Peter Calamai

Transcending the dialogue of the deaf

By Peter Calamai

Readers of RE$EARCH MONEY don’t need to be lectured about the central place of science and technology in our daily lives. But this year ordinary Canadians have also been reminded of that reality, often in very forceful ways. The solitary but costly case of ‘Mad Cow’ disease, the SARS epidemic, the return of West Nile virus, the blackout-created problems with Candu reactors, the forest fires now consuming British Columbia. Events where it was impossible to fail to see the involvement of science and technology.

In-your-face reminders also came from beyond our borders — premature deaths in Europe’s heat wave (climate change?), possible links between SARS and animals on China’s farms, continuing controversy in Britain over genetically modified crops, the spectre of chemical and biological warfare from Iraq.

The response of the public to many of these events was usually discouraging to anyone with even a smattering of understanding about science and technology. Margaret Wente, a former managing editor of The Globe and Mail, revealed in a blackout aftermath column that she had not realized cordless telephones needed electricity to operate. (How did she think the base station got power? From a rechargeable battery that never needed replacing?)

Nor did our government representatives distinguish themselves. Judging from his daily news briefings during the recent power crisis, Ontario’s premier Ernie Eves is unaware of the basic principles of electromagnetism and, as a result, does not have a clue how a turbine produces electricity. This failing was dwarfed, however, by the across-the-board ignorance about prions, the presumptive causative agent for BSE, displayed by every federal and provincial cabinet minister who jumped into the Mad Cow fray.

Unfortunately, much the same dismal judgments about poor scientific understanding – and poor use of scientific knowledge – would be justified in almost any recent year. Decrying such a state of affairs has become a regular past-time at scientific meetings.

But not at Herstmonceux Castle in East Sussex UK where, beginning in 1996, a changing cast has been gathering annually of scientists, university leaders, senior public servants, elected politicians and even a few science journalists, including this writer. Under the general heading of Statistics, Science and Public Policy, these conferences have spanned a wide range of themes including risk, globalization, education, the environment, public trust, CP Snow’s Two Cultures today and the wider societal responsibility of scientists.

Attendance is limited to between 40 and 50, all at the invitation of Professor Agnes Herzberg of Queen’s University. These small numbers and personal selection have produced discussion that transcends the all-too-common dialogue of the deaf among scientists, public officials and the media (as surrogates for the public).

While Canadians are in a plurality at the conferences, there has been a strong presence every year from the UK and the US, plus participation from Europe and the Antipodes. Despite the title, the proportion of statisticians is no more than needed to ensure numbers are not banded about recklessly.

So far the Herstmonceux meetings have not produced a set of formal recommendations, although an attempt at such an exercise is underway. But some observations drawn from those eight years could be extremely useful for Canadians to bear in mind. The contrasting cultures of science and government often impede our handling of such science-based public challenges. Science is mostly about conclusions while politics is about decisions. Matters proceed better when both sides don’t forget this crucial difference.

Huge public emergencies often require advice in subjects that arise very infrequently. The loss-of-grid experienced by Ontario’s 12 operating Candu reactors, for example, was considered such a low-probability event that it wasn’t covered in the simulation training for station operators nor in the exhaustive licence renewal process. So knowledge and understanding about the consequences were completely lacking at top decision-making levels. The experts who did have some answers had little experience in communicating with non-experts and no track record of interaction to foster mutual trust. (The same phenomenon took place with BSE, since the federal food safety agency had identified hoof-and-mouth as the probable threat to the national herd.)

Sound scientific advice can sometimes be unwelcome, as in the warnings to the federal government in the 1980s and ‘90s about endangered cod stocks from Canadian government scientists or the climate change findings of US government scientists. Scientists need to be defended against career penalties for being the bearer of politically unpalatable facts. An institutional structure can provide some safety and help build trust, but politicians have a tendency to abolish these (the Science Council in Canada and the Office of Technology Assessment in the US).

Improved science education is a pressing need in our schools (it’s probably too late for adults like Margaret Wente). In elementary schools the initial challenge is to improve the training and selection of teachers, a national crisis from which federal agencies shy because of constitutional concerns. At the secondary level the focus should be more on teaching students about how science really works, not just imparting interesting bits and pieces. Yet Premier Eves might have fared better in the electricity crisis had anyone ever exposed him to James Maxwell’s “demon” (look it up!).

The next generation of bench scientists must become far more conversant with the making of public policy, the operation of municipal councils and legislatures and the often-exasperating foibles of the mass media. Most post-secondary education for science majors fails in student selection, teaching and cultural inculcation to such concerns.

More reporters and media gate-keepers must at least try to lift their collective gaze from just the here-and-now to informing the public about issues that stretch to a five-year horizon. Does anyone honestly believe that Canadians are ready for the first xenotransplantation?

Participants at the Herstmonceux conferences are under no illusions that they have all the answers to emergent challenges. But they have demonstrated that it is possible to identify promising approaches that could greatly improve society’s handling of the daunting challenges science and technology will continue to present.

Peter Calamai is national science reporter for the Toronto Star.