The role of government Chief Scientific Adviser in the UK is now deeply embedded in the political system of the country – the first, Sir Solly Zuckerman, was appointed in 1964. The CSA is the face of science at the highest level of government. He (no woman has yet held the position) will inevitably be an Establishment figure reflecting mainstream opinion. Of the 11 holders of the position to day, all but two were knighted.
This is clearly no role for an outsider who may offer alternative views, but it is important that governments have that formal scientific input, even if they do not always choose to act on it. The European Commission has, regrettably, decided not to continue with the role of Chief Scientist but we can only hope that this retrograde decision will be reversed before too long.
Sir Mark Walport, a medical scientist who was previously Director of the Wellcome Trust, was appointed to be UK CSA in 2013 and has just published his first Annual Report, entitled Innovation: Managing risk, not avoiding it. This is a summary and discussion of the Evidence and Case Studies produced by a group of distinguished authors and published in parallel.
Sir Mark’s report has received little media attention (although see the Times article Safety-first rulings ‘stifling innovation’) but arguably should have done. While some people may criticise the CSA’s adherence to the received wisdom on the big issue of the day (it would be something of a miracle if he seriously rocked the boat) he actually makes a strong, if carefully worded, attack on the present culture of precaution which pervades the EU. This deserves much greater attention, as it could be very important for the future prosperity of European society.
To quote selected points as he develops his argument:
The infrastructure created by humans and the natural infrastructure of the planet are both vital for our survival and wellbeing. It is only possible for more than seven billion people to inhabit the Earth because of our ability to modify our environment.
The need to innovate is a fundamental requirement for social and economic progress. Innovative economies are more competitive, respond better to change, see higher returns on investment and create increased living standards.
However, innovation is not an unalloyed good — almost all innovations can cause both benefit and harm. Because of this, discussion of innovation has become almost inseparable from discussion of risk. Paradoxically, this discussion has become more prominent precisely because the innovations of previous generations have made our lives much safer and free of risk. People living in advanced economies have become more risk averse compared to previous generations. A common denominator of innovation in every generation is that it solves problems, creates wealth and new employment, while at the same time potentially disrupting the status quo of existing wealth and employment, and creating new problems and challenges.
One of the biggest challenges is to distinguish between hazard, exposure, risk, and vulnerability. Understanding this terminology really matters. This is because hazard is frequently equated or confused with risk, and this leads to poor debate, confused communication and flawed decision-making.
In particular, he notes ‘two fundamental confusions that bedevil debate on several important regulatory topics, particularly within Europe’. The first is the way in which the notions of hazard and risk are differently embedded in national modes of policymaking. This is why it is so important that we share a common understanding of the distinctions between hazard, risk, and vulnerability. The second is a drift of interpretation of the precautionary principle from what was, in effect, a holding position pending further evidence, to what is now effectively a stop sign. To be meaningful, the precautionary principle requires a rational response to uncertainty (as distinct from risk.)
This speaks for itself, and there is little I can usefully add. UK governments have tended to take a more rational, science-based approach to decision-making in the EU than certain other Member States, as their voting record on GM crop authorisations shows. Perhaps Sir Mark’s report will have no impact in Brussels but I hope it does. Europe is already in danger of becoming an economic backwater in years to come and an insistence on a hazard-based, excessively precautionary approach to innovation can only further accelerate that trend.
Martin Livermore
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
_______________________________________________________