A question of trust - Paul Nurse

Everyone has opinions – often on a wide range of topics. Whether it is in the pub on a Friday night or in the pages of our newspapers, there is no shortage of “expert” views. Science can play an important role in deciding which of them should be taken seriously. It is one of the most powerful ways of separating the wheat from the chaff. Opinions are irrelevant unless they are backed up with evidence to test an idea. It is not enough just to cherry-pick data to support a theory; what is needed is a rigorous assessment of all the available evidence. Science is based on a respect for reliable experiment and observation coupled with a ruthless and unceasing testing of ideas and theories.
Science has a pretty strong track record of improving our lives. Think about your average day and what would be missing without the application of science and technology – alarm clock, radio, TV, toaster, train, car, telephone, computer, internet and, for that matter, the electricity that powers them. And that is just the gadgets. Without science we could not produce enough food to feed ourselves or treat ourselves effectively when we are sick. We take for granted the aspirin, antibiotics, other drug treatments, CAT and MRI scans, surgery, chemotherapy and knowledge about our lifestyles that prevents disease. Science is absolutely integral to our existence and there is no reason why it should not continue to improve our daily lives.

Science is also integral to our culture. From the day we are born we are inquisitive about ourselves and the world around us. Science is founded on that curiosity and spirit of inquiry.
We also need science to be able to make some of the big decisions we are faced with, such as how far we want to develop medicine to keep us alive and healthy, what we want to do about climate change, how we feed our appetite for energy. To make good decisions on these matters and many more, people need to understand the evidence that underpins them. Scientific knowledge is core to our democracy.
So why is there a feeling in some quarters that science is coming under attack and is not trusted? There has been some negative press around issues such as climate change, but a recent survey of public attitudes towards science in the UK suggests support remains healthy. More than eight out of 10 people agree that scientists want to make life better for the average person and nearly nine in 10 people think scientists make valuable contributions to society. Of course, it is not a simple situation and people have concerns about aspects of the discipline, but on the whole the public remain very pro-science.
It is important to recognise that scientific advances can be unsettling. At the core of science is a desire to challenge long-held ideas. We once knew that the world was flat, that all the stars and planets revolved around the earth, that every living species was individually created and that the first woman was made from a man’s rib. This was before people like Copernicus and Darwin took the then-unpopular decisions to put forward a new understanding based on observation, experiment and rigorous argument. Today, uncomfortable questions are raised by stem cell researchers, geneticists, evolutionary biologists, climate scientists, high energy physicists, cosmologists and many others. There will always be those who refuse to accept the advances of science no matter how convincing the evidence, but eventually the evidence will win out.
The complexity of science and the mechanisms by which it can be investigated and communicated are presenting us with new challenges. Science has never been simple and the more we know the more questions arise. Some latch on to these questions and uncertainties to try and discredit the evidence. They now have the internet to increase their impact. Challenge is integral to the scientific process – but it is only valid if it is evidence-based. Fortunately most people are able to see the difference between genuine scepticism and disruptive obstructionism.
The scientific approach offers a common-sense model for everyday decision-making, and one we subconsciously use all the time. Faced with choices, we weigh up what we know about the options. We must look at the evidence – information that is not a matter of opinion but is based on what we know or think likely. Once that is established we can then look at what we want to do about it. That is the place where ideology and political opinion come into play. It is where scientists must play their part, but they have no greater right to be heard than anyone else who is basing their decision on the real evidence.
It is during the first part of this process that there is a heavy onus on scientists. And we have not always risen to the challenge. Scientists have an obligation to communicate their work to the world, and to be open and transparent about doing it. “Trust me, I’m a scientist” is not a good enough answer to give to policymakers or the general public who are looking to make informed decisions on important topics. Not everyone may want to analyse the results of experiments for themselves but they do want to know that there is nothing secretive about the way science is done. The public need to be confident that they are being told all that is reliably known, what is thought to be known and what is not known.
At the Royal Society we recognise that things are not perfect and are looking at how the scientific endeavour can be more open and transparent. We hope that our “Science as a public enterprise” study will not be one that just involves scientists, but one that also engages the public in telling us what they want from science and scientists.
Scientists need to remember that they are working in the public interest and often at the public’s expense. If we want to keep our “licence to operate” we have to get out there and show our value. If we do not provide the evidence on which to base a public debate, there is no shortage of people who will fill the vacuum with a mixture of ideology and dogma, spoken with confidence but without the evidence to back it up.
I have largely focused on what scientists need to do, but this is a two-way process and the wider society must play its part. The first priority must be to recognise the difference between scientific evidence and political, economic or religious ideology. Such ideologies have their place for many people, but we must recognise them for what they are, especially when they are based on opinion and speculation. This established, we need to separate the two in public debate. The ideologues must have their say, but let us not allow it to masquerade as science.
The way some courts operate may prove a guide to the way ahead. Much public debate is played out in the adversarial style of the criminal court. It is a zero-sum game where there are winners and losers. However, the ethos of the family court is perhaps a more suitable model for making policy decisions – a rational assessment of the evidence and a decision that takes into account that evidence and the interests of those concerned. We need to find better ways forward when we are taking policy decisions that will affect the future of so many people.
Science has served us well in the past and offers much for the future. In the UK we respect it, but perhaps from a distance. Maybe it is time for the general public and scientists to embrace each other more fully – science is, after all, one of the things that the UK does extremely well. As a world leader in science we have a responsibility to get the relationship right between science, policymakers and the public.

Paul Nurse was awarded a Nobel Prize in 2001.

In this post, I want to take a look at the interests of the youth today and what the authorities and those who should shape it are doing.

The responsibility for who will educate today's youth is shifting from where the parents, schools, and the community once contributed an equal share to the teaching of our youth has shifted to destroctive attacks on all fronts. To today's child may only have one parent, class sizes in school may be too large for individual attention, and the community may be stretched beyond its ability to provide assistance by outside forces such as gang violence or a struggling economy.

After school programs, project camps, and non-traditional projects provided by churches and educators can and do take up the slack left by this possible void in educational opportunities for youth where they exist. These have to be tailored by the adult society to be attractive but clean.

As a matter of course, if we wish to uncover the roots of despair and violence that lurk in the hearts of young people, we must understand their subculture -- their music, clothing, games, their friendships, rivalries and relationships. Only then do we have a chance of helping them develop, not just academically, but emotionally and morally. But so much of what adolescents do seems enigmatic. Why, for example, do they wear their baseball caps on backwards, dress in grunge or goth clothing, pierce their skin, apply tattoos, take drugs, attend concerts by sexually perverse rock stars and mash dance? All of these interests have profound symbolic meaning, of which young people themselves are unaware.

The language of symbols, myths, fairy tales, and dreams is what they use and so applies to understanding the present generation of young people. Uncovering the symbolic ground of these desires, conflicts, and anxieties, will allow them to be free of them. No knowledge could be more therapeutic, nor of greater practical value. It will be of immense value to parents & educators alike or what do you think?.

Create your own visitor map!