Institute of Ideas Schools Debating Competition 2002

Hodder & Stoughton

It is dangerous to trust scientific experts

For: Kate Brown, Weald of Kent Grammar School

- They deal with facts and opinions.
- Some are more reliable than others.
- They disagree with each other.
- They're competitive.
- They speculate - often wrongly.
- Some deceive.
-Their views often reflect their self-importance.
-They are frequently influenced by emotion rather than scientific fact.

Emotions? Yes, experts are human beings like us, they have feelings and emotions - but should they let them affect their judgement? Although only a small minority would deliberately deceive others, a much larger number have been proven to deceive themselves when subjected to emotional pressure. When evidence that smoking caused lung cancer became obvious in the 1960s, many researchers still desperately continued to fight it. Why? Why would these experts try to prove each other wrong? Because their judgement was warped by emotional pressure: many were employed by tobacco companies, others were smokers themselves and trying to deny they could be facing premature death.

Lord Acton stated: 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.'

The doctor Harold Shipman illustrated Acton's view on human nature by murdering a number of his patients over many years. Doctors have our utmost trust, but also - as Shipman proved - absolute power over life and death. So should we really put our lives in the hands of these experts? Isn't it dangerous to trust them?

Finally, why should we believe what the experts say? Very often their statements merely reflect the opinion of the side that happens to be winning at that time. Take for example the space race between the two super powers the USA and the USSR. For years we believed that the USSR successfully sent Laika the dog into orbit, demonstrating its technological superiority over the Americans. It has recently transpired that little old Laika died an agonising death within hours of the launch. Can we really believe all we're told by scientific experts today? Or is it propaganda to further their own personal crusade?

It is medicine that hits the headlines most often, as it affects us all. Changes in medical technology render today's experts tomorrow's fools. Thalidomide was a drug prescribed by doctors to combat morning sickness in pregnant women. Hundreds put their trust in the so-called experts with disastrous consequences. Despite acute denial, we are all now aware Thalidomide causes birth deformities. Are the experts views really any.more than opinions of the side that happens to be ahead or winning at that particular time? Should we eat GM foods? Should we eat crisps? Should you live near a nuclear power plant? Who knows?! Who do we really believe? Science is supposed to be exact, but in today's world, much expert comment is subjective.

We were all told the Titanic was unsinkable. Look what happened there.

Against: Karen Yossman, JFS

The direction and purpose of science is to seek out the truth, from which I conclude that scientists should be trusted. Growing pressures from outside influences, however, have given science a troubled reputation and threaten to corrupt it.

One method has been to 'triangulate' the views of academics, politicians and the public on various issues on which there is admittedly a need for vigorous debate, but by experts and not laymen. This is because - contrary to what the government suggests in its manifestation of committee after committee - all knowledge is not equal. Involving amateurs (who are often politically correct yet scientifically illiterate) in scientific analysis exaggerates a sense of uncertainty and leads only to further mistrust of legitimate experts, while relegating the experienced judgements of scientists to being on par with non-experts who will in no way be better able to lend insightful arguments and knowledge to such debates, as opposed to scientists who have the experience and qualifications required in their field, backed up by education and training.

But by establishing these committees, ministers are able to displace any blame should a disaster occur, and in attempting to democratise science they are jeopardising democracy itself, setting up committees full of unelected members who are ultimately dictating our futures.

It is important to remember that despite the political and social motives behind science, there are scientific experts who assess, infer, and prioritise. Science necessitates the judicious application of expertise as opposed to opinion and superstition, in order to progress.

Many argue expert knowledge should always be of a higher value than an emotional response or even religious opinion. If there is fault then it lies with the application of science by those in government, and not by the scientists themselves. The controversy surrounding GM foods is a prime example. Genetically modified foods are produced from plants or animals which have had their genes changed in a laboratory by scientists. Although still in the early stages of development, the possibilities presented are endless, such as boosting yields and making crops and animals resistant to disease, which would be of unimaginable benefit to society.

However the anti-GM lobby is critical of GM foods, their main argument being that we do not yet know enough about them. Regulatory structures of GM foods, however, are far stricter than for conventional products and so far there is no evidence of any GM food having caused ill effects.

And yet there are no less than three committees specific to the UK on the matter - the Advisory Committee on Releases into the Environment, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, and the Food Standards Agency. There are also roles for the Committee on Toxicity in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, the Food Advisory Committee, and the Health and Safety Executive.

Any company bringing a GM product onto the market will have to have passed several expert committees, a process that takes years. In the meantime, those who could most benefit from GM food such as those in famine or poverty-stricken countries are being condemned to hunger while the debate rages on. Either way, those who will eventually be able to tell us the true extent of GM foods will be the experts.

All articles on this site © Culture Wars.