society, and would like to continue receiving

articles of this calibre, please consider making a donation

or purchase on our website

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/donations.

 

ISIS is an independent, not-for-profit organisation

dedicated to providing critical public information on

cutting edge science, and to promoting social accountability

and ecological sustainability in science.

 

If you would prefer to receive future mailings as HTML

please let us know. If you would like to be removed from our

mailing list at

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/mailinglist/.php

========================================================

CONTACT DETAILS

 

The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London

NW1 OXR

 

telephone: [44 20 8452 2729] [44 20 7272 5636]

 

General Enquiries sam Website/Mailing List

press-release ISIS Director m.w.ho

 

MATERIAL IN THIS EMAIL MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT

PERMISSION, ON CONDITION THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY

AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/