Alexander Todd - A Time to Remember

What I have just said refers to science; the situation is different when we consider technology. Technology is simply the application of discovery or invention to the solution of practical problems and it is technology and not science which has a direct effect on our daily lives. Today, of course, it is largely science-based but there is no reason why it should not be directed according to national interests. Moreover, some technological developments which could be undertaken on the basis of scientific discovery could well be undesirable and ought to be restrained. Not infrequently new and apparently desirable technology can pose questions which we are unable to answer because we lack scientific knowledge. What we do not know could well be more dangerous than what we know; that is particularly so in matters relating to our natural environment. Many of our pollution problems have their origin in past technological developments which were undertaken without knowledge of their potentially harmful consequences. Today, concern is expressed about possible effects of supersonic transport or the extended use of certain aerosols upon the upper atmosphere on a global scale - for we have advanced technologically to a point where our actions could have a global rather than a mere local effect. In this particular instance what we lack is scientific knowledge of the upper atmosphere and especially of its chemistry. Such knowledge should be sought and although, as I have argued, one cannot control the direction of scientific enquiry by decree it should be both possible and acceptable to encourage research on a topic of this type perhaps by increased funding. It is unfortunate, however, that much of the scientific work needed in the environmental field is not very exciting, requires an elaborate interdisciplinary approach and does not offer much scientific kudos to the individual investigator. How to get round these problems and attract into the environmental field a larger share of our best scientific talent is a major problem at the present time.

One of the most difficult problems governments frequently have to face is the choice between several alternative technological options; in some cases such as nuclear energy the choice could have widespread and important economic consequences. Choice is ultimately a matter of political and not scientific decision; but if the choice is to be wise it cannot be taken without scientific and technological advice. Here we approach the problems of science policy and the social responsibility of scientists. As to the latter the scientist has the same social responsibility as any other citizen; in discharging it, it is his duty to provide both government and the public with the facts of a scientific discovery or technological advance together with an objective appraisal of possible implications as far as he can foresee them. His task in a democracy is not to take political decisions, but to provide the evidence upon which rational decisions can be taken. That is why I believe that the recent activity of the Royal Society in promoting and publishing the findings of study groups and interdisciplinary discussions on current scientific problems and the issuing of reports and appraisals of Government reports on technological questions are so valuable; these activities should and I hope will be intensified in the national interest. But they ought to receive wider publicity and in this connection it may be that Fellows should be more ready than they, perhaps, have been, to make their views more widely known so as to combat misinformation of the public. For misinformation or slanted information is an everyday occurrence in matters scientific and it stems in large measure from the methods used for the dissemination of news. Abbreviation is the keynote and it reaches its peak in television where a snapshot-like visual and auditory effect is the objective; in striving for this, distortion in favour of the sensational or arresting is almost inevitable. I believe it to be very much in the public interest that an answer to this should be found.

Reprinted from Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. 369, 299-306 (1980)

To me at least one of the most interesting features of the Report of Council is the evidence it provides of the Society's increasing concern with major problems and issues of the day where the provision of objective scientific evidence as a basis for political decision is necessary. Especially is it necessary in those matters where facts tend to be ignored or distorted by groups (often quite small) of ideologically motivated fanatics, or perhaps unintentionally by news reporters under the twin pressures of meeting a deadline and producing something which is at once brief and arresting. I had occasion last year to mention one such topic - recombinant DNA research. In this year's Report you will see that three new Royal Society Study Groups have been established: one on Assessment and Perception of Risks (Chairman, Sir Frederick Warner), a second on Safety in Research (Chairman, Sir Ewart Jones) and a third on The Nitrogen Cycle (Chairman, Professor W. D. P. Stewart). In addition a Joint Working Party on Biotechnology (i.e. the application of biological organisms, processes, and systems to industry) has been set up with the Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development (A.CA.R.D.) and the Advisory Board for the Research Councils (A.B.R.C.) under the chairmanship of Dr A. Spinks. I would also draw your attention to the ad hoc group which under the chairmanship of the Physical Secretary is preparing a submission to the government's Commission on Energy and the Environment on the whole problem of coal and its future in the economy. The group is studying the available evidence on reserve identification and extraction, transport, and handling of coal as well as environmental effects, conversion and utilisation techniques and effluent problems; many of these important issues tend to be glossed over or ignored in public statements about a future (and hypothetical) 'coal economy'. Yet another ad hoc group under the chairmanship of Dr G. B. R. Feilden is considering afresh the interface between industry and the academic world and the role which the Society might play in the future development of the Industrial Research Associations. You will notice also the substantial number of Discussion Meetings that have been held. These meetings, which have been a feature of recent years, fulfil an important function. Not only are many of them interdisciplinary in their coverage but they can serve as a mechanism for focusing public attention on certain problems or matters of technical debate. It is my hope that our activities in these directions, including the preparation of reports on important national issues and responsible discussion of the problems involved - whether on our own initiative or at the request of government - will continue and expand. For, more than ever before, our daily existence is dependent on advances in science-based technology and our future depends more than many people seem to realise upon the use we make of the new technologies which will develop on the basis of today's discoveries in science. Failure to choose wisely among the various choices open to us, or, even worse, to ignore them in the vain hope of continuing to operate antiquated technologies successfully in the competitive arena of world trade spells disaster for any industrialised country. Yet this is what we have been doing in Britain in recent years although the extent of our economic decline is currently hidden from an unthinking public by the fortuitous (but temporary) inflow of wealth from the North Sea oilfields. Time was when the area of choice open to governments in the formulation of national policy was limited and the factors governing choice comparatively straightforward and simple to understand. But that time has long since gone. The development of science-based technology that followed on the heels of the industrial revolution continues to gather force and there is no way in which it can be halted. Human society cannot escape the consequences of new knowledge which will emerge from science in the future and, as the rate of accretion increases, so too will the complexity of choice and the number of options open to governments whatever their political colour. In a democracy like ours scientific expertise among politicians is hardly common and today governments are bombarded from all sides with a babel of advice from pressure groups, much of it misinformed or heavily biased. It is not my purpose today to argue in detail the mechanisms by which the need for external and independent advice should be met, but it seems to me that the Royal Society is a body uniquely constituted to organise the provision of that advice. I believe that this is an area in which the Society should be more active than it has been in recent times, and the setting up and further development of the study groups and discussions mentioned in the Report is an earnest of that belief.