 | | | 
 | 
Sponsored by the Wellcome Trust | |  |  | 
|  |  | | (This debate is closed and is a read-only archive.) | | Don't denigrate specialist knowledge
[30-Jan-2004]
| As a scientist and educator, what worries me the most, about the discussion of risk today, is the denigration of specialist knowledge. This does not originate from the general public, but rather, is a reflection of a lack of confidence of scientists and academics. There was a time when these experts had sufficient confidence in their own knowledge and capabilities, to defend social and technological change robustly.
| Alan Irwin's view, that 'we should be engaging more thoroughly with what people actually want from technical change', is precisely the sort of defensiveness that is typical today. Irwin discusses a meeting on genetic modification that he attended, and says that he witnessed 'a mature discussion among mature people'. This is no surprise to me - I have spent a number of years putting on challenging, discussion-based courses and public debates on a range of topics, and I consistently find an intelligent, open-minded audience, happy to engage and keen to understand more.
| However, I would not make the mistake of giving the views of the lay person equal weight to the views of the expert. Specialist knowledge takes years of hard work, discipline and experience to acquire, and deference to experts reflects this. To suggest otherwise is to denigrate knowledge itself, and reveals a deeply irrational view. When I have organised or taken part in discussions around issues such as nanotechnology or genetic modification, I have found that much of the objection to the new technology is suspicion based upon gut feeling. People often become more sympathetic to new developments, as their knowledge grows.
| This is not to say that we should blindly follow expert advice, at all junctures. But to be guided by fear and mistrust is far more problematic than taking a few risks. There can be no change without taking risks, and there can be no science without uncertainty. Risk aversion is a paralysing force. As such, it should be defended against - not just by scientists, but by anyone who believes in change for the better.
| Caspar Hewett, chair, The Great Debate, UK
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
