Alexander Todd - A Time to Remember

The phenomenal rate of change which has characterised our material civilisation during this century has been wholly due to the application of scientific discoveries to practical problems - in a word, to science-based technology. Yet I wonder whether more than a very small fraction of the population ever pauses to think of the degree to which many of the accepted everyday features of our lives -automobiles, television, antibiotics and all the rest - have depended on science. Although none of us would want to be without these marvels - for that is what they are — some of us, it would seem, are so disheartened by all the social and economic problems we now face as to suggest that science is a hindrance rather than a help and that in the interest of mankind it should be controlled and regulated before it destroys us all. This is the view of the anti-science lobby which adduces the Limits to Growth thesis of the doomwatchers in its support and which vociferously supports extreme environmentalist views. The number of people dedicated to the promotion of such views is small but they obtain the support of a much wider section of the general public, including some of our politicians, who know little of science and who depend for their information about it on press, radio or television. In all these media the aim is to present information with maximum brevity and impact; inevitably this leads to the selection of sensational aspects of new discoveries which can be, and often are, dangerously misleading. Of course, no-one would claim that science has been a wholly unmixed blessing or deny that it has been on occasion misapplied. But on closer inspection its misuse usually turns out to be the fault of man and not of science - and often results from application by those too ignorant of science to realise the implications of its discoveries. At the same time one must admit that, sometimes, environmental problems like pollution have stemmed from shortsighted indifference to adverse effects on others which has all too often been manifest in the behaviour of governments as well as entrepreneurs.

I do not propose to argue here the rights and wrongs of (for example) pesticide usage or of the regulations surrounding the introduction and use of new products in medicine; much could be said about them but these are subjects for another occasion. What I wish to argue here is that just as we owe our present civilisation and standard of living largely to science it is only through the further promotion of science and technology that we will find solutions to many of the seemingly intractable problems set out at length by the Limits to Growth people. Thus I, for one, believe that the technical problems besetting the harnessing of thermonuclear fusion will be solved and mankind thereby given an inexhaustible supply of power. I believe too that the problems presented by diminishing natural resources could well be solved by the development of substitutes as yet unknown. This may sound a little like Micawberism, but it is not; of course we should take heed of the facts set out in Limits to Growth and be less wasteful of our resources - that is only common sense. But if we continue to improve our natural knowledge all experience suggests that we will see changes which will radically alter the whole pattern of our lives - or if not of our lives then of those of our children and grandchildren; and we shall survive.

Since our future will be profoundly influenced by, if not wholly dependent upon, the degree to which we understand the world in which we live threats to the free development of science deserve close attention. I made some brief allusion in my first Address to the Society in 1976 to freedom of scientific research and the danger of political interference. Since then the situation has not improved and I make no apology for returning to the subject today. Ominously, voices have been raised claiming that limits should be set to scientific enquiry -that there are questions which should not be asked and research which should not be undertaken. These are matters which ought to be taken seriously the more so as they have not only been raised by members of the lay public but have even found support among some scientists. Currently the main focus of this attack upon the freedom of choice of the research scientist is to be found in biology. It is particularly marked in the area of molecular biology especially in relation to recombinant DNA, genetic engineering, the ageing process and the genetic component of differences in human beings.

It seems to me that the motives behind this questioning are of two types. The first is simple fear of disaster stemming from dangers inherent in the nature of the research or in the methods employed to carry it out. The second is more complex but is essentially ideological and includes quasi-religious objections; it sees in the new knowledge which is sought a threat to the established order of society or to the creation of a system predetermined in the light of some political dogma. In many cases both motives are mixed up with one another and it can be difficult at times to separate and identify them. A typical - and topical - example is to be found in the much publicised debates about recombinant DNA research. Since it involves the incorporation of genes or gene fragments from all kinds of organisms into a bacterium there to be transmitted indefinitely there is obviously a theoretical possibility of danger in such research. Those who call for its prohibition, claim that one might, in doing such work, accidentally create a new pathogenic organism resistant to all known antibiotics and might, again by accident, allow it to escape from the laboratory and cause a world-wide epidemic of some new and untreatable disease. (It is only fair to point out that as far back as 1974 scientists themselves pointed out the need to pursue recombinant DNA research under conditions of safety like those commonly employed in any research dealing with pathogenic organisms.) This is, like all such cases, one in which we have to balance risk with benefit, for no venture into unknown territory can possibly be without risk. Fortunately there is reason to believe that the common-sense view of taking safety precautions will prevail and draconian measures based on fears more appropriate to science-fiction will not be invoked. But it has been a stormy business largely because of confusion in the minds of many members of the public between recombinant DNA and genetic engineering. This confusion was very evident in the much publicised activities of the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts and his committee who sought to decide whether recombinant DNA research should be forbidden in their area and raised the spectre of the production of Frankenstein-like monsters through such work. Now, if indeed such monsters were ever to be produced, it would be done by genetic engineering which is not the same as recombinant DNA, although it is true that recombinant DNA research is an essential preliminary and will bring nearer the day when genetic engineering will be possible and could then be applied to deal with certain diseases. But why is it always the more horrific science-fiction aspects of as yet unmade discoveries that are publicised?

In questioning genetic engineering we are concerned not with safety but with ideology; applied to human beings it could alter the shape of things in a way which might not fit with preconceived ideas of the future. Objections to research on the ageing process are again ideological; if it were successful in greatly extending the life-span it could, the objectors argue, gravely upset the age-structure of the population and with it the whole nature of society. And studies on the importance of genetic differences in human beings are frowned upon because they might yield results which would conflict with political dogma. It is attempts such as these to control science on ideological grounds that are most dangerous and they must be resisted at all costs. Ideological control is complete negation of all that science stands for since it rests on the assumption that we know what the future will or should be or that we wish the future to be the same as the present; whether this is for socio-political or quasi-religious reasons is irrelevant. The fact is - as I have already stated - that we cannot predict the future of society on our present knowledge with or without computers, and no society can remain static and stable simultaneously. Science asks questions and on the answers to them our future depends. To forbid questioning is therefore unacceptable. There are also practical reasons why the control of science by regulating what it may and what it may not study is not even reasonable. Attempts to do so are almost certain to fail since the discoveries which lead to new advances in technology (which is what affects us directly) are made almost at random and frequently in areas of science which have no obvious relation to practical issues. I recognise that the scale on which scientific research may be pursued must be determined by economic considerations but I am wholly opposed to any attempts to regulate or control the direction of scientific enquiry and I believe that in saying so I also speak for the Royal Society. I also believe it to be important that the public should understand our point of view, and that we as scientists have been too reluctant to present our views publicly. Perhaps we should do more to correct false impressions and allay fears about scientific matters which derive from the methods of presentation currently employed in the public media of communication.