THE MARCH of UNREASON T J Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism

THE MARCH OF UNREASON T J Science, Democracy, and the New Fundamentalism DICK TAVERNE 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan South Korea Poland Portugal Singapore Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Dick Taverne The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organizations. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available ISBN – Typeset by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk Printed in Great Britain by Clays Ltd, St Ives plc Contents Prologue 1 . From Optimism to Pessimism 15 . Medicine and Magic 36 . The Myth of Organic Farming 60 . The Case for GM Crops 80 . The Case against GM Crops 107 . The Rise of Eco-fundamentalism 132 . The Perils of Precaution 168 . The Attack on Science 192 . Multinational Companies and Globalization 219 . Reason and Democracy 250 Epilogue 279 Sources 284 Index 306 Acknowledgements As a layman writing about specialized topics, I have been hugely dependent on advice from experts. Others have helped with more general comments on the book or in other important ways. I cannot thank them warmly enough for their invaluable support and encouragement. They are not of course responsible for my errors and misjudgements. I cannot name them all, but they include: Wilfred Beckerman, Tracey Brown, Nick Bunnin, Adam Burgess, Peter Campbell, Gordon Conway, Buck Creel, Andrew Cockburn, Bill Durodié, John Emsley, Marsha Filion, Mike Fitzpatrick, Walter Gratzer, Abbie Headon, Stephen Hearst, David Henderson, Sally Hirst, Roger Kalla, Chris Leaver, Bryan Magee, Mark Matfield, Latha Menon, Bill Newton-Smith, Bridget Ogilvie, Hugh Purcell, Michael Rodgers, Hilary Rubinstein, Neil Summerton, Ray Tallis, Tony Trewavas, the late Bernard Williams and Lewis Wolpert. Prologue T book is about science and society. Since I am neither a scientist nor a sociologist, but a former lawyer and politician with some experience of government and industry, perhaps I should explain why I have wandered into unfamiliar territory. I am married to a biologist and I have long been acutely aware how little most people know about science. What I find especially disturbing is that some people not only do not know about science, but do not want to know and seem proud of not knowing. Yet science, especially the science concerned with health and the environment, has come to play an ever greater part in our lives. Like many others, I fell under the spell of Rachel Carson when I read The silent spring soon after it was published in . I was persuaded that the threat which technology posed to the environment should be taken far more seriously than it was and started to read books by Paul Ehrlich and Barry Commoner, who were telling us about the disasters that lay ahead. In the late s, when I was a Treasury Minister, I took time off from contemplating the economic problems of the UK to attend a conference at which Paul Ehrlich was the star attraction. I was duly impressed by his elo- quent prophesies of doom, delivered with a kind of cheerful resig- nation (‘If you are travelling on the Titanic, you may as well travel first-class’), but I also noted the somewhat less cataclysmic views of another scientist, a wise man called Kenneth Mellanby, who argued that while there were grounds for concern, it was unlikely that we would in fact starve or be poisoned or run out of energy or other vital resources as Ehrlich predicted. A few years later the Club of Rome published The limits to growth, which claimed that economic growth would have to stop as the world was running out of resources. I was still sufficiently in thrall to the fashionable doomsters to believe that, unless we radically changed our ways, our quality of life could not survive. I joined Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace. Indeed, I would pay tribute to the useful service both performed in their early days in rousing public opinion from a certain smug indifference to the dangers of environmental degradation. In the mid-s, to make our small contribution to cleaner air, my wife and I decided to give up owning a car (which was easy for us, as we live in central London) in favour of bicycles. Incidentally, whatever its environmental merits, the decision proved extremely convenient. A bicycle has been my main form of urban transport for over thirty years and I have become more convinced than ever about its virtues. It is a most enjoyable way to travel about London. You can be sure of arriving on time; you suffer none of the frustra- tions of being stuck in traffic jams and not finding anywhere to park; you do not have to worry about dents or scratches on your car; and it is much healthier than motoring. People worry about safety, but a comparison on an actuarial basis of ‘life years’ lost through cycle accidents with gains from improved fitness reveals that for every life year lost through accidents, twenty are gained from improved health.1 The bicycle is also one of the most efficient machines ever invented for converting energy into motion: it has been described as a ‘green’ car, which ‘runs on tap water and toasted teacakes, and has a built-in gym’.2 But most important of all, the quality of urban life would be greatly improved if many more journeys were made by bicycle. There is no reason why this aim cannot be achieved in the UK. In Denmark, for instance, as a result of careful planning, more than per cent of all journeys are made by bicycle; in Britain the figure is per cent. Yet the Danes own more cars per head than the British. I cite my devotion to the bicycle as evidence that when I criti- cize the excesses of some environmentalists it is not because I do not regard care for the environment as one of the important issues of our time. But I am a pragmatic environmentalist. Risk must be weighed against benefit. I want analysis of the risk of damage to the environment to be based on evidence and recommendations for remedial action to be based on science rather than emotion. I care not only about the environment but about reason. Human beings have developed this wonderful gift and constantly ignore it. Just as we learn more about our genetic make-up and find better ways of dealing with deadly diseases, more people turn to homeopathy and other quack remedies. When it comes to food and farming, the voice of reason is stilled and the public turns to a vague yearning to go ‘back-to-nature’. Religious fundamentalism is rampant, not only in Islam and among Jewish settlers in Palestine; in America we witness the spread of creationism and the return to the beliefs that prevailed before the Enlightenment ban- ished superstition and modern science was born. Millions of born- again Christians believe in a primitive religion that features an interventionist God who, it seems, periodically answers prayers to help but is never the cause of harm. To cite one example that is not atypical: when interviewed after the hijack of an American plane, the pilot thanked God for answering his prayers and bringing him safely through his ordeal. It did not occur to him that God had also answered the prayers of the devout Muslim hijackers and helped them to seize the plane. I reflected, somewhat irreverently, that his God had much in common with the late Lord Mountbat- ten, who eventually became Viceroy of India and Chief of Defence Staff. In his earlier life he was an intrepid young naval commander in the Second World War, of whom his naval col- leagues said: ‘No one like Dickie Mountbatten to have with you in a tight spot. No one like Dickie to get you into one.’ The pilot’s gratitude for divine intervention would be a matter of private belief and of no particular importance, were it not for the growing influence of religious fundamentalism. Such fundamentalism is a serious danger to peace and democracy. It spreads intolerance wherever it is found. Optimism about scientific progress faded some time during the last century. Today science and reason are under siege from many quarters. Many people have become increasingly sceptical about the benefits of new technology and no longer trust experts. Possible risks from new developments loom larger in the public mind than possible benefits and we hear constantly about the need to apply ‘the Precautionary Principle’, as if it is some scientific law that needs no further explanation.

Load more