ROLE OF SCIENTISTS RESPECT FOR SCIENCE on the whole is not what it should be. This is reflected in the low intake of students taking up careers in science. The reasons for this are not difficult to spot. The Western world has bolstered its economy by selling modern weapons of destruction to those who might have settled their disputes amicably. This suggests to young people that scientists have ‘blood on their hands’. Factory farming symbolises cruelty to animals and chemists running amok poisoning the food chain. In a green-conscious society, which reaches right down to the primary school, the scientist appears as the villain responsible for the destruction of the ozone layer and polluting the sea. Some blame the Victorian age which brought us the benefits of fossil fuels and assumed that the by-products of the industries could be flushed away into vast areas of air and water, something that God had provided for such a purpose. It all sounds as though the scientists are the wicked ones and the world could well be rid of them. This is where one can fall into the trap of fragmented thinking, because blame is so often misplaced when only symptoms are focused upon. Scientists of industry design and produce what demand dictates, and the root cause of many problems we heap on ourselves, point to education. Those who insist that the 3 Rs are the magic solution to a better world, should dwell on the fact that the most brutal dictators in Africa had a ‘good’ British education. Politicians are expected to guide scientists in positive directions, but they are motivated to placate people within their constituency rather than display a wise ethical role. For example, if an inventor designed a super effective land-mine and it provided jobs in an area of high unemployment, the export potential would be given a higher priority than the consideration that the mines would be destroying innocent lives for years to come. If our
234