Letter: What is science for?

Norman Paterson
Monday 20 September 1999 00:02 BST
Comments

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: There are a surprising number of issues in the speech by the chairman of Glaxo Wellcome to the British Festival of Science ("We must support our GM food industry", 14 September) that are taken entirely for granted.

Science is needed, we are told, to help Britain struggle to compete not only with the developed countries but also with developing countries. Why we are competing with these people?

We are told that if only the public understood the potential benefits of GM foods, the debate about them would be over. What is unsaid is that despite attempts by many, there is no debate. It is now only a matter of selling the idea to the voters by explaining the benefits with sufficient repetition that we will all believe it. It is precisely because of this lack of debate that civil disobedience takes place.

It cannot be a purely scientific debate, which is settled by scientists who then inform the voters of the result. We need a forum where we can discuss questions like: should we release genetically modified organisms into the wild?

Of course there are ethics bodies already in existence, but the GM experience suggests they have no teeth that can compare to the power of huge international companies. What we have now as a forum for discussing science, and discussing whether we should or should not pursue any particular path, is the marketplace.

We have given up asking whether science will help make the world a better place for people, and ask instead whether it will make some people richer.

NORMAN PATERSON

Anstruther, Fife

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in