14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
14-1190b-innovation-managing-risk-evidence
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
138<br />
At the end of the day, probably nothing is more<br />
illuminating and instructive for our understanding<br />
of <strong>risk</strong> in the context of scientific policy-making<br />
than to see how a specific example works out in practice.<br />
A long career as a science communicator has taught me<br />
that the hardest thing to explain to a lay audience is that<br />
<strong>evidence</strong>-based science does not deal in certainties. To<br />
the non-scientist, science is engaged in delivering absolute<br />
truth based on incontrovertible facts. Propositions based<br />
on anything less than this are likely to be regarded as<br />
questionable. Above all, decisions based on ‘likelihood’<br />
rather than ‘fact’ are perceived to involve unacceptable<br />
levels of <strong>risk</strong>: these are the decisions that give rise to<br />
‘shock horror’ headlines in the tabloid press.<br />
The reality is that a measure of uncertainty is a defining<br />
characteristic of the scientific method. The scientific<br />
solution to a problem is inevitably provisional. The<br />
scientist’s goal is to arrive at the best fit between their<br />
findings so far and a hypothesis, or general principle.<br />
Fundamentally sceptical, scientists are always prepared to<br />
modify their outcomes in the face of additional data.<br />
So there is inevitably a rupture between the certainty<br />
the lay person wants in answer to a question, and what<br />
the scientist is prepared to offer in response. A familiar<br />
example would be climate change, where climate change<br />
sceptics challenge scientists to ‘prove once and for all’ that<br />
global warning is man-made, and make much of the voices<br />
of those who dissent from the majority view. The scientists<br />
respond that the ‘balance of probability’ points strongly<br />
towards man’s being the cause of climate change, and point<br />
out that ‘the vast majority of climate scientists’ ascribe to<br />
this view. They will always stop short, however, of claiming<br />
certainty.<br />
I suspect that this is one of the things that originally<br />
attracted me to the practice of science: it eschews<br />
dogma. Evidence-based solutions to problems are offered<br />
tentatively and with circumspection, and are susceptible to<br />
revision in the light of further <strong>evidence</strong>.<br />
For example, the paradigm-changing 1953 paper in<br />
the journal Nature by Francis Crick and James Watson,<br />
which proposed the double helix structure of DNA<br />
and transformed genetics, opens cautiously with the<br />
words: “We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of<br />
deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) ...”. Towards its close, it<br />
gestures almost diffidently to the far-reaching implications<br />
of their ‘suggestion’:“It has not escaped our notice that the<br />
specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a<br />
possible copying mechanism for the genetic material” (my<br />
emphases) 1 .<br />
Public communication of science to a general audience is<br />
often a matter of helping the lay person to come to terms<br />
with this provisionality. In large part it consists in teaching<br />
those without a scientific background how to assess the<br />
claims made in areas that are complex and contested,<br />
often by translating them into more accessible terms.<br />
Non-scientists have to be persuaded to accept a<br />
scientist’s findings as reliable in spite of his or her<br />
reluctance to claim certainty, otherwise they are likely to<br />
find the costs of <strong>innovation</strong> based on a scientific discovery<br />
— and the <strong>risk</strong>s involved — too high. The role of media<br />
commentators like myself on scientific issues in such<br />
cases is to be trusted explicators, presenting a specified<br />
scientific breakthrough in language accessible to all, to<br />
show both its benefits and disadvantages so that the public<br />
(which includes politicians) can make up their own mind<br />
responsibly.<br />
Public communication of this kind is, however, a very<br />
different matter from engaging directly with the public and<br />
experts together, to progress and implement public policy.<br />
When I became Chair of the Human Fertilisation and<br />
Embryology Authority (HFEA) in January 2008, I quickly<br />
discovered that scientists’ reluctance to claim certainty<br />
can prove problematic, not only when one is supporting<br />
<strong>innovation</strong> in assisted reproduction treatment, but even<br />
in sustaining the advances made to date. In spite of the<br />
successes of in vitro fertilization (IVF), are the <strong>risk</strong>s that<br />
will always remain when we ‘tamper’ with nature simply<br />
too high 2 ?<br />
One of my personal goals when I took up the post was<br />
to develop clear and constructive lines of communication<br />
between the HFEA and those it regulated, and to build<br />
an educated conversation with the broader public. This<br />
quickly turned out to be a much harder aspiration than I<br />
had imagined. IVF stories make newspaper headlines, and<br />
both broadsheet and tabloid press tend to sensationalize<br />
their coverage for an eager readership. However<br />
thoughtfully the HFEA drafted its press releases, however<br />
careful I was in radio and TV interviews, both were all too<br />
often truncated or taken out of context, resulting in alarm<br />
rather than reassurance and education.<br />
So when the HFEA was asked by the UK government’s<br />
Department of Health to conduct a wide-ranging<br />
consultation on a controversial new process in 2011,<br />
we were determined to do so as far as possible so as to<br />
educate at the same time as gathering the information. A<br />
great deal of prior thought went into planning the stages<br />
of the consultation so as to produce properly informed<br />
There is inevitably a<br />
rupture between the<br />
certainty the lay person<br />
wants in answer to a<br />
question, and whatthe<br />
scientist is prepared to<br />
offer in response.