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

source of funding but also encourages the commercial application of research which creates economic
growth.
But we do need to ensure that the proper processes are in place. And that funding is transparent and open.
As a society we can no longer, if we ever could, expect people to trust blindly in Government and
scientists to get it right. Consumers will feel confident only if risks from new technologies are questioned
and challenged in an open and informed way.
We are on the brink of exciting developments in science which will affect everyone's lives. Mapping of
the human genome will unlock new cures for disease. New technology will enable us to clean up the
environment and reduce pollution. Improvements in forensic science will enable us to crack down on
crime. Such developments open exciting opportunities which can bring huge benefits for everyone. But
they also carry potential risks which can cause understandable concerns for people.
I believe there are three main areas where we must do more in order to build trust and understanding in
science:-
• proper safeguards;
• informed discussion; and
• extending scientific literacy by strengthening science in schools.
[...]
Our aim is to provide a strong and stable framework of proper safeguards, information and
accountability [...]. To make sure that risks are continuously monitored by a transparent process and that
these risks are clearly communicated.
We must never again repeat the mistakes made in relation to BSE. When Government gave assurances to
consumers instead of providing full details of the scientific advice which was far from clear cut. In future
we must ensure that advisory systems are open, so that people can see how decisions have been reached.
And if there is a degree of uncertainty, that must be shared with the public.
[...]
Expert scientific advisory committees are absolutely essential to our society. Without the knowledge and
wisdom of the people who give up their time to serve on them, we would not be able to identify or manage
the risks from science, or gain the benefits of scientific advances. We all owe them a debt of gratitude.
But I know that members of scientific advisory committees would agree that science is too important to be
left only to scientists. Their knowledge, and their assessment of risks, is only one dimension of the
challenge for society.
When science raises profound ethical and social issues, the whole of society needs to take part in the
debate. The Government is establishing new strategic bodies to help facilitate dialogue. [...]
Open, transparent and accountable advice is essential for proper risk assessment. [...]
The 'Precautionary Principle' itself, unfortunately, is rapidly coming to mean all things to all people. In
some of its more simplistic "if in doubt - do nowt" manifestations it runs the risk of becoming a recipe for
paralysis. [...] We need to develop a balanced approach when judging a new technology. There is a danger
that if we become totally risk averse we will block any technological developments.
We need to remember that new technology has made our lives healthier and more comfortable. When
the smallpox vaccination was pioneered, there were many concerns raised about its risks. But today the
vaccine has eradicated the disease world-wide. Equally, when it was introduced the contraceptive pill raised
health concerns about the risk of thrombosis as well as serious moral and ethical issues. Yet today, whilst
each individual can take their own moral view, it has had a dramatic effect on family planning and
population control. We need to be careful therefore. To take a balanced approach which minimises risk but
also allows for progress. Government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure that scientific advice and
risk assessment is open and accountable. To provide the basis for a full debate on scientific developments.
But scientists also have responsibilities.
Scientists have a right to conduct research. But alongside that right is a responsibility to explain their
361