Letter: Science loses its bottle

Sir: Opponents of modernisation and a rational approach to technological and scientific issues do not always present themselves as such. Ulrich Beck is a case in point ("When experiments go wrong", 26 March). His trick is to present his case in the form of risk analysis and occasionally acute sociological comment.

This is Professor Beck's warning: "We are in danger of creating a situation where alarmingly large risks are nobody's responsibility". The BSE issue seems to confirm his point. But to notice this is to miss Professor Beck's trick - the bit about "alarmingly large risks". For his assumption, whether the subject be BSE, Chernobyl or genetic engineering, is that the results of human meddling in nature threaten to turn against us in a nightmare scenario. But in all the cases the risks don't match Professor Beck's hype.

Professor Beck argues that "neglecting risks is one of the most effective ways of reinforcing them". The point is rather this: hyping up the scale of risks, as Beck does, is a most effective way of raising doubts about scientific and social progress, as well as the efficacy of human action in the face of change.

Professor Beck makes much of the conflict of scientific opinion in the case of BSE and of the options for disposal of the Brent Spar oil platform. He argues that as a consequence "politics and morality must he given priority over shifting scientific reasoning". However, the interesting point in both these cases is rather that scientists, like many others, have lost their bottle.

Scientific opinion has not really shifted, nor is it so confused; most scientists know that BSE poses little risk, and that dumping in the Atlantic is the best disposal option for the Brent Spar. The shift is that they just don't have the confidence to argue their case. What Beck does is to make a virtue of this. By revelling in risk and uncertainty he undermines the basis for human progress and rational decision-making.

John Gillott

London N8