Special FOCUS
Is evidence evident? Anne Glover, Chief Scientific Adviser to the President of the European Commission
Science and technology play a central role in our society. They are part of everybody’s life, they help to tackle the grand challenges of humankind and they create innovation and jobs and improve quality of life. Science and technology are part of our culture, and in essence define us as a species that “wants to know”–hence why we are called Homo sapiens. But do we really give science its proper value when it comes to taking political decisions? Biotechnology and genetics in particular, are striking examples. Take genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The scientific consensus is that GM food is not riskier than conventionally farmed food. If you look at the scientific opinions the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has delivered in this field, you might be puzzled to see that some EU Member 22
States vote 100% in favour of the scientific opinion, while others vote 100% against the scientific opinion–based on the same evidence. This voting behaviour suggests that public opinion and perceptions, and not the evidence of science, steer debate more in some countries than in others. This does not serve all citizens well as everyone deserves to benefit from leading-edge scientific knowledge being generated in Europe.
communicated is research not done. If scientists don’t communicate effectively about their findings, other more doubtful lobbies will fill the gap and the societal debate will get off on the wrong foot. Once this happens, it is very hard for even the best scientists to make themselves heard.
Are there lessons to be learned for the introduction of future technologies? How can we achieve a more rational and robust societal debate that balances both the risks and the rewards?
In the case of biotechnology this means that generating first class knowledge is not enough. Scientists must better communicate what biotechnology can offer to enhance people’s lives or to tackle wider challenges in the fields of health and food security, for instance. This does not mean that risk assessments should not be done or ignored, on the contrary. But risks need to be put into perspective and balanced against the likely rewards.
First of all, scientists must communicate more proactively about their research and their methods. Research not
The language used by scientists is also important: it must be easy to understand, while not neglecting the communication