The Public's Growing Distrust of Science?

Abstract

It is hard to escape the conclusion, as seen through the medi that the acceptance of science is on the wane. There have bee many instances where science and technology were responsibl for disasters. Key words such as DDT, Exxon Valdez , Bhopal, Seveso, and Chernobyl spring to mind. In Britain particularly, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) has had a horren-dous impact and no one can yet say for sure whether or not the will be a significant increase in casualties from a new variant o Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, a potential time bomb. Science sto ries in the media deal extensively with scientific errors and warning voices, such as Silent Spring or Limits to Growth , had a huge impact in the 60s and 70s. Environmental non-govern mental organizations (NGOs) are necessary and have become powerful opinion leaders. At the same time it must be pointed out that the parame ters of human well-being show a positive development. Life expectancy has gone up, infant mortality is about 20 times low than at the beginning of the century, and the standard of livin has increased for nearly everybody in the industrialized coun tries. Food is in abundance and the most serious food-relate health problem is overindulgence. There is a dichotomy between the apparent distrust in sci ence and the well-being of most people. For this contradiction no single, simple explanation is available. One phenomenon i a lack of understanding of science by the general public and th failure of science and scientists to communicate with the gene al population. A further problem is that increasing knowledge requires greater responsibility, which many people are not pre pared to accept. How do we get out of this bind? To regain trust requires more social involvement of scientists in the broadest sense. There needs to be openness on part of scientists (wherever they are employed) to talk mor freely about what they are doing, about what is known, as we as what is not known. Science is an essential ingredient of ou culture. The postulated dialogue by scientists requires them no only to talk, but also to listen to people's worries and anxietie Scientists need to be more visible in the media and have mor contact with policy makers. More frank criticism of colleagues would be desirable, when "junk" science is circulated or when colleagues make vast ecological extrapolations from simple controlled-laboratory experiments. We need to talk openly about the risks and benefits of any technology. When appraisin genetically modified crops, they need not to be looked at in is lation, but compared with traditional farming systems. Rationa decision making is required. Only solid, case by case evaluation can bring the hysteria about what has been dubbed "franken food" to an end.