A Time to Remember

by Alexander Todd

  Nowadays one often hears statements to the effect that civilisation is at a turning point and these statements are not infrequently coupled with a very gloomy outlook on the future of society or even with a denial that it has a future at all. Certainly it is true that there is much to discourage us the present scene. The subject was touched upon by the President of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States in his Presidential Report for 1977; he summarised the situation in the following words:

  Consider the current scene: the largest, deadliest arms race in history, in a world that almost nourishes international tensions and conflict; self-defeating population growth in those nations least able to afford it; hunger and malnutrition on a vast scale; the countdown as domestic and foreign supplies of liquid and gaseous fossil fuels decline; uncertainty concerning the future of nuclear energy; pressure from the industrially less developed nations for a 'new economic order', generating ever harsher political strains; dependence of the industrial economy of the nation upon access to diverse mineral resources outside our boundaries, resources upon which we can no longer count simply because they are there; the economic consequences to this nation of the increasing industrial productivity of others; the new social problems attendant upon an aging population; the changing economic circumstances of various regions of our country; over-capacity of the nation's educational plant imposing constraints upon the career aspirations of young scholars; unsatisfied aspirations for opportunity, equity, and justice of various segments of our society; growing egalitarianism coupled, too frequently, with a lowering of educational standards; the twin spectres of unemployment and inflation; continuing decay of most of our cities; an inadequate but ever more expensive health care system; escalating costs of all services. Withal, we are sufficiently affluent to demand protection of the environment, both for aesthetic reasons and for protection of the public health, and to place ever greater emphasis on the safety of the materials, products and processes with which we traffic, introducing economic costs of considerable but uncertain magnitude.

  These words were, of course, addressed to an American audience; but they could be addressed equally to a British one or to one from most other industrialised nations. And they certainly give food for thought. Change is inherent in progress (however one defines that term!) and so at all times people feel that there is something special about the particular period in which they live. Yet this is not necessarily so since our perspective of the present is distorting and the future is continuously being determined by us and by what we make of the present. Major transitions are rare although they do occur from time to time; one such was associated with the industrial revolution which began about two centuries ago and which has largely shaped the world we know today. That transition was, I believe, mainly due to one of the inventions that triggered the industrial revolution - that of the steam engine - which gave us access to plentiful and flexible mechanical power. All our tremendous scientific and technological achievements since then rest essentially on the stimulus given to society by that one invention. The social systems built up during previous centuries were unable to cope with the new circumstances of the industrial revolution and so there were many upheavals - some of them violent - from the French Revolution onwards during the period of flux before society, in the late nineteenth century, came to some kind of terms with the new world. But that accommodation could not last in the face of ever-accelerating technological advance and we are again in sore straits.

  There are, it seems to me, so many similarities between the situation today and that of the early phases of the industrial revolution that, while acknowledging the difficulty of reaching an objective assessment of present events, I feel that we may indeed be living at another major period of transition. Again we have new inventions, all based, this time, on science, whose effects seem certain to be revolutionary and to impose severe strains - already becoming visible - on our society. Among the most vital of these new things are the harnessing of nuclear energy, the invention of the computer the explosive development of micro-electronics, and the remarkable advances in molecular biology. All these have been proceeding so rapidly that during the past twenty years we have been brought face to face with a new world and are forced to look anew at ourselves and to adapt if we are to play any significant role in it. This is especially true of Britain which, although it was one of the first and most successful countries in seizing the opportunities presented by the earlier industrial revolution and in adapting its society to it, has not been outstandingly successful in this new one. There is probably no single or simple explanation for our economic decline relative to some other countries but I believe its origins are to be found in the latter part of the nineteenth century and lie in the twin effects of our early industrial success and the great development of the British Empire. I suspect that the vast inflow of wealth from the empire had a feather-bedding effect on our economy so that we were able to turn a blind eye to our growing industrial obsolescence and our declining productivity during the burgeoning era of science-based technology. And despite all changing circumstances we have gone on diminishing in our wealth-producing capacity and matters have been made worse by our failure to adjust our social and political systems to a rapidly changing world. It could well be argued, too, that a similar feather-bedding occurred in some other countries as a consequence of colonialism and the exploitation of the agricultural and mineral resources of the underdeveloped countries. Now that these underdeveloped countries - partly through population pressure - want a bigger share of the cake the shortcomings of more than one western economy are being revealed. The oil crisis of 1973 came as a rude shock to the industrialised countries and seemed at first likely to make them face their problems realistically. In Britain the discovery and exploitation of massive oil resources in the North Sea and adjacent waters gave us a great opportunity — a kind of breathing space in which we could change our ways and build for a new future. I still hope we will seize this opportunity, although I sometimes fear that we may repeat our past disastrous behaviour and squander the proceeds of North Sea oil in propping up rather than reforming our antiquated economy so that before the end of this century we will be back in the mire again. There are disturbing signs that this may happen - deliberate overmanning and protection of jobs by subsidising lame duck industries rather than by the development of new industries and new jobs, low investment coupled with low profitability, and growth in public expenditure which seems to take little or no account of financial realities. In varying degree, of course, these or similar signs are visible in most industrialised nations and they have caused some people at least to argue that our civilisation is grinding to a halt and others to predict impending doom through exhaustion of the world's resources and inability to meet our energy needs. Personally, I cannot accept either of these gloomy predictions based as they are on what their proponents consider to be current trends. I have little faith in futurology, and forecasts of the future carried out by computer or crystal ball are about equally reliable. Of course the doomwatchers will be right if we do nothing and everything remains as it is now - but that is not, nor ever has been, the way the world goes.

  The phenomenal rate of change which has characterised our material civilisation during this century has been wholly due to the application of scientific discoveries to practical problems - in a word, to science-based technology. Yet I wonder whether more than a very small fraction of the population ever pauses to think of the degree to which many of the accepted everyday features of our lives -automobiles, television, antibiotics and all the rest - have depended on science. Although none of us would want to be without these marvels - for that is what they are — some of us, it would seem, are so disheartened by all the social and economic problems we now face as to suggest that science is a hindrance rather than a help and that in the interest of mankind it should be controlled and regulated before it destroys us all. This is the view of the anti-science lobby which adduces the Limits to Growth th
esis of the doomwatchers in its support and which vociferously supports extreme environmentalist views. The number of people dedicated to the promotion of such views is small but they obtain the support of a much wider section of the general public, including some of our politicians, who know little of science and who depend for their information about it on press, radio or television. In all these media the aim is to present information with maximum brevity and impact; inevitably this leads to the selection of sensational aspects of new discoveries which can be, and often are, dangerously misleading. Of course, no-one would claim that science has been a wholly unmixed blessing or deny that it has been on occasion misapplied. But on closer inspection its misuse usually turns out to be the fault of man and not of science - and often results from application by those too ignorant of science to realise the implications of its discoveries. At the same time one must admit that, sometimes, environmental problems like pollution have stemmed from shortsighted indifference to adverse effects on others which has all too often been manifest in the behaviour of governments as well as entrepreneurs.

  I do not propose to argue here the rights and wrongs of (for example) pesticide usage or of the regulations surrounding the introduction and use of new products in medicine; much could be said about them but these are subjects for another occasion. What I wish to argue here is that just as we owe our present civilisation and standard of living largely to science it is only through the further promotion of science and technology that we will find solutions to many of the seemingly intractable problems set out at length by the Limits to Growth people. Thus I, for one, believe that the technical problems besetting the harnessing of thermonuclear fusion will be solved and mankind thereby given an inexhaustible supply of power. I believe too that the problems presented by diminishing natural resources could well be solved by the development of substitutes as yet unknown. This may sound a little like Micawberism, but it is not; of course we should take heed of the facts set out in Limits to Growth and be less wasteful of our resources - that is only common sense. But if we continue to improve our natural knowledge all experience suggests that we will see changes which will radically alter the whole pattern of our lives - or if not of our lives then of those of our children and grandchildren; and we shall survive.

  Since our future will be profoundly influenced by, if not wholly dependent upon, the degree to which we understand the world in which we live threats to the free development of science deserve close attention. I made some brief allusion in my first Address to the Society in 1976 to freedom of scientific research and the danger of political interference. Since then the situation has not improved and I make no apology for returning to the subject today. Ominously, voices have been raised claiming that limits should be set to scientific enquiry -that there are questions which should not be asked and research which should not be undertaken. These are matters which ought to be taken seriously the more so as they have not only been raised by members of the lay public but have even found support among some scientists. Currently the main focus of this attack upon the freedom of choice of the research scientist is to be found in biology. It is particularly marked in the area of molecular biology especially in relation to recombinant DNA, genetic engineering, the ageing process and the genetic component of differences in human beings.

  It seems to me that the motives behind this questioning are of two types. The first is simple fear of disaster stemming from dangers inherent in the nature of the research or in the methods employed to carry it out. The second is more complex but is essentially ideological and includes quasi-religious objections; it sees in the new knowledge which is sought a threat to the established order of society or to the creation of a system predetermined in the light of some political dogma. In many cases both motives are mixed up with one another and it can be difficult at times to separate and identify them. A typical - and topical - example is to be found in the much publicised debates about recombinant DNA research. Since it involves the incorporation of genes or gene fragments from all kinds of organisms into a bacterium there to be transmitted indefinitely there is obviously a theoretical possibility of danger in such research. Those who call for its prohibition, claim that one might, in doing such work, accidentally create a new pathogenic organism resistant to all known antibiotics and might, again by accident, allow it to escape from the laboratory and cause a world-wide epidemic of some new and untreatable disease. (It is only fair to point out that as far back as 1974 scientists themselves pointed out the need to pursue recombinant DNA research under conditions of safety like those commonly employed in any research dealing with pathogenic organisms.) This is, like all such cases, one in which we have to balance risk with benefit, for no venture into unknown territory can possibly be without risk. Fortunately there is reason to believe that the common-sense view of taking safety precautions will prevail and draconian measures based on fears more appropriate to science-fiction will not be invoked. But it has been a stormy business largely because of confusion in the minds of many members of the public between recombinant DNA and genetic engineering. This confusion was very evident in the much publicised activities of the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts and his committee who sought to decide whether recombinant DNA research should be forbidden in their area and raised the spectre of the production of Frankenstein-like monsters through such work. Now, if indeed such monsters were ever to be produced, it would be done by genetic engineering which is not the same as recombinant DNA, although it is true that recombinant DNA research is an essential preliminary and will bring nearer the day when genetic engineering will be possible and could then be applied to deal with certain diseases. But why is it always the more horrific science-fiction aspects of as yet unmade discoveries that are publicised?

  In questioning genetic engineering we are concerned not with safety but with ideology; applied to human beings it could alter the shape of things in a way which might not fit with preconceived ideas of the future. Objections to research on the ageing process are again ideological; if it were successful in greatly extending the life-span it could, the objectors argue, gravely upset the age-structure of the population and with it the whole nature of society. And studies on the importance of genetic differences in human beings are frowned upon because they might yield results which would conflict with political dogma. It is attempts such as these to control science on ideological grounds that are most dangerous and they must be resisted at all costs. Ideological control is complete negation of all that science stands for since it rests on the assumption that we know what the future will or should be or that we wish the future to be the same as the present; whether this is for socio-political or quasi-religious reasons is irrelevant. The fact is - as I have already stated - that we cannot predict the future of society on our present knowledge with or without computers, and no society can remain static and stable simultaneously. Science asks questions and on the answers to them our future depends. To forbid questioning is therefore unacceptable. There are also practical reasons why the control of science by regulating what it may and what it may not study is not even reasonable. Attempts to do so are almost certain to fail since the discoveries which lead to new advances in technology (which is what affects us directly) are made almost at random and frequently in areas of science which have no obvious relation to practical issues. I recognise that the scale on which scientific research may be pursued must be determined by economic considerations but I am wholly opposed to any attempts to regulate or control the direction of scientific enquiry and I believe that in saying so I also speak for the Royal Society. I also believe it to be important that the public should understand our point of view, and that we as scientists have been too reluctant to present our views publicly. Perhaps we should do more to correct false impressions and allay fears about scientific matters which derive from the methods of presentation currently employed in the public media of communication.

  What I have just said refers to science; the situation is different when we
consider technology. Technology is simply the application of discovery or invention to the solution of practical problems and it is technology and not science which has a direct effect on our daily lives. Today, of course, it is largely science-based but there is no reason why it should not be directed according to national interests. Moreover, some technological developments which could be undertaken on the basis of scientific discovery could well be undesirable and ought to be restrained. Not infrequently new and apparently desirable technology can pose questions which we are unable to answer because we lack scientific knowledge. What we do not know could well be more dangerous than what we know; that is particularly so in matters relating to our natural environment. Many of our pollution problems have their origin in past technological developments which were undertaken without knowledge of their potentially harmful consequences. Today, concern is expressed about possible effects of supersonic transport or the extended use of certain aerosols upon the upper atmosphere on a global scale - for we have advanced technologically to a point where our actions could have a global rather than a mere local effect. In this particular instance what we lack is scientific knowledge of the upper atmosphere and especially of its chemistry. Such knowledge should be sought and although, as I have argued, one cannot control the direction of scientific enquiry by decree it should be both possible and acceptable to encourage research on a topic of this type perhaps by increased funding. It is unfortunate, however, that much of the scientific work needed in the environmental field is not very exciting, requires an elaborate interdisciplinary approach and does not offer much scientific kudos to the individual investigator. How to get round these problems and attract into the environmental field a larger share of our best scientific talent is a major problem at the present time.

  One of the most difficult problems governments frequently have to face is the choice between several alternative technological options; in some cases such as nuclear energy the choice could have widespread and important economic consequences. Choice is ultimately a matter of political and not scientific decision; but if the choice is to be wise it cannot be taken without scientific and technological advice. Here we approach the problems of science policy and the social responsibility of scientists. As to the latter the scientist has the same social responsibility as any other citizen; in discharging it, it is his duty to provide both government and the public with the facts of a scientific discovery or technological advance together with an objective appraisal of possible implications as far as he can foresee them. His task in a democracy is not to take political decisions, but to provide the evidence upon which rational decisions can be taken. That is why I believe that the recent activity of the Royal Society in promoting and publishing the findings of study groups and interdisciplinary discussions on current scientific problems and the issuing of reports and appraisals of Government reports on technological questions are so valuable; these activities should and I hope will be intensified in the national interest. But they ought to receive wider publicity and in this connection it may be that Fellows should be more ready than they, perhaps, have been, to make their views more widely known so as to combat misinformation of the public. For misinformation or slanted information is an everyday occurrence in matters scientific and it stems in large measure from the methods used for the dissemination of news. Abbreviation is the keynote and it reaches its peak in television where a snapshot-like visual and auditory effect is the objective; in striving for this, distortion in favour of the sensational or arresting is almost inevitable. I believe it to be very much in the public interest that an answer to this should be found.