Playing it safe in science can cause lasting harm: academy president

The President of the Australian Academy of Science, Dr Jim Peacock, has warned that governments could do “irreparable and lasting harm” by seeking to play safe when confronted by controversial technological change.

Addressing a dinner celebrating the Academy’s 50th anniversary on May 5, Peacock criticised Australian state governments that have blocked commercial cropping of genetically modified canola for rejecting the Academy’s offer of a “rational assessment” of the issues.

He said policy makers suffered little or no penalty for saying “no” to a proposal, even when it deserved support, but suffered a major penalty if they said “yes” to a proposal that should have been blocked.

“This unsatisfactory, unbalanced situation will inevitably lead to a conservative and restrictive society,” Peacock warned.

“It takes courage to say 'yes' to a proposal when there is some element of uncertainty, but in the end, the seemingly safe decision of “no” may do irreparable and lasting harm to the human condition.

Peacock sad it was the nature of technological change that, initially, there was a cautious uptake by the adventurous few, while others inevitably and vocally agitated against change.

In the 19th century, developments like electricity and railways had been greeted with outrage in some quarters.

In a famous incident in 1885, students at Yale University had chopped down an electric light pole, protesting that they were “getting more light than they relished”.

In 1885 there were only a few hundred electric light poles in the US. Just 10 years later, there were millions.

“Every new invention goes through a period of uncertainty when those of courage pioneer its use,” Peaock said.

“It is calculated risk that permits change, and uptake of new technologies by the community. As scientists, we have an obligation to assist policy makers, and the community more generally, in making evidence-based deliberations on risks and benefits.”

Peacock cited a study in the UK last year in which academic journalists had reviewed media coverage and public understanding of a supposed link between autism and a program to immunise infants with a combined mumps, measles and rubella (MMR) vaccine.

The study “… found that over half the British public were misled by the media into thinking that medical experts were evenly divided over whether the MMR vaccine was safe.

Peacock said fact that journalists were trained to give equal time to opposing views was “clearly problematic” where scientific issues were involved, and the media gave too much prominence to “extreme minority views”.

In Australia, in contrast, leaders in the immunology community, and quality media presenters such as the ABC’s Dr Norman Swan, had spoken out strongly to allay community concerns about immunisation, and promoted confidence in sensible public health policy.

Peacock said Australians had embraced genetic engineering as it related to cloning of human genes for therapeutic drug applications, and had also accepted genetically modified cotton as positive for the environment.

In both instances, the benefits were seen to outweigh the risk – yet the community was still concerned about the way in which genetic engineering could improve health through changes in food, or via direct gene therapy for genetic disorders.

Bovine tuberculosis was a menace in dairy herds in the early part of the century, with infection rates up to 70 per cent, and bovine brucellosis was also a threat to human health.

A national campaign to eliminate both diseases had begun in 1970, and Australian cattle were TB- and brucellosis-free by 1982.

“In 1970, policy makers were prepared to make courageous decisions, backed by the scientists, and risk rural voter backlash when herds were slaughtered, in favour of the long-term national good,” Peacock said.

“So where is that political will-power and courage today in capturing science and technology for the socio-economic and environmental well-being of a future Australia?

“We have a federal government that took a reasonable and forward-looking decision on stem-cell research, empowered in part by the position statements of the Academy, which called for a ban on cloning of humans, but supported the use of cloning techniques in stem cell research. Our objective and informed advice, whether sought by government or not, is needed in many quarters.

“Our federal government has spoken and acted in support of genetic engineering in medicine and agriculture but five state governments in this country have placed a moratorium on large-scale field trials of GM canola.

“The Academy has offered, unsuccessfully, to help some State governments in rational assessment of the matter.”

Peacock said public misunderstanding could lead to valuable technology being rejected, because public attitudes influence the statutory framework in which society operated.

Public misunderstanding could also lead to misuse of technology, as in patient demand for antibiotics to treat viral diseases – it was a professional responsibility of working scientists to promote public awareness of science.