Why an Independent Science Panel?

Peter Saunders Professor of Applied Mathematics, King’s College, London
Why an Independent Science Panel?

Peter Saunders opened the conference by welcoming everyone and explaining why the Independent Science Panel had been organised.

As science and technology become more and more important in our lives and as the pace of advance increases, issues of safety and ethics are also arising. These should be a matter for public debate, but all too often we are expected to accept one side’s account of the science and restrict ourselves to free-standing debates on ethics.

This is a totally inadequate way of taking major decisions. We have to discuss all the issues together. The moral and ethical arguments can look very different if we discover that the gains may be far less than promised, the dangers far more than admitted, and that there are probably other ways of accomplishing the same aims which do not involve the risks.

At present, the advantages lie overwhelmingly on one side. Industry and government have money, they have scientists on staff, they have laboratories that are already equipped to do the necessary experiments. They are also not above using improper pressures and dirty tricks. We may not know what’s going on now, though in some cases there are worrying clues, but the histories of the tobacco and lead industries and defence ministries – among others – are not good omens.

The ISP will be a network of scientists in different fields who can offer independent expertise so there can be proper debates on issues of science and technology. As issues arise they can be quickly drawn to the attention of those with the expertise to comment on them, and they will be able to cooperate; they won’t be left to work in isolation.

Saunders concluded by reminding the audience that governments are major players in technological issues. They can play a negative role, like the current Bush administration, or they can be positive, as when Mrs Thatcher took a lead in stopping the use of CFCs. One of the most positive acts of the present government had been to appoint a Minister of the Environment who took his job seriously and, when it realised he was taking his job seriously, left him in post.

[Only a month later, however, Michael Meacher was sacked. The Blair government is obviously less interested in a balanced debate than we had hoped.]

Rt. Hon. Michael Meacher
UK Environment Minister

Michael Meacher said he was pleased to attend the ISP-GM launch. He hoped that his presence would demonstrate that the UK government is keen to hear as many viewpoints as possible to inform policy-making on GM.

Meacher explained the process of the UK national debate on GM issues, which comprises a public debate, a review of the scientific issues, and a study into the overall costs and benefits of GM. He stressed that both the science review and the wider public dialogue starting this month want to ensure that the debate is as well rounded and well-informed as possible.

If the science review has sparked activity that will bring further relevant science to the government’s attention, then he welcomed that. The science review is open to the public and transparent, the panel’s deliberations are available on the website, and people can ask questions at meetings. Its aim is to review and summarise the state of scientific knowledge on GM, identifying areas of concern and, particularly, uncertainty. Contributions from scientists of all shades of opinion are being included.

According to Meacher, the science review panel was established to give independent review to the science of GM, and it covers a broad spectrum of scientific opinion. Members of the panel include leading scientists from different perspectives, two lay persons and a social scientist, as well as scientists from industry and academia. There will be open meetings at which scientists can put their views to the panel, ask questions and challenge the views.

Meacher encouraged people to participate in the science review to ensure that it is as comprehensive and balanced a process as possible. The science review panel will report to the government in the summer. It will reconvene in the autumn to take account of the public debate. The three reports will eventually underpin the government’s ultimate policy-making on GM crops.

The government wants the GM debate to be open, wide- ranging and as inclusive as possible. If the science review has generated activity that will bring more science into the government’s own science review, that would be a most welcome result.

The Minister stressed that he had not come to the ISP launch to endorse any particular viewpoint. His role is to set up the process, rather than make any pronouncements before the exercise is over. But he did believe that the ISP launch is an important development and he looked forward to its contribution to what needs to be a balanced, rigorous, thoughtful and comprehensive scientific debate. He concluded by thanking the ISP for what it is doing and adding that he looked forward to seeing its contribution.