Limitations of public dialogue in science and the rise of new ‘experts’

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This essay builds substantially on a short opinion piece I originally had published in the Times Higher Education Supplement in April 2002 (CitationDurodié 2002). This in turn sought to highlight one particular aspect of a paper I presented to the Demoralization: Morality, Authority and Power conference, held at the University of Cardiff School of Social Sciences 5–6 April 2002 (available at ⟨ http://www.cf.ac.uk/socsi/news/dmap/papers/Durodie.pdf ⟩). The argument was then refined for a talk at the International Book Festival in Edinburgh that year, and this was subsequently reproduced on the Spiked web‐site (⟨ http://www.spiked‐online.com/Articles/00000006D9F2.htm ⟩. In May 2003 I was invited by the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology to present my views on these matters as part of the third anniversary celebrations of the publication of the influential House of Lords Science and Society report. In its current form, the article is the transcript of a talk I gave on 29 June 2003 to the Ideas, Intellectuals and the Public conference, organised by the London‐based Institute of Ideas at Goodenough College, London. I am grateful to all concerned for the opportunity they afforded me to help develop my views. Notes The three‐strand inquiry coordinated by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) was announced by Environment Secretary Margaret Beckett on 26 July 2002 in response to advice from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Committee (AEBC). Further details can be found at ⟨ http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/debate/index.htm ⟩. See for example Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution 1999; CitationHouse of Lords 2000; CitationParliamentary Office for Science and Technology 2001; CitationHargreaves & Ferguson 2001. MMR stands for Measles–Mumps–Rubella. A major debate over the safety of this vaccine was generated subsequent to the allegations by a surgeon, Andrew Wakefield, that it may be linked to a rise in autism amongst infants. For an excellent critique see M. Fitzpatrick ‘MMR: the truth?’, and other articles linked therefrom, at ⟨ http://www.spiked‐online.com/Articles/00000006DCD6.htm ⟩. BSE stands for bovine spongiform encephalopathy, otherwise known as ‘mad cow disease’, a degenerative brain disorder held to have been caused by feeding animal protein to ruminants and to lead to cases of Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease, a similar and fatal condition amongst human populations. Do We trust Today’s Scientists?, National Forum for Science, Royal Society, London, 6 March 2002. Dr Michael Fitzpatrick, speaking in the opening plenary of the Genes and Society Festival organised by the London‐based Institute of Ideas at Battersea Arts Centre in London, 26–27 April 2003. Comment made at the Risk, Democratic Citizenship and Public Policy conference, British Academy, London, 6–7 June 2001 On this issue, see O’Neill 2002 or ⟨ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2002/ ⟩. This is defined as ‘confidence’ rather than trust by Seligman (Citation2000) I have previously argued this with respect to the proposed new European Commission system for regulating chemicals (Durodié Citation2003b). Like Barry Marshall, the Australian junior doctor who hypothesised a link between Heliobacter pylori infections and stomach ulcers. He proved the link by administering both the complaint and antibiotic treatment to himself, not once, but twice for good measure. This is to draw an analogy with the so‐called ‘Culture Wars’ which occured on US campuses in the 1980s around the contents of the proper canon to teach students. These would also need to be reinvigorated and drawn through to a more progressive conclusion if we are to move forward as a society.