view from here

Is it my imagination, or are there really more science programmes on radio and TV these days? I have enjoyed several "old-fashioned" Horizon programmes, full of information and with helpful pictures (but don't talk to me about Stephen Hawking's Universe - I finally got so sick of half- lit faces and shots of door knobs and feet that I gave up on it). There was a thorough debunking of Geller and his ilk that even believers of my acquaintance seemed to enjoy, and neuroscientist Susan Greenfield has just been on Any Questions? - which I always thought was an "exclusive bastion of politicians".

We need scientists in the media. A recent news item on Radio 4 announced that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection had been shown to be true at last. What??? It turned out, as far as I could gather from the description, to be a fascinating experiment on speciation in lizards. But didn't anybody in News and Current Affairs know that Darwin's theory has been the backbone of biological sciences for decades?

Any Questions? has long been mostly about politics, and there has been no scientific equivalent, but I was recently asked to chair just that - a Gardener's Question Time for science. The plan is simple. We travel around the country describing not the type of soil in each place but its particular claim to scientific interest - such as the terrifyingly silent and smokeless nuclear reactors at Heysham in Lancashire, or that line where the Millennium begins at the Old Royal Observatory in Greenwich. Then an audience of local people puts questions to the panel.

And what do they ask? The questions suggest a real (and probably justified) fear of the power of science. Take, for example, the proposal to bring the woolly mammoth back from its long extinction. The plan is to find mammoth sperm frozen in the Siberian wastes, warm it up and inseminate it into an African elephant to make a half-cross, and then keep making further crosses until a nearly pure woolly mammoth is born. I must say the discussion made me think. What would we do with the poor creature once we had it back? Whether we hunted it for ivory, stared at it in a zoo, or let it loose in an arguably suitable environment, the woolly mammoth itself would be unlikely to enjoy its revival.

The question actually was, "Is there really any need for this kind of science, or do researchers do it simply because they can?" In this case - creating life just because we can. The panel was split. We climb mountains just because they are there, don't we - why not do science just because it's there? Climbing mountains is pointless and we shouldn't bother. But at least it doesn't harm anyone - science sometimes does. What about pollution and thousands of species dying out every day and the ozone layer and - the poor woolly mammoth? We were saved from further unhappiness on the part of the hypothetical creature by palaeontologist Peter Allison pointing out that only one woolly mammoth has ever been found with its willy still attached; so we probably have a long time yet in which to debate that particular moral issue.

Moral issues frequently arise, and we need to confront them, argue about them, and work towards solutions. One panellist pointed out that doctors have to sign the Hippocratic Oath before they can practise on real patients. How about scientists signing an oath not to use their science in ways that they know would be harmful? Tricky to know, of course, but that too made me think.

Risks - and our human inability to judge them - have also loomed large. Starting in a nuclear power station provoked the question of whether we should have a league table of risks - clearly the top contenders wouldn't be eating more than 3 ounces of beef or sitting near a nuclear reactor but what would they be? Cars were almost universally placed top, but judging from a show of hands, the audience would not be prepared to give theirs up.

Next we'll be asking whether users of the Internet will become slaves to their machines and freedom be the prerogative of the "unconnected", whether science will soon be able to control what is currently uncontrollable, and whether genetic research devalues our perceptions of ourselves.

And as for perceptions, judging by the questions and reactions so far, I must conclude that scientists are seen as arrogant, out of touch, always thinking they know the answer, portraying opinion as fact, and playing God without a shred of moral sensibility. I am glad we are getting more chances on radio and television to show that we are not. Or should I say - to find out whether we are?

The writer is senior lecturer in psychology at the University of the West of England.

`Action/Reaction', Radio 4, Wednesdays at 9pm, Sundays at 9.30pm