A full theatre of 200 people last night attended the inaugural Rosalind Franklin Lecture, which was presented by Dame Anne Glover, former Chief Scientific Adviser to the European Commission, and chaired by BBC journalist Samira Ahmed. The lecture, hosted by the British Humanist Association (BHA) and entitled ‘Why evidence really matters’, was both broad in its scope and detailed in its analysis.
The BHA’s Director of Public Affairs and Campaigns, Pavan Dhaliwal, welcomed the audience and explained the concept behind the new lecture series; to explore and celebrate the contribution of women towards the promotion and advancement of Humanism – whether through achievements in science, philosophy, or through the promotion of democracy and human rights – in Britain and around the world.
Having been introduced by Samira Ahmed, Dame Anne began by making direct reference to the title of the lecture, saying that she had spent the last ten years of her life looking at how evidence could used for policy-making; ‘rather than looking at policy for science, I’ve been looking at science for policy,’ she explained.
‘Science is what makes us homo sapiens. The ATLAS detector makes me proud to be human. Why? Because 120 nationalities collaborate together; there are 2,500 employees at CERN, and about 12,000 visiting scientists. And they imagined the unimaginable.’
Highlighting the research excellence and infrastructure that is available to European scientists, Dame Anne drove home how important science is in dealing with some of our biggest global challenges, whether that be disease, ageing, energy security, natural disasters such as flooding, or food security and supply.
Dame Anne proceeded to ask what we might consider to be credible evidence, contrasting the viewpoints of Dodi al Fayed, who presented popular public opinion as evidence for his beliefs, with Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who famously said that, ‘everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.’
Giving a fascinating example of a time in which scientific evidence was used properly, she referred to the disruption caused by the April 2010 eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, and the questions from politicians about the need to close airspace when she was Chief Scientific Advisor to Scotland. Explaining that modern jet engines operate at a temperature above their melting point and are only able to do so because of cooling systems which would have been blocked by silica in the ash turning into glass in the engine, she was able to satisfy the First Minister that closing air space was essential. ‘That’s translation of evidence. It’s trying to make it meaningful.’
Dame Anne then turned to the question of who the public trusts most, and least. Whilst 79% of the public trust scientists to tell the truth, only 21% trust politicians to do so. Although, she argued, scientists generate a lot of evidence and are relatively well trusted, the public tend not to get their evidence from scientists, and instead are bombarded with misleading and outright false claims from newspaper headlines.
Following on from this suggestions, Dame Anne addressed the incongruity between what people are concerned about and what is truly likely to affect their lives. Whilst one-in-three of us will suffer from cancer at one point, very few of us are actually concerned about it on a day-to-day basis. She contrasted this with the far greater fear of terrorism, despite the fact that the actual exposure to risk is very low.
Continuing on this theme, Dame Anne argued that ‘the best way to combat “gut feelings” is by using scientific evidence’ because ‘it evolves over time but it doesn’t change from one government to the next’. Forcefully demonstrating that policies based on facts are more sustainable than those based on fiction, she referred to the Aral Sea, once the fourth-largest lake in the world. It was assumed that the Aral Sea was so large that diverting water flowing into it for irrigation purposes would have no effect, but photos taken in 2012 show the Sea almost entirely gone, with ships left stranded, surrounded by tens of miles of dry land.
Dame Anne then gave examples of distortions of evidence and misinterpretations of ‘consensus’. Consensus does not require unanimity of opinion, or that there are no disagreements about very specific questions. That scientists might disagree about the exactly how much the planet will warm with excess carbon dioxide does not, Dame Anne argued, represent a break in consensus that global warming is man-made. Turning to genetically modified (GM) organisms, Professor Glover highlighted the ‘misleading’ work of European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) who have 313 signatories to the statement that there is ‘no scientific consensus on GMO safety’, in staunch opposition to the views of the European Academies Science Advisory Council, composed of 29 member academies, the American Medical Association, the Australian Academy of Science, and countless other expert organisations.
Making an analogy to the ‘babel fish’ in Douglas Adams’ Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Dame Anne asked if scientists could be effective communicators; generating the evidence but also able to communicate it properly, because ‘research not communicated is research not done’. Scientists need to ‘speak a language everybody understands’, she argued, using metaphor and (in the instance of her presentation) striking imagery. Scientists must also be honest about the facts they have and do not have, and should be more understanding of politicians’ needs for certainty and so better translate their evidence better so that it can be used appropriately, and one important way of doing this is to better communicate uncertainty.
It is also important for scientists to be have empathy for public opinion, and to be aware of the context in which they present their evidence, Dame Anne argued. Furthermore, rather than presenting one ultimate solution to the problem at hand, scientists should ‘meet the politicians half-way’ and offer a range of options for action that could address the issue being discussed, rather than one (possibly unachieveable) answer . But she made the point too that scientists and the public at large must raise their voice when science is being misused, such as when newspapers state that global warming has ‘stopped’ and attempt to demonstrate it by cherry-picking data and constructing misleading headlines with ‘clever journalism’.
Moving towards the end of her riveting lecture, Dame Anne expressed conflicting feelings about the future. Though she is a massive optimist, she says, she does sometimes find it a struggle to believe that the global community will be able to come together to appropriately address climate change. But she draws hope from thinking of the hole in Ozone layer and how the Montreal Protocol, which banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in aerosols, was agreed by governments around the world, meaning that the damage is slowly being undone. She argued that this demonstrates that there is a precedent for global consensuses around scientific issues being turned into global consensus on political action, which should be heartening to all.
In her final recommendation to scientists, Dame Anne called for them to ask politicians to ‘be transparent in their motivation when they choose to ignore scientific evidence’, referring to the Scottish Government’s recent decision to ban the growing of GM crops, ostensibly because there are many uncertainties around the technology, and because there was economic evidence to demonstrate that Scottish products would have an advantage if the growing of GM crops was banned. However, there is no uncertainty around the technology, Dame Anne argued, and the economic evidence had not been produced: it was a hunch.
This undermines her trust in politicians, she said. They should show leadership and portray the evidence on issues accurately, even if they do decide to move in a different direction: she suggested they could say that ‘the evidence tells us the technology is safe, but you [Scottish citizens] don’t want this technology. Therefore we will not approve the growing of GM.’ This, she argued, would leave everyone in a good position as the public would know that their views are being listened to, but they might then also be intrigued and choose to find out more about the issue, and could perhaps change their mind on the issue, having considered the evidence.
Concluding, Dame Anne made the case that the demand for better science in policy-making must come from citizens too. It takes a lot of effort to generate scientific evidence, she argues, and it is mostly citizens who pay for this. It is entirely in our own interests to ensure that evidence is used in the best way that it can be.
Notes
The British Humanist Association (BHA) is the national charity working on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity.
The Rosalind Franklin Lecture was established to recognise and celebrate the contribution of women in Humanism – whether through achievements in science, philosophy, or the promotion of democracy and human rights. It is held on International Women’s Day (8 March), or as close as possible.
It is part of the BHA’s annual lecture series, which also includes the Darwin Day, Voltaire, Holyoake, Bentham, and Shelley Lectures.