• Question: Scientists are political animals too. ¿For the sake of debate is it better to keep out the political aspect of the GMO research? ¿Isn't it turning a blind eye to the social consequences of scientific endeavour?

    Asked by fausto_rodriguezzapata to Andy, Cathie, Jules, Les, Ricarda on 28 Jun 2012.
    • Photo: Julian Little

      Julian Little answered on 28 Jun 2012:


      Hi fausto_rodriguezzapata, scientists get involved in science for many reasons – for me it was a real fascination in all things “plants” together with some fantastic teachers at school. For others in food science, it is a desire to make a difference, either in the understanding of what is going on, or to understand why things happen. To be fair, your average plant or food scientist is not entering the profession to dabble in the politics of the science – I’m sure there are exceptions to this view though!!

      What has happened in the last 20 years however is a recognition that there is a need for scientists to communicate more with both the public and with politicians – the former so that people understand what is happening and why, and with politicians, because most of the money that funds research in the UK comes from the Government and taxes. This culminated in the formation of the Science Media Centre (http://www.sciencemediacentre.org ) which puts journalists in touch with scientists and scientists in touch with journalists. Result? A much better coverage of science in the media, and a better understanding of the subject by politicians.

    • Photo: Ricarda Steinbrecher

      Ricarda Steinbrecher answered on 28 Jun 2012:


      You could say that everything about science and scientists is political, starting with the choice of what to research and why, as well as how to use science to address the major issues of our time. For example there are some scientists who claim that GM technology can help to address issues like producing enough food to feed 9 billion people. Others are sceptical about the ability to GM to increase yields. Yet others consider that there is already enough food, but the problems lie in overconsumption and massive levels of food waste, plus problems with fair distribution and access. Others would point at the level of corporate control of the food chain and say this is a major cause of problems. Yet others would say that the absence of access to land and other resources is the main cause of hunger and that providing people with the means to produce their own basic food, rather than supplying them with money to buy it, is a better route to food security.

      All scientists have opinions and personal interpretations of issues. A good scientist should carefully separate their opinions from their interpretation of data, but scientific research angles are selected and carried out by people and they have a view of the world in which they live and work.

      However, these days there is more and more competition for funding for scientific work. Scientists are forced to think about how they can appeal to funders and this may have an effect on what they choose to propose. Many funders obviously want “value for money” in the shorter rather than the longer term. At the same time, a company that has a vested interest in developing GM crops is obviously going to promote GM crops as a solution to current problems. So this is a complex issue. I do not believe that we can leave politics out of science because our attitudes to science are based on our core values, which include our attitudes to social justice and equity, for example.

      So when you speak of the social consequences of scientific endeavour, you are touching on a crucial issue. Such social consequences may be very difficult to predict in advance. Some would say that a scientist should put such considerations out of their minds altogether. However, science does have clear social consequences – and I would say that there are clear ethical issues involved as well.

      Here is a very basic example: Joseph Rotblat, the nuclear scientist, first thought the only way to stop Germany developing a nuclear bomb was for another country to develop one as a deterrent. He worked on this first in the UK and then in the US as part of the Manhattan Project, but then realised that Germany had given up the idea of developing the bomb and also learned that the Soviet Union was the real target for the development of the bomb in the Manhattan Project. He became the only scientist to leave the Manhattan Project on the grounds of conscience and spent much of the rest of his life working to show the effects of nuclear fallout and to promote debate on nuclear issues, including calling for the Test Ban Treaty.

      He is an example of a person who, however fascinating the research might be, felt that the ethical issues raised by the destructive potential of the atomic bomb meant that he had no alternative but to abandon his work on it. As a scientist myself I can appreciate the sacrifice involved.

      We are embedded in the social and political matrix of our times and need to remember that. It is important that as scientists, we think about the consequences of our work, how it could affect others – does it really serve some aspect of the common good, or is it likely to increase the division between rich and poor, for example. After looking carefully at the evidence available, I happen to think that GM crops do not offer any improvement to agriculture, especially not to smallscale family agriculture. In fact, as far as I understand it, GM crops have contributed to the dispossession of such smallscale farmers and the appropriation of their land by larger farmers who can afford the economies of scale that make GM crops work for the first few years. And then other problems set in, with herbicide tolerant weeds, impacted and impoverished soils, the loss of traditional knowledge, the poisoning of local communities and the destruction of biodiversity. Of course smallscale farming can be destructive too, but this is not a reason to replace it with industrial agriculture. We should also remember that smallscale food production still feeds most of the world’s population, while GM crops are turned into animal feed, fibre and fuel, together with ingredients used by food processors such as lecithin and corn syrup, but not food. However, as a scientist, I always need to guard against allowing my opinions to influence my conclusions about a particular piece of research.

      The precautionary principle
      A very important principle to apply to scientific research regarding all potential consequences, is the precautionary principle, which has been adopted by the European Union. A fascinating piece of research carried out by the European Environment Agency called Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896-2000 [1] has case studies about a wide range of issues ranging from mad cow disease, through fisheries to asbestos. It shows how asbestos moved from an apparently magical solution to a number of problems to a highly problematic substance with very widespread and serious health effects. What is most chilling is the fact that the damaging effects of asbestos were known as early as 1898, yet it took nearly a century for it to be banned. “many jobs, much profit and high dividends were generated by asbestos” says the report and continues: “these profits suffered little from the ill health and contamination costs of asbestos which were ‘externalised’ onto workers with disease, their families, the health service, insurance carriers and building owners”. People died in large numbers from disease caused by asbestos – estimates indicate some 5,000 a year and rising during the 1990s. They are still dying from the impacts. This story encapsulates most of the major issues here: the impacts were known early on but asbestos was too profitable to be dropped. Unfortunately this basic pattern lies behind most of the case studies investigated and documented in this report. When considering new “solutions” we need to apply the principle of precaution which says that we need to have foresight about the potential impacts of a technology and that we could even decide not to develop it if it appeared that the likelihood of harm was sufficiently great.

      Instead of turning to GM crops as a panacea, we need to think very carefully about the consequences, both social and environmental, and look at what we already know about the impacts of herbicide tolerant and pesticide expressing crops, still the main ones available. With new crops we need to think about the possible impacts on the whole system into which they would be inserted – what do we know and where are the areas of non-knowledge, what do we suspect might happen. We need to learn the lessons of previous experience and use the precautionary principle to assess new technologies in the light of those lessons.

      And then there is the issue of assessing a technology and its risks in the context of need and alternatives (the latter being part of many guidelines for risk assessment). And this demands a lot of any scientist to make themselves properly knowledgeable of areas that might not even be their interest or within their field of knowledge and expertise.

      I have to think more on that. Maybe I’ll add another para in a while.

    • Photo: Andy Stirling

      Andy Stirling answered on 29 Jun 2012:


      Thanks for raising this, ‘fausto_rodriguezzapata’! I think this is an absolutely crucial point. Ricarda and others have highlighted the importance. All I would add is this.

      Science is carried out by people. It is an inherently social activity. It is driven by human curiosities. It is made possible by decisions about allocations of resources. It is organised in departments and disciplines and institutions and communities. It is an arena within which are played out the entire spectrum of human relations: visions, ambitions, competitions, rivalries, alliances, allegiances, envies, conflicts, deceptions and so on.

      In other words, even laboratory science is inherently political. And this inherently political nature becomes even more magnified when science becomes entangled (as it must do if the many benefits are to be realised for society), with financial, regional, national, institutional, cultural, military and political interests. After all, to support any particular vision of science – or pathway for technology – is political.

      Nor is this inherently political nature of science a bad thing. Politics is the word we give to the ways in which different social relations align and contend, in order to make some things happen and others not. Without politics, nothing gets done. Where anything happens in society, it is political – and because of politics. This is as true of good things as bad things. Indeed, the more ambitious we are for radical progressive change (like social justice, alleviating poverty, properly allowing the world fully to feed itself… ), then the more politics becomes not only an essential but also a very positive thing.

      So how then, are we (as you say) to ‘keep out the political aspect’? Why should we even try? To do so would be to deny the essential reality of science as a social (and therefore political) endeavour. And it would be to eliminate any recognition of choice from the world of technology. History shows that societies descend into some pretty dark places, when attempts are made to deny or rule out the space for politics… or choice.

      So I’d say, let’s celebrate the inherently political nature of science. Indeed, the particular (political) form of social relations within science is the reason why it is such a phenomenally successful way of producing knowledge. Among the key reasons for this, are the ways science has empowered the creative and disciplining forces of organised scepticism. So reasoned scepticism in particular, is something that should be as valued in technology as in science. Again, this means recognising even more the importance of politics.

      Rather than seeking to brush the politics of science and technology under the carpet, then, I think we should put it at centre stage. We should discuss more openly the ways in which different questions yield different answers. We should acknowledge how alternative equally-valid value judgements lead to different interpretations of uncertainty. We should be honest that there are a range of different alternative innovation pathways, each with its pros and cons – none of which is essential. And this is how we can turn the unavoidable politics of science and technology into something not only more open and vibrant; but also more healthily democratic and accountable; and therefore more robust and effective in meeting social ends.

    • Photo: Les Firbank

      Les Firbank answered on 29 Jun 2012:


      I essentially agree with the other comments. As scientists, the work we choose to do, the choices we choose to make, reflect our outlook, our ideas, and how we respond to the societies we live in. We try to use the scientific method as a way of ensuring that our work reflects what is observed, rather than the opinions and biases of the people making the observations.
      As an ecologist, I am concerned about what is going on, and I try to inform and influence people so that things may improve. That’s why I’m writing this now. Being a member of the ‘I’m a scientist’ team is being political!

Comments