The disruption to power at Christmas dramatically illustrated the absolute dependence of society on science-based technology. But a grave problem has arisen with this technology. People enjoy the use and convenience of technological devices but feel alienated from them because they understand neither how they work nor how they are produced. To a large extent this alienation expresses itself as fear that science-based technology damages our health.
This situation will have to be rationalised because it is becoming increasingly chaotic. I will make three general points in this article concerning (a) the use of common sense when evaluating risk, (b) environmental action groups, and (c) the scientific expert.
Common sense is often a casualty in debates on the dangers of technology. Detailed claims and counter-claims regularly hide the wood for the trees. Average life expectancy in the West in 1900 was 50 years, well before most science-based technology. Average life expectancy in the West today is 76 years.
This improvement could not have happened if science-based technology posed the threat to our health that is so widely feared. There is a widespread feeling that chemicals and radiations in our environment have caused a marked increase in cancer during the 20th century. But the facts rule out this simple correlation. Cancer incidence and overall cancer mortality figures have remained remarkably constant through the century. Lung cancer, caused almost entirely by cigarettes, is a notable exception to this trend. It follows therefore that chemicals and radiations (e.g. electrical), to which people were exposed over much of the century, have not been a significant cause of cancer.
There is also widespread concern that modern food is not nearly as wholesome and healthy as food in the past. But common observation makes it plain that today's children are growing bigger and stronger than the previous generation. That cannot be explained genetically, and must be largely attributable to improved standards of nutrition.
Over the past few decades several influential national environmental protection pressure organisations and many locally-based environmental groups have been established. The Green Party, dedicated to protecting the environment, is also well established. These organisations are well motivated and they can do good work. For example, Sellafield has significantly reduced its polluting emissions since the 1970s, and much of the credit is due to pressure exerted on BNFL by environmental groups.
However, these groups also spread confusion. The green movement is basically opposed to large-scale capitalist industry, and is also very wary of science. The dilemma here is that the green movement is so distrustful of the capitalist corporation that it can never be satisfied with the corporation's environmental performance. Nor can it trust any expert reassurance on the matter from the "dodgy" scientific sector. It is generally very difficult to satisfy the environmental groups because they often effectively demand a zero level of risk. That is impossible to achieve.
It often seems that the environmental movement pursues a dogmatic, self-righteous line, and is interested in scientific evidence only when it supports this position. Occasionally this attitude degenerates to the point where ends are seen to justify means. Thus, we had the recent vandalising of the Monsanto genetically-engineered sugar beet trial at Carlow. Shortly afterwards a Green MEP, invited to condemn this action during a nationwide radio interview, failed to do so.
The public credibility of the scientific expert on matters relating to the health effects of technology must be at an all-time low. Fears and doubts are constantly raised by environmental groups and fuelled by extensive media coverage, which gives equal weight to all voices.
The testimony of the scientific expert should carry influence appropriate to the person most qualified to assess the problem. However, scientific testimony usually impresses itself on the public mind only when it confirms that a problem exists.
How did the currency of the expert become so devalued? There are several reasons for it. First, the damage is partly self-inflicted. Science-based technology has produced problems that should have been foreseen earlier and more clearly by scientific experts, e.g. greenhouse warming, ozone depletion, and nuclear problems. Science gave us the nuclear bomb. Some scientists are so impressed by their technological creations that they blind themselves to genuine problems created by the technologies.
Second, science is a cautious and quiet process. The public environmental arena is loud and controversial. Most scientists are temperamentally ill-suited to fight their corners on this stage whereas the environmental activist revels in this arena. The message of the activist sounds a clear and startling warning. The message of the scientist, based only on known facts and logical projections, can sound "wishy-washy" by comparison.
There is no instant solution to this problem, but the following changes would solve the matter in the medium term: 1, science must be added to the "three Rs" as an obligatory part of foundation education; 2, programmes to enhance the public understanding of science must be established/enhanced; 3, scientists must speak up trenchantly and maintain position under fire; 4, government and media must pay due attention to neutral scientific testimony; 5, it must be required that arguments from environmental groups take all the scientific evidence into account.
William Reville is a senior lecturer in biochemistry at UCC
