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: Your leading article ("Cloning presents an opportunity, not a threat", 28 February) claims that "we" should not let our emotions guide our reaction against scientists, and that it would be wrong for Western scientific leadership to abdicate its leadership because leadership would then pass to "those who are less accountable to rational democratic debate".
I found this position deeply disturbing on several counts. First, your continual use of the first person plural assumes that only one position matters - "ours". I thought democracy encompassed a diversity of opinions, including mine.
Second, one major cause of public hostility to scientific advances (whose definition?) such as cloning is precisely that scientists are not accountable for developments that will impact on all our lives, for better and worse. I don't recall having been asked for my views on nuclear dumps and genetically engineered tomatoes. Third, deciding the risks involved in these matters is a political, not a scientific question, which is why "we" may decide that some developments may be too dangerous.
Finally, how can The Independent recommend debate when anyone suspecting that potential risks may outweigh the trumpeted "benefits" is ruled out of debate beforehand as "emotional"? Your blase attitude of "it's going to happen anyway, so why object?" represents a frightening abdication of critical, democratic responsibility, mythologises science still further, and makes the whole idea of debate virtually meaningless.
NICK HUNT
Centre for Science Studies and Science Policy,
University of Lancaster
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments