Letter: Appliance of science
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Science is concerned with deductions from statistical facts, which are free from human bias. Race, sex and nationality do not come into the calculations. Yet European scientists, French and others, we are told, cannot agree about whether or not British food is safe to eat.
It appears as if some scientists in Europe draw conclusions which have a national bias. So where does that leave non-scientists?
Let us not bother just yet with who is right, the French or German or British scientists. But we must ask how they can differ about beef and what else they could differ about. Do Welsh scientists have different answers to some problems from English scientists? Are there problems to which women scientists have different answers from men? Do Indian, African, Chinese or American scientists reach different conclusions from the same data?
The pressing question arises about which we, the public, must be clearly informed. Can a scientist be assumed to be free from bias when he reports on scientific matters?
The only way to remove doubt is not just to remove the beef ban, but for all to say, in this and other cases, which scientists were wrong and why - if anybody knows. This is the only way science keeps it credibility - by generating reproducible, accepted data.
Professor R J P WILLIAMS
Inorganic Chemistry Laboratory
University of Oxford
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments