As serpentes e o bastão: tecnociência, neoliberalismo e ... - CTeMe

IV. A tecnociência em combate: diálogo, captatio benevolentiae,
sedução, recrutamento...
Ciência em que o povo pode confiar
Discurso de Stephen Byers, Secretário de Estado para o Comércio e a Indústria do Reino Unido. 20 de Março de
2001, Institute of Physics (IoP) (Byers, 2001)
Texto
The issues we're looking at this evening form one of the most important challenges we face at the
beginning of the 21 st century.
In this century - even more than in the last - science will shape the economy and the society in which we
live. The industries, jobs and wealth of the future will come from the application of new scientific
discoveries.
But if we are to enjoy these benefits in Britain, we need to respond to three challenges.
First, we must invest in scientific excellence and extend opportunity in science, to ensure that we continue
to have a world class science base in the UK.
Second, we must ensure that the knowledge and expertise of our science base benefits our society and is
translated into commercial applications, creating new products, services, jobs and wealth.
And third, we must ensure that people can trust these scientific developments. Without this trust we will
never realise the economic and social benefits which they can bring.
[...] We are providing new incentives for commercial application of research, with a £140 million fund,
the Higher Education Innovation Fund. [...]
[...] Public trust is vital to innovation. Without public trust we can't make the most of the potential
benefits of scientific developments. That trust is easily lost and hard to win back. People in Britain
generally support science and innovation. However, the recent controversies over, for example, BSE and
genetically modified foods show that the public are also concerned about risks, particularly when they
involve food and health. As the debate on GM foods has shown, people will only buy products which
they trust.
The theme of this evening's discussion is, therefore, crucial to our future.
When we came into office it was clear that many people had lost trust in the way Government regulated
science and used scientific advice. BSE played a significant part in that. I believe that in responding to this
erosion of public confidence we have to acknowledge that people are rightly concerned about the potential
risks of any change. We must not dismiss these worries.
We won't recover trust by telling people they're wrong. That was tried in the past. It didn't work.
People do have genuine concerns about the impact of science. We should not dismiss these.
Scientific advances can create new risks to our health and environment as well as posing social and ethical
challenges. When consumers feel the risks and benefits are clear and properly assessed it is up to them to
make their own judgements about whether to buy and how to use a product. People apply common sense
when assessing the risks and benefits of new technology. If there are clear benefits, consumers are more
likely to accept a new product. This helps to explain public attitudes to GM foods. Consumers could see no
benefits for them in the first generation of GM crops. Even though any risks may be small, these were borne
by the consumer and the environment while the benefits seemed to accrue to multinational companies.
It is for similar reasons that people are sometimes concerned that scientists are not impartial when their
research is sponsored by business.
I do not believe that we should stop commercial funding for research. This is not only an important
360