Tony Blair has assured us that ‘the Government will continue to act on the basis of the best available science to provide the highest level of protection for human health and our countryside.’ Whilst I welcome this, my experience is that politicians still stumble in implementing scientific information.
The saga of genetically modified (GM) food did not represent a surefooted response from government. On the other hand, the recent debate in Parliament, and the resultant decision to proceed with stem cell research for therapeutic use, was an example of well argued debate carried out with passion, knowledge and the acknowledgement that science does indeed have an important influence on our lives.
Scientists often argue that their work is neutral and should not suffer political consideration. I disagree. There is an increasing need for a scientific input into our political policy-making process and vice-versa. Of equal importance is the participation of the public in this decision-making. As the Minister of Health has said in relation to patients: ‘In this country we can no longer accept the traditional paternalistic attitude of the NHS, that the benefits of medicine, science and research are somehow self-evident regardless of the wishes of patients or their families.’
Local government has realised that the incorporation of constituents in their decision-making is a key feature of our modern political process. Scientists have yet to accept that this is so, and must find the methodology and willingness to incorporate the public in scientific discovery and technological developments.
Arrogance and rejection of the importance of public opinion can only lead to an increasing mood of anti-science and anti-medical culture. There is a deep-seated suspicion that pharmaceutical and biotechnological companies control science, scientists and also politicians. And it is no use blaming the media for the ills of science. As the recent White Paper on Science shows, science is essential for the knowledge-based economy, innovation and progress. Indeed the Prime Minister has said that biotechnology is the next wave of the knowledge economy. So far our Government has recognised this and invested in research, infrastructure and scientific career developments. But we must do more, given that projects like the human genome will open up new attitudes and structures within the NHS and new developments in tackling diseases. We also know that issues such as global warming, alternative energy sources, new environmental technologies for waste management – as well as turning the UK into an e-nation – are going to be major problems where scientific knowledge will play a major part in economic growth.
We need, therefore, a National Science Institute. This will overcome the discrepancies between government departments, where research priorities can be jettisoned and research and development suffer. An organisation of this nature will ensure that the overall budget increases and indeed doubles over a ten year period, that scientific issues and effects are addressed before they arrive, and that we foster a generation of young people who see science as a major career.
A minister in the Cabinet would consolidate the importance of scientific knowledge, which is relevant to the fashioning of new policies, be it in agriculture, defence, crime, the environment or trade and industry. An Institute of Science, standing on its own, will ensure that departmental rivalries, lethargy and lack of vision do not cause significant scientific advances to escape the UK. Our world-class science base exists, despite the lack of strategy. However, it is precarious and, as recent issues have shown, we cannot count on unconditional public support.
The Government has made a good start, but the next five years will be critical to ensure examples like the ones mentioned above receive full funding and commitment for research from scientists and politicians acting together.