Antagonism towards science is very damaging to science itself, but it is also very damaging to the public's health. Karlin Lillington reports
Why do so many people opt for herbal pills rather than see their doctor? Avoid immunising their children? Run from genetically modified foods?
"Science anxiety," explains Dr David McConnell, professor of genetics at Trinity College. McConnell, who recently delivered the prestigious Littleton Lecture at RTÉ - to be broadcast on St Stephen's Day by RTÉ Radio 1 - argues passionately on behalf of science and its wonders in the lecture, while considering the prickly relationship between science and the public, which he feels directly affects our health and well-being.
Relaxing on a sunny winter morning in his book-filled Blackrock home, he laments: "You have the public very wary and even antagonistic towards science. This is very damaging to science but in the longer run, it is very damaging to the public."
He notes that more and more credence is given, often through extensive media coverage, to fears that stem from unproven claims or questionable "studies" published in nondescript journals.
Overwhelming medical evidence and study after controlled study have disproven any connection between the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine and autism, he says, yet parents remain more fearful of the vaccine than the serious, even fatal, childhood illnesses it prevents.
Likewise, genetically modified (GM) foods have been rigorously tested for over 30 years and have been proven to be safe, yet the public remains wary of them. "Even though all our foods are genetically modified," he says. "All domesticated grains for example result from centuries of genetic control and modification."
And don't even get him started on the current US administration's acceptance and even promotion of "intelligent design" rather than Darwin's theory of evolution. "That has the same status as disputing the 'theory' that the earth is round."
Where does such scepticism towards science, and openness to the untested, unproven and unverified come from?
"We in science have to take part of the blame."
Scientists are not the best communicators, and also so involved with their own work and worlds that they forget the public doesn't necessarily accept what they see as undisputed fact, he says. "And there are people who take advantage of public concerns, scientists who touch a raw nerve and suddenly, they are celebrities. The press is in a difficult position because, like the public, they often can't tell if these ideas are right or not right."
But the real core of the problem is a public that doesn't really understand science and the scientific method, the slow process of verifying observations in controlled circumstances and then testing and retesting to reproduce the same results.
In his Littleton lecture, McConnell takes his theme from the writer Isaiah Berlin, who described the advance of science and technology as "the greatest success story of our time". The reason for their success, says McConnell, is the scientific method.
"If people knew more about the scientific method and how science is done, they'd have more confidence in science and know better how to distinguish between good science and bad science," he argues.
So many of our health and environmental concerns - SARS, incinerators, vaccines, GM food, nuclear power, global warming - are actually scientific concerns and need to be viewed in the context of scientific study and validation, he says.
This means looking at studies that have been done and understanding the rigour to which they are subject, which should bring reassurance to the public. Scientists need to publish their findings for them to gain credence, and once published, they are subject to even further scrutiny.
"Through publishing, ultimately, you are exposing your ideas, just like a poet or a composer. But everyone judges the accuracy of your ideas, whereas you don't judge the accuracy of a sonata," he says.
Yet too often, the public doubt the scientific studies and opt for what may sound like proper studies or informed critics, but actually aren't. But why?
He muses and answers: "Over the last 50 years, people have been taught to think for themselves. But in science, not all opinions are equal. Again, the press has a huge role in this. It comes back to the responsibility of the press to mediate between scientists and the public."
Genetic engineering, which consistently gets a bad press, is an example of what can go wrong. "Genetic engineering has revolutionised medicine, agriculture, forensic science. For example, we were running out of insulin, then suddenly, we could produce insulin from yeast." He also mentions rennet, a necessary ingredient to form cheese, and which originally came from the fourth stomach of a freshly slaughtered calf. "Most cheese in the world is now made with genetically modified rennet, produced from bacteria, not calves. Most people do not even realise they eat GM foods daily in this way. There's no other area of science with a cleaner record. Yet vast numbers of people are deeply suspicious."
Perhaps the public finds some aspects of genetic modification scary - the so-called "frankenfoods" aspect of placing, say, a fish gene into a tomato.
"I don't find them scary! I have no problem because a fish gene in my tomato enables them to survive frosts, because fish are able to continue to function in low water temperatures without their blood freezing.
"I am not afraid, because I know that everything is related on the planet by descent already. That is what the theory of evolution makes clear."
The problem is the public is now totally disconnected from the general ideas of science, he says. "We need the help of the general public [ through education and the media] - there needs to be a meeting of minds. And we, as scientists, need to be more clever about bringing science to the public."
As an example of media disinterest in science, he wonders why you hear a slogan like "RTÉ supporting the arts" and not "RTÉ supporting the sciences". "Why is it that science is not an integral part of our culture?" he asks. "What I'd like to see is day in, day out coverage of science." For an example of what broad TV coverage can do, he points towards environmental science, which he thinks draws great public interest and has heightened awareness because of years of popular nature programmes on television.
And in education, he'd like a stronger core curriculum, solid in the sciences as well as the arts, that gives both depth and breadth to students through Leaving Certificate level, allowing students to focus on their career interest at third level.
The end result might one day be what this prolific scientist and writer wished for in a past essay: "That is my touchstone - that science will be as much part of our culture as are the humanities."
• Dr David McConnell is professor of genetics at TCD; Fellow of TCD and Harvard University, and chairman of the Irish Times Trust.