Science, Medicine & The Law Conference
Monday 31 January 2005, Riba, 66 Portland Place, London.

Nobody disagrees that debate should be conducted on the basis of science, but which science?  Independent science or industrial science?  Let me test out a few questions on you.

• 15 years ago a lorry driver accidentally tipped 20 tons of aluminium sulphate into the public drinking supply in north Cornwall – nearby residents and local doctors are convinced they were poisoned; compare this with two Government enquiries which found no evidence.  Who do you believe?
• There are childhood leukaemia clusters in villages down the Cumbrian coast – local residents and independent scientists think it is the consequence of chronic exposure to low-level radiation from nearby Sellafield; compare this with DTI and BNFL who think it is nothing to do with local nuclear power stations – their best explanation is that it is caused by high levels of inward and outward migration.  Who do you believe?
• Mark Purdey, a Somerset farmer epidemiologist, has produced detailed evidence to show that BSE was caused by farmers spreading Phosmetz, an Organo Phosphate [OP], over the backs of cattle as a prophylaxis, but the Government’s MRC Toxicology Unit refuted this theory.  This Unit was funded by the pharmaceutical company Zeneca.  Which company held all rights over the production of Phosmetz?  - Zeneca.  Who do you believe?
• Gulf War Syndrome has been a persistent disabling, and sometimes lethal, condition since the first war in Kuwait in 1991.  Both UK and US soldiers and their independent scientific advisers are convinced they were poisoned by OP insecticides with which they were liberally sprayed.  Compared with this the MOD and chemical companies insist there is no evidence which proves this.  Who do you believe?

Well, if you have any doubts, look at what has actually happened in the past when Government, in the teeth of overwhelming evidence, have often finally been forced to back track from entrenched positions which they always said were supported scientifically.

Science can quite often get things wrong. 

Government biologists initially refused to accept that power stations in Britain or Germany could kill fish or trees hundreds of miles away in Scandinavia; later the idea of SO2 acidification was universally accepted.

Again, Government scientists did not originally agree that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were destroying the ozone layer; but during the 1987 negotiations on the Montreal Protocol the industry – ICI and Du Pont – abruptly changed sides, and ministers and scientists soon fell into line alongside them.

The Lawther working party of Government scientists roundly rejected any idea that health-damaging high levels of lead in the blood came overwhelmingly from vehicle exhausts, only to find that after lead-free petrol was introduced, blood-lead levels fell 70%.  The Southwood committee of BSE scientists insisted in 1990 that scrapie in cattle could not cross the species barrier, only to find by 1996 that it did just that.  And there are many more examples.

The only way to deal with these problems is via application of the precautionary principle.  Perhaps the classic formulation of the precautionary principle was at the Rio Summit in 1992 principle 15: “in order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by states according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

That principle survived renegotiation attempts during the Johannesburg Summit in September 2002, and was reaffirmed in the Plan of Implementation which resulted from the Summit.

Why has this not happened?  Cynicism of not disturbing powerful political and economic interests.

• Benzene demonstrated as powerful bone marrow poison in 1897;
• Acute respiratory effects of asbestos identified 1898;
• PCB induced chloracne document 1898;

but not until 1960-70s was significant progress made in restricting damage caused by these agents.

It is known that MTBE could be substituted by alternative oxygenates such as bioethanol, but no formal action was taken.

Efforts were made to discredit independent critics (eg case of BSE, & Pusztar re GM, thalidomide (Distillers) and tobacco).

Data and reports have been regularly suppressed or publishers intimidated (eg Great Lakes chemical case)

Southwood Committee (re BSE) believed a ban on the use of all cattle brains in human food chain might be justified, but considered a ban politically unfeasible.

Incompetence: Department of Health not informed by MAFF about the emergence of new disease (BSE) until 17 months after MAFF was first alerted.

So, why has this pervasive distrust arisen?  The roots go deep.  First, the Rothschild revolution under Thatcher made the funding of science much more subservient to business interests.  Over the last two decades, getting finance for scientific inquiry inimical to the commercial and political Establishments has become increasingly difficult.  The science is owned by a tiny number of very large companies and they only commission research which they believe will further their own commercial interests.  Even when this does not happen, much of the research which may be embarrassing to the company is dubbed commercially confidential, and never published if it conflicts with the interests of the company.

In addition, companies have learned that small investments in endowing chairs, sponsoring research programmes or hiring professors for out-of-hours projects can produce disproportionate payoffs in generating reports, articles, reviews and books which may not reflect the public interest, but certainly benefit corporate bottom lines.  The effects of corporate generosity - donating millions for this research laboratory or that scientific programme – can be subtly corrosive.  Other universities eye up the donor as a potential  source of funds and try to ensure nothing is said which might jeopardise big new cash possibilities. And academics who raise embarrassing questions – as they should – like who is paying for the lab, how independent is the peer review, who profits from the research, is the university’s integrity compromised? – soon learn that keeping their heads down is the best way not to risk their career, let alone future research funding.  The message is clear: making money is good, and dissent is stifled.  Commerce and the truth don’t readily mix.

Second, the scientists staffing the official advisory committees and Government regulatory bodies in a significant number of cases have financial links with the industry they are supposed to be independently advising on and regulating.  A recent study found that of the five scientific committees advising ministers on food and safety, 40% of committee members covered links with the biotechnology industry, and at least 20% were linked to one of the Big Three – Monsanto, Zeneca, or Novartis.  Nor is this an accident.  The civil servants who select for those bodies tend to look for a preponderant part of the membership, and particularly the chairperson, to be ‘sound’, i.e. can be safely relied on not to cause embarrassment to the Government or industry if difficulties arise.

Third, the culture of spin and intimidation is far more pervasive than should ever be allowed.  The shocking sacking and vilification of Dr Arpad Pusztai, when he produced GM research results inconvenient to the Government, bio-tech industry and the Americans, was no doubt deliberately intended as a warning to others if they stepped out of line.  And the threats and insinuations made clear to the only two independent scientists on the Government’s GM Science Panel, Dr Carlo Leifert and Andrew Sterling, demonstrates all too clearly how viciously the Establishment will fight to safeguard its own interests.

And on spin, how many times have we heard the false argument which is still regularly deployed by ACRE, the Government’s main GM advisory committee, when it announces that “there is no evidence that this GM product is any greater risk to human health than its non-GM counterpart”.  In fact they have not sought such evidence directly, merely relied on the biotech companies telling them that their GM product was ‘substantially equivalent’ to its alleged non-GM analogue.

Fourth, science is not, and never has been, a value-free search for the truth.  It is a social construct influenced by a variety of rules, peer group pressures, and personal and cultural expectations.  It is developed, like all human thought, from preconceived built-in judgements, assumptions and dogmas, the more powerful because they are often unconsciously held.

So what is to be done?

What all this means is that science can only be fully trusted if it is pursued with the most rigorous procedures that guarantee total independence and freedom from commercial and political bias.  That is far too often not the case today.  The implications for policy are clear.  One, if the Government truly wants independent research, it has to be prepared to pay for it, not lay down, as it has, that 25% of finance for publicly funded research should come from private sources, thus forcing the universities into the hands of corporate sponsors.  Two, the Government should also require that no member of its advisory committee or regulatory bodies should have any current or recently past financial or commercial link with the industry concerned.  Three, contributors to scientific journals should be required to make full disclosure of current and prior funding sources, so that any conflicts of interest can be exposed and taken into account.  Four, we need above all a Government with the political gumption to stand up to the United States and those demanding calls from the White House, to stand up to the biotech companies, and to stand up to big business, and make clear that there will be no succumbing to dominant political /economic interests, e.g. no growing of GM crops in this country until proper, systematic, independent, peer-reviewed research, which is totally absent at present, as been carried through and made public which demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whether GM foods are safe or not.

We should never forget the words of Winston Churchill, who said “Science should be on tap, not on top”.