| 'Decisions about new technologies should be determined by the best scientific information available, rather than by fear.' |
 |
|
|
Do you think of risk in terms of hazard or gamble? Obviously both involve a different level of risk, but when does a gamble become a hazard? This is the first problem confronting us when we try to assess risk: there is no simple or convenient measurement, no equivalent of a Richter scale to inform or alert us.
|
Individual perception of risk is another problem. Many people continue to smoke knowing that it will ultimately affect their health, possibly quite seriously if not fatally. It appears that many of us simply do not respond to a rational analysis of risk: what we respond to is fear. Risk must have a high fear factor before we take any notice. Unfortunately, much of the current debate surrounding the acceptance of new technology is being conducted at this emotional level.
|
Alan Irwin alludes to the public non-acceptance of nuclear technology, and argues that this conclusion is justified by a careful, rational cost-benefit analysis. I see the high fear factor arising from catastrophes such as Chernobyl as a more likely cause. By contrast, there has been a careful, rational analysis of the costs and benefits of fossil fuels, and we are aware of global warming arising from the uncontrolled emission of greenhouse gases; the fear factor is low in this case because disaster won't strike tomorrow, so we carry on burning oil and coal in the same old irresponsible way.
|
Take another example. The Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2003 was awarded to the pioneers of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This invention has brought enormous healthcare benefits, by non-invasively detecting cancerous tumours, brain disease and so on. But how many people are aware of the full name of the technique - nuclear magnetic resonance imaging? The n-word was dropped because of the fear factor. Would MRI cease to receive public acceptance if it was relabelled as NMRI? Probably not, since it is well established and the benefits are clearly evident, but in the early stages of development the answer might have been very different.
|
There is already considerable evidence of fear being used in debate surrounding the emerging field of nanotechnology  . The ability to design and manufacture materials and devices at the molecular scale will have a profound effect on many existing technologies and it is predicted to lead to the development of radically new medical technologies - for example, new methods for detecting disease and delivering drugs to cure disease. The fact that there is not enough known about the potential risks of nanotechnology has led to a call by some groups for a complete moratorium on all nanotechnology research.
|
This is self-evidently irrational: unless research is undertaken, the extent of the risks will never be known. But disaster scenarios such as 'grey goo' and science fiction stories like Prey are raising the fear factor to a level that could begin to have a strong negative impact on these emerging nanotechnologies - long before any rational cost-benefit analysis can be made.
|
Let's look at the basic rules and regulations governing scientific research. The starting point in the European Union is the precautionary principle: research can only be justified and approved when it is certain that the outcome will not be harmful . This principle is a central plank of European Community policy, and it is becoming increasingly so in international law.
|
This principle is quite literally risk averse: science is inherently uncertain, and it is impossible to establish that any product or process has zero risk. Helene Guldberg is correct when she points out that many medical advances would not have seen the light of day had the precautionary principle been strictly observed. Most common therapeutic drugs are toxins, and it is inconceivable that they would have been approved in a strict precautionary regime.
|
Clearly a more sensible, pragmatic approach to regulation has to be adopted in order to make any progress, but this inevitably means that decisions become increasingly political. Governments are only now beginning to realise the extent of the difficulty that they find themselves in.
|
We can all agree that scientists have a major role to play in informing the debate on developing and exploiting new technologies. However, while Helene Guldberg argues that scientists have not been active enough, Alan Irwin criticises scientists for trying to dominate the decision-making process. It is tempting therefore to conclude that scientists might be getting it about right, but I don't agree.
|
There needs to be greater involvement by frontline scientists in explaining the scientific issues, the reliability of evidence and the uncertainties, and evaluating the options available. Scientists don't make the final decisions - government and the regulators do this, but it is crucial that decisions are determined by the best scientific information available, rather than by fear.
|
John Ryan is director of the bionanotechnology interdisciplinary research centre (IRC) at Oxford University, which is studying the behaviour of membrane proteins, molecular motors and electronic applications of biomolecules.
|
