|
|
|
|
| |
 |
|
|
1st
EMBL/EMBO Joint Conference 2000 |
 |
|
Session I |
|
|
| From Science to Society |
|
| |
Lewis Wolpert, Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine, University College London, UK
The idea that knowledge is dangerous is deeply embedded in our culture.
Adam and Eve were forbidden to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, and
in Milton's Paradise Lost the serpent addresses the Tree as the 'Mother
of Science'. Indeed the whole of Western literature has not been kind
to science and is filled with images of scientists meddling with nature
with disastrous results. For many people, science is something rather
remote and often difficult. Part of the problem is that scientific
explanations go against common sense, our natural expectations. There
is some fear and distrust of science: genetic engineering and the
supposed ethical issues it raises; the fear of nuclear weapons and
nuclear power; the impact of industry in despoiling the environment.
Scientists are repeatedly referred to as 'playing at God'. Many of
these criticisms coexist with the hope, particularly in medicine,
that science will provide cures to all major illnesses. It is ironic
that while scientists are blamed for despoiling the environment and
making us live in a high risk society it is only because of science
that we know about these risks, such as global warming and BSE. The
hysteria over cloning is not easy to understand as it does not to
my mind raise any new ethical issues. But is science dangerous and
what are the special social responsibilities of scientists? An important
distinction is that between science and technology; between knowledge
and understanding on the one hand,and the application of that knowledge
to making something, or using it in some practical way. It is also
essential to recognise that reliable scientific knowledge is value-free
and has no moral or ethical value. The ethical issues arise when science
is applied to technology. I can think of no situation where ignorance
would be preferable to the availability of knowledge. Scientists cannot
easily predict the social and technological implications of their
current research. Whatever new technology is introduced, it is not
for the scientists to make the moral or ethical decisions. They have
neither special rights nor skills in areas involving moral or ethical
issues. Scientists do have access to specialised knowledge of the
world and so have the obligation to both make public any social implications
of their work and to give some assessment of its reliability. To those
who doubt whether the public or politicians are capable to taking
the correct decisions I urge the advice of Thomas Jefferson. 'I know
no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people
themselves, and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise
that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take
it from them, but to inform their direction.'
But how does one ensure that the public are involved in decision
making? How can we ensure that scientists, doctors, engineers, and
other experts, who must be involved, do not approximate decision
making for themselves. How do we ensure that scientists take on
the social obligation of making the implications of their work public.
At a time when the public are being urged and encouraged to learn
more science, so scientists are going to have to learn to understand
more about public concerns. And it is most important that they do
not allow themselves to become the unquestioning tools of either
government or industry.
Biography
Lewis Wolpert is Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine in
the Department of Anatomy and Developmental Biology of University
College, London. His research interests are in the mechanisms involved
in the development of the embryo. He was originally trained as a
civil engineer in South Africa but changed to research in cell biology
at King's College, London in 1955. He was made a Fellow of the Royal
Society in 1980 and awarded the CBE in 1990. He was made a Fellow
of the Royal Society of Literature in 1999. He has presented science
on both radio and TV and for five years, as Chairman of the Committee
for the Public Understanding of Science. His book "Malignant Sadness:
The Anatomy of Depression" was published by Faber in 1999. This
book was the basis for three television programmes entitled 'A Living
Hell' which he presented on BBC2. Principles of Development1, of
which he is principal author, was published by Current Biology in
1998. Passionate Minds1 with Alison Richards, the second set of
interviews with scientists, was published by Oxford University Press
in 1997. 'The Unnatural Nature of Science' was published by Faber
in 1992. 'The Triumph of the Embry' was published by Oxford University
Press in 1991. 'A Passion for Science' with Alison Richards, the
first set of interviews with scientists, was published by Oxford
University Press in 1988. He also writes a column for 'The Independent'. |
|
|
|
|
