 | | | 
 | 
Sponsored by the Wellcome Trust | |  |  | 
|  |  | | (This debate is closed and is a read-only archive.) | | The answer lies in reasoned debate
[30-Jan-2004]
| Is it possible that Helene Guldberg is being overly worried about the risk of living in a risk-averse society?
| No doubt, it is true that much of public lives in a state of paranoia - severe acute respiratory syndrome, terrorism, etc. But citing several important discoveries which would not have been made, if we had been 'better safe than sorry', is misleading. We should also consider the inverse - scientific/technologic breakthroughs which have backfired, when unforeseen risks have had damaging consequences, such as thalidomide, pest control by the introduction of foreign species which then destroy ecological balance, asbestos, DDT, etc.
| The alternative to a panic culture is not to throw caution to the wind. In our global society, the potential risks may be enormous; and since a large part of research is now driven by private companies, these risks may be overlooked in the search for profits. For example, xenotransplantation - the transplantation of animal parts to humans - has the potential to save many lives, but it also has the potential to introduce new (pig) viruses into the human population.
| Alan Irwin makes an important comment about the value of open debate. Society has reached a point where it is able to rationally consider 'progress' and its value. For example, would it be sensible to develop a malaria vaccine which costs £200 per immunisation, while the medical infrastructure in southern Africa is not yet developed to a level permitting effective vaccination, and while there are more cost-effective solutions which are not yet fully implemented? (See Integrated programme is key to malaria control, Nature, 3 October 2002.) Is it sensible to introduce genetically modified food, without investigating the motives of the agricultural companies, and the actual material benefit to the crop producer, as well as the consumer?
| The issues are often more complex than they seem. The answer would seem to lie in reasoned debate, and a media which focuses on investigating the truth, rather than sensationalism.
| Sean Davidson, UK
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
