This snapshot taken on 26/07/2008, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
Rt. Hon. Stephen Byers - Former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dec 1998 - Jun 2001)'Science People Can Trust' |
|
The issues we're looking at this evening form one of the most important challenges we face at the beginning of the 21st century. In this century - even more than in the last - science will shape the economy and the society in which we live. The industries, jobs and wealth of the future will come from the application of new scientific discoveries. But if we are to enjoy these benefits in Britain, we need to respond to three challenges. First, we must invest in scientific excellence and extend opportunity in science, to ensure that we continue to have a world class science base in the UK. Second, we must ensure that the knowledge and expertise of our science base benefits our society and is translated into commercial applications, creating new products, services, jobs and wealth. And third, we must ensure that people can trust these scientific developments. Without this trust we will never realise the economic and social benefits which they can bring. First - investment. We are reversing years of underinvestment in our science base. Over the next three years we are putting over £1 billion into science - on top of the £1.4 billion we have already invested in partnership with the Wellcome Trust. Secondly, we are providing new incentives for commercial application of research, with a £140 million fund, the Higher Education Innovation Fund. This will provide - for the first time - a permanent third stream of funding for universities, aimed at industrial research and innovation. But it is the third challenge I wish to talk about this evening. How we rebuild public trust in science so that this investment in science and innovation brings real benefits to individuals and our society. In doing so I hope to put into context the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees. It was British science that underpinned many of the advances that we saw in the 19th and 20th centuries. Once again it can be British science that leads the way in the 21st century. Turning scientific excellence into real benefits for individuals and for society. Public trust is vital to innovation. Without public trust we can't make the most of the potential benefits of scientific developments. That trust is easily lost and hard to win back. People in Britain generally support science and innovation. However, the recent controversies over, for example, BSE and genetically modified foods show that the public are also concerned about risks, particularly when they involve food and health. As the debate on GM foods has shown, people will only buy products which they trust. The theme of this evening's discussion is, therefore, crucial to our future. When we came into office it was clear that many people had lost trust in the way Government regulated science and used scientific advice. BSE played a significant part in that. I believe that in responding to this erosion of public confidence we have to acknowledge that people are rightly concerned about the potential risks of any change. We must not dismiss these worries. We won't recover trust by telling people they're wrong. That was tried in the past. It didn't work. People do have genuine concerns about the impact of science. We should not dismiss these. Scientific advances can create new risks to our health and environment as well as posing social and ethical challenges. When consumers feel the risks and benefits are clear and properly assessed it is up to them to make their own judgements about whether to buy and how to use a product. People apply common sense when assessing the risks and benefits of new technology. If there are clear benefits, consumers are more likely to accept a new product. This helps to explain public attitudes to GM foods. Consumers could see no benefits for them in the first generation of GM crops. Even though any risks may be small, these were borne by the consumer and the environment while the benefits seemed to accrue to multinational companies. It is for similar reasons that people are sometimes concerned that scientists are not impartial when their research is sponsored by business. I do not believe that we should stop commercial funding for research. This is not only an important source of funding but also encourages the commercial application of research which creates economic growth. But we do need to ensure that the proper processes are in place. And that funding is transparent and open. As a society we can no longer, if we ever could, expect people to trust blindly in Government and scientists to get it right. Consumers will feel confident only if risks from new technologies are questioned and challenged in an open and informed way. We are on the brink of exciting developments in science which will affect everyone's lives. Mapping of the human genome will unlock new cures for disease. New technology will enable us to clean up the environment and reduce pollution. Improvements in forensic science will enable us to crack down on crime. Such developments open exciting opportunities which can bring huge benefits for everyone. But they also carry potential risks which can cause understandable concerns for people. I believe there are three main areas where we must do more in order to build trust and understanding in science:-
extending scientific literacy by strengthening science in schools. Perhaps above all, people rightly expect proper safeguards against potential risks and full information on the implications of scientific developments. Government can not eliminate risk. But Government does have a role in assuring consumers that risks have been properly assessed and controlled. Our aim is to provide a strong and stable framework of proper safeguards, information and accountability is essential. To make sure that risks are continuously monitored by a transparent process and that these risks are clearly communicated. We must never again repeat the mistakes made in relation to BSE. When Government gave assurances to consumers instead of providing full details of the scientific advice which was far from clear cut. In future we must ensure that advisory systems are open, so that people can see how decisions have been reached. And if there is a degree of uncertainty, that must be shared with the public. Scientific advisory committees are central to this system, and it is essential that they work to the highest standards. These committees help government collect scientific information and make judgements about it - on a very wide range of issues. Spanning everything from the food we eat and grow to the quality of our environment. The safety of our roads and transport. And the buildings we live and work in. They review, and sometimes commission, scientific research, and they offer independent, expert judgement, including where facts are missing or uncertain. Increasingly they have to take account of social and ethical issues and the concerns of consumers; and the way they work is evolving, with increasing dialogue and transparency. They are basic building blocks of using scientific advice in policy making. That's why we decided to develop a new Code of Practice, which all Scientific Advisory Committees will follow. Dave King, the Chief Scientific Adviser, is taking the lead in developing the Code, consulting widely. I know he will be talking about this in detail a little later. We have been keen to learn from experience. So we can avoid making the mistakes of the past. That's why, after last year's initial consultation on the Code, we will shortly be issuing a revised consultation document which takes account of Lord Phillips' report into the handling of risks from BSE in cattle before 1996. Expert scientific advisory committees are absolutely essential to our society. Without the knowledge and wisdom of the people who give up their time to serve on them, we would not be able to identify or manage the risks from science, or gain the benefits of scientific advances. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. But I know that members of scientific advisory committees would agree that science is too important to be left only to scientists. Their knowledge, and their assessment of risks, is only one dimension of the challenge for society. When science raises profound ethical and social issues, the whole of society needs to take part in the debate. The Government is establishing new strategic bodies to help facilitate dialogue. The Food Standards Agency has this as an important part of its role, integrated with its regulatory responsibilities. Two new biotechnology commissions, the Human Genetics Commission and the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission established alongside the Food Standards Agency, have members from many interested groups, and a remit to facilitate public debate. These Commissions face a challenging task, bringing together widely different views on very difficult issues and working under public view. If they are successful, they will provide models for the future. Open, transparent and accountable advice is essential for proper risk assessment. It is an essential basis for the risk management which Government and regulatory bodies have to conduct. We need to apply the same principles - of openness and transparency - to risk management. Regulatory bodies should have clearly defined approaches to risk management, knowing when a precautionary approach should be applied, and ensuring that uncertainty is weighted fairly and communicated effectively The 'Precautionary Principle' itself, unfortunately, is rapidly coming to mean all things to all people. In some of its more simplistic "if in doubt - do nowt" manifestations it runs the risk of becoming a recipe for paralysis. Application of the Precautionary Principle does not usually mean imposing a ban. Its purpose is to ensure that where uncertainty exists decisions err on the side of caution and so seek to avoid serious damage if things go wrong, yet meet criteria such as proportionality and cost-effectiveness. The Report of the BSE Inquiry specifically makes the point that "Precautionary measures need to be applied to reduce the potential risk to as low as is reasonably practical." The Government's policy on GM crops and food is a precautionary approach based on sound science, protection of human health and the environment, and consumer choice. We need to develop a balanced approach when judging a new technology. There is a danger that if we become totally risk averse we will block any technological developments. We need to remember that new technology has made our lives healthier and more comfortable. When the smallpox vaccination was pioneered, there were many concerns raised about its risks. But today the vaccine has eradicated the disease world-wide. Equally, when it was introduced the contraceptive pill raised health concerns about the risk of thrombosis as well as serious moral and ethical issues. Yet today, whilst each individual can take their own moral view, it has had a dramatic effect on family planning and population control. We need to be careful therefore. To take a balanced approach which minimises risk but also allows for progress. Government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that scientific advice and risk assessment is open and accountable. To provide the basis for a full debate on scientific developments. But scientists also have responsibilities. Scientists have a right to conduct research. But alongside that right is a responsibility to explain their research, to engage in debate on its implications, and to recognise people's concerns. A recent survey of scientists by the Wellcome Trust showed that most scientists recognise this. Nine out of ten of the scientists interviewed believed that the public need to know more about the social and ethical implications of scientific research. Over two thirds of scientists believe that the main responsibility for engaging the public in debate lies with scientists themselves. Almost six in ten of the scientists want to spend more time on public dialogue. But more than a third of the scientists feel ill equipped to discuss the ethical and social implications of their research with ordinary people. They felt they need training in communications and dealing with the media. The media also have a vital role to play. The public framework for assessing risks must be open to public scrutiny at every stage. The media have a right to challenge scientists and Government. That is part of their role in a democracy. And they have a right to provoke debate. But they also have a responsibility. For fair and accurate reporting. They should not stoke up fears. We need intelligent reporting of science. Based on facts. Not dumbed down, sensational scare mongering based on circulation wars. This is an issue which the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee considered in its excellent report on Science and Society. We need the media to report science in a responsible manner. But that also calls for scientists to develop a better understanding of dealing with the media, to ensure they explain issues clearly and in jargon-free terms. We must recognise, however, that some research, however well explained, will be unpopular though vital. There are those who say that some aspects of scientific enquiry are innately undesirable and should stop. The response should be to go back to first principles and say: let science discover the facts; let us then make our judgement. But do not put our judgement ahead of the facts. That is so even in areas as difficult as GM crops. There are legitimate concerns. We need rational public debate about these. This Government will protect the ability of science to pursue its research. Sometimes research is controversial, as with GM crops or animal testing. Such research is rightly strictly regulated. But this Government will not tolerate blackmail or physical assault by those who oppose it. To do so would be to give in to intimidation. An outcome which is unacceptable in a democracy. Finally, if we are to build a society which is comfortable with scientific developments - where people have the information they need to make their own assessment of the risks and benefits - then we need to widen opportunities for young people to engage in science. The challenge lies in our schools. We need a whole generation inspired by the opportunities of the biomedical revolution - just as an earlier one was by space and aerospace. And we need to extend scientific literacy. In order to encourage an informed debate on scientific issues, we need to ensure that people start discussing science at an early age. Since 1997, we have seen pupils in our primary schools making enormous progress in science. The challenge now is to help these enthusiastic and motivated young people build more effectively on their early progress when they transfer to secondary school. We are piloting a strategy of focussed professional development for science teachers of 11-14 year olds and Science Year will be launched in September, targeted at 10-19 year olds, with the aim of increasing young people's engagement with science in the broadest sense. As part of Science Year, we will launch a new Ambassadors scheme which will link schools with young scientists and engineers. We hope they will inspire young people and improve perceptions of the world of work. Citizenship will be taught in all secondary schools from 2002. This will increase the opportunities for teachers to explore some of the wider social, ethical and economic issues around science as part of their teaching. We rely on skilled and confident teachers to deliver high quality science education. Our strategies to increase recruitment have led to a 27% increase in applications for postgraduate science teacher training courses compared to the same time last year. And we are supporting existing teachers through significant investment in continuing professional development. We also need to work on the international stage. That is why the UK is trying to get European countries to play a leading role in responsible international decision making on the use of biotechnology. We are pressing, for example, for a favourable outcome from the forthcoming Stockholm Council (March 23/24) which will ask the European Commission to devise a Europe wide biotechnology action plan. Part of that plan will be the setting up of an educational programme to empower the citizens of the European Union to learn more, understand and debate the way biotechnology is used in society. I believe that this debate is essential to raise public awareness and confidence in this technology. When the applications of science are properly regulated and address clear human needs, they win public support. Science is threaded through every aspect of our lives. That is why Britain will succeed as a 21st century nation only if it has a confident relationship with science. And that is what we are aiming to make possible. |
|
|
|
|
Other speeches by Rt. Hon. Stephen Byers - Former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dec 1998 - Jun 2001)
(the following are available from the archive) |
|
