A brilliant, well argued and very important article. There is nothing inherently wrong with science, as some would have us believe, for science is neutral. Whether science is used for bad or good depends upon those who are "in charge" of science. If the market is in charge then science will tend to be used to increase the profits and power of the rich which may effect scientific progress itself, for instance it's hard in the post cold war era to get funding in the US for the next generation particle accelerators leading to an increasing disconnect between experiement and theory and the rise of fashionable, though unverifiable, body of theory. If controlled by the state will tend to be used to enhance state power, both at home and externally. I believe that science in a truly democratic society, when we achieve this, will be looked upon as the second great reneassiance or revolution in human intellectual progress on a par with the Greeks and the scientific revolution...if not, I suspect our institutions will end up creating threats that are awesome in scale...for example advances in quantum computation will enable the development of new generation RV's that will lower the threshold of nuclear war...advances partly funded by the Pentagon.

I share the author’s concerns about who controls science. However, societies for whom liberal democracy is the norm find it difficult to make any decisions about what is worth funding because; “Liberal” names the assumption that a social order should be constituted by procedural arrangements that require no account of goods held in common. Those procedural arrangements are often articulated by “values” such as freedom and equality that are assumed to be universals that all people share.” Stanley Hauerwas, The State of the University.

The problem with values so assumed or of the vague assertion of human rights is that they give no account of what in particular the society believes to be the common good. Universals and the rights are abstract and only lead to competing claims for freedom or rights. Such a society is at the mercy of the forces that act upon it and this boils down to the thing we all know is of value: money. If you look at the modern university that fosters much scientific research you will see a system run almost entirely under the thrall of cash. Students go to university so that they will be able to command a high salary, which explains the rapid growth of professional degrees and economics and commerce and the shrinkage of the humanities.

Universities foster research in partnership with private enterprise so that money will be brought into the university. The only value that the university holds is that it should get bigger. Students no longer go to university in order to learn rational speech in order to wield authority in the society they serve, which was the origin of the medieval university.

In the absence of a shared view of the good of the community everything will eventually come down to money.

The incomparable Rowan Williams, in a commencement sermon at the University of Oxford, teases out some of the issues:

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/sermons_speeches/2004/040620.html

Peter Sellick

I find it interesting that the article didn't mention ethics committees. Although these aren't required for all types of research I believe they are made up of a cross section of people from the community.

Interesting question, who is in charge of science. The reality is the age we live in makes no one in charge. Information moves around the globe in the blink of an eye and with it science.

As for the authors thinly disguised anti GM food remark about weedkiller ready food, Austrailians have been eating herbicide tolerant canola for a long time but the crop was made with random mutations of the entire genome with chemical mutagenesis as opposed to highly scrutinized highly tested GM crops. GM crops has been a favourite punching bag of the the anti-science crowd but most of the rhetoric they push is false. To date there is not a single case of harm anywhere in the world after 11 years of consuming food containing GM ingredients.

I have no reason to believe the publics science literacy in Austrailia is any better than in North America or Europe. Therefore with such terrible basic knowledge about science in the general public it would be disasterous for the public to play a large role in directing scientific research. This is not to say there is no role for the public. There is some role for the public to play but a minor one. To do otherwise would be like saying any plumber could decide what type of cooling system is to be put into the next Nuclear reactor design. Or any mom should be able to prescribe drugs for her child. Clearly neither of these would be smart policies and having the public direct science policy is equally fraught with peril. There are far too many widely accepted myths in the public. It is not their fault as the media does an exceedingly poor job of science reporting. Pseudo-science is very often reported as though it was real science. The last twenty odd years have seen science journalism in general hit new lows in distinguishing the difference. This leads the public to believe many things that are simply not true. The more sensational the claim the more likely it is reported, if it is even true often doesn't seem to matter.

I'm not opposed to GM, Rob. It's the Australian public (or most of 'em) that's opposed, though that may change. What I am opposed to is bad science communication - and GM food is the standout example of how not to do it. By changing people's food without consulting them, science diminishes their freedom of choice. This is what the people objected to most, not GM itself. It is the arrogance. Unfortunately I can already see it happening all over again in other fields of science, notably nanotechnology. Do we really want to waste all that valuable time and money again by coming up with science the public reject because we failed to talk to them reasonably about it? By adopting human rights and freedoms as the yardstick for scientific governance we can avoid such situations.Ethics committees can assist, as Sparky points out, but their tendency is to focus on the ethics of doing the research, rather than the ethics of what comes out of it. And far too many of them are "in-house".

Hello Julian

I would like to retract the anti accusation. It was wrong of me. I disagree most are against GM ingredients. From the limited NON-push polls I have seen from Austrailia I think the vast majority do not care one way or the other. Price, quality and freshness are far more important to them. No one told the public when they started using ionizing radiation to breed new crops many decades ago, or chemical mutagens either. In both cases the changes to the DNA are massive and completely unknown. I suspect if the public was made aware of how the non-gm crops have been made for decades they would have context. Something sadly lacking in the debate for the most part. It is context that I try to add to the debate as often as possible.

Funny you mention choice. It is the very anti-crowd who are calling for bans not those in favour of the technology. Have a look at my article "No label Required" on my website and see what I mean. if the link doesn't work it is at http://web.mala.bc.ca/wager

It is interesting you should mention peoples rights and freedoms. Whos rights and what freedoms are most important? Organic food represents about 2% of the food supply (growing but still 2%) and yet it is the organic movement that is calling for the other 98% to not use a proven technology. That does not seem right to me, does it to you?

Look forward to your response.

Cheers

Rob

Good points, Rob. However when I refer to human rights as the basis for developing new forms of science governance, I mean basic human rights - safety, liberty, equality, due process and welfare. If a new science or technology imperils any if these, then it merits sterner public scrutiny. Science, as I see it, is here to benefit the human race - not to erode its rights. Unfortunately, selfish application of S&T can have that effect and thus requires wider oversight - especially if the unfortunate public are being asked to foot the research bill as well as cop the consequences.

Hello Julian

I am not sure we are disagreeing. I too have some reservations about nanotechnology. The thought of universal solvents everywhere bothers myself a fair bit. the skin is a wonderful barrier but no match for such solvents. I guess I still come back to who decides, those that make the most noise as is the case with some organic food supporters/lobbists and protectionist countries with GM crops regulations. Clearly the science and the policies are in complete disconnect. I agree that if the public is footing th bill then a greater say should be granted in the process. But we are still stuck with the basic science illiteracy of the public. This sets them up to follow 'false gods" all too often. Who says marketing is dead. Say did you get a chance to read any of the articles I wrote on GM crops and food? I recently penned one on Nuclear Power in Canada. I see you are having the same debate downunder. Do you use much nuclear power generation there?

Cheers

Rob

An excellent article from Julian Cribb.

I've been concerned for some time that if we believe in the importance of the human desire to communicate, then we have to believe in reason and that requires open public debate. This isn't happening in science in Australia. As an example ...... the ABC handling of the Durkin climate doco should represent the warning sign that there is something rotten to the core here because the specific role of investigative science journalism seems dead and buried. All we see is an obvious promotion of ugly `scientism'. This is a formula that holds scientists above criticism and unaccountable to anyone but their own peers. It is an anti-democratic view of the world.

It is easy to forget that science is essentially a philosophical discipline (and most definitely not theological). It is based on empiricism, the method by which we gain knowledge through observation and measurement. Because we spend our lives continually immersed in cause and effect situations then we obviously hold fast to a belief in causality (the "how") where we are all scientists. We are also all artists concerned with the "what" and philosophers interrogating the "why".

Open public debate should start with the establishment of a dedicated national science channel to address for starters just how humanity collectively can ensure a continued appreciation of the beauty of existence? We sometimes should start with our best information and just remind ourselves of what we know for a fact .... that with the advent of consciousness we can no longer now step outside evolution, go under it, rise above it, or stop it.... all our actions are evolutionary.