Critics lambast Winston's ideas

December 12, 2003

Celebrity scientist Lord Winston has sparked an outcry among academics by calling for the public to dictate the direction of British science, arguing that mistrust of science has reached "crisis" proportions.

Speaking exclusively to The THES , Lord Winston said that trying to communicate science to the public was no longer enough.

He claimed that a radical change of culture was needed to stem the groundswell of negative opinion about scientists.

He said: "We have to accept we don't own the science. Oneof the most difficult problems is to hand back the science to society and allow the public to take some very uncomfortable decisions."

In Lord Winston's view, scientists must recognise and then abide by public opinion on issues such as genetically modified crops, even if that opinion runs counter to scientific evidence.

"At the moment we engage the public in a very arrogant way. We pretend to listen by communicating but it is largely scientists lecturing to audiences," he said.

"Scientists are not good at dialogue, as we don't like listening, especially if people do not speak the same language."

Lord Winston also argued that scientists were tarnishing their reputation by associating with government.

He cited the controversy over the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine as proof that the public no longer trusted scientific facts presented to them by politicians.

He said: "We have to recognise that it is unwise to get too closely connected with government. Government has a different agenda."

But other influential scientists have greeted Lord Winston's comments with dismay.

Colin Blakemore, the new chief executive of the Medical Research Council and a leading figure in science communication, said that while people should be kept informed it would be dangerous to allow the public to dictate what scientists could and could not do.

He pointed out that public opinion was heavily influenced by lobby groups and often changed over time. He said: "Would (Lord Winston) be happy for embryo research to be regulated on the basis of a poll where only 30 per cent of people voted?"

Other academics reacted more strongly.

Lewis Wolpert, professor in the anatomy and developmental biology department at University College London, said Lord Winston's suggestion was "the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard".

He said: "Where there are technical issues, one should listen and be aware of public concerns but we shouldn't let them decide whether we can use stem cells for research."

Michael Wilkinson, director of Horticulture Research International who has taken part in numerous debates about genetic modification, said that while public platforms could be "brutal", scientists should not give up on communication.

Ian Gibson, chair of the Commons' science and technology committee, warned that scientists must never walk away from politicians.

He said: "Keeping the two groups apart only preserves prejudice, arrogance and ultimately poor regulation."

Baroness Greenfield, scientist and director of the Royal Institution, strongly supported this opinion in a debate in the House of Lords on Tuesday. She warned that there was already a damaging gulf between scientists and politicians that needed to be addressed.

Lady Greenfield said: "The critical issue is that politicians and government should not be the followers of a public opinion that bases its knowledge of science on (reports by) journalists who, in many cases, cannot lay claim to any expertise in the area."

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns