Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Chamber

Meeting of the Parliament 11 December 2012

11 Dec 2012 · S4 · Meeting of the Parliament

Item of business

Role of Science in Public Policy

Gray, Iain Lab East Lothian Watch on SPTV

Scotland should certainly aspire to science-based policy making, especially given our historical record in science, whether we mean Hutton working out the age of the earth for the first time, CTR Wilson—Scotland’s only science Nobel prize winner—developing the cloud chamber where the fundamental particles that make up the universe were discovered, or James Clerk Maxwell, who developed the equations that describe the underlying structure of the universe.

As many members have said, we still punch well above our weight when it comes to science. We are third in the world when it comes to peer-reviewed scientific papers per head of population and, as has already been pointed out, we garner for Scottish research facilities far more than our fair share of UK research funding. I say to the minister that it is, of course, true that we do that because of the quality of our research, but we also do it because we have access to a bigger research funding pot. I recently put to a research scientist the argument that scientists all collaborate across borders and would still be able to do that if we were independent. He replied, “I can collaborate across any border if I have the funding for my research.” That is a real concern in the scientific community that should not be dismissed.

Last year, the Royal Society of Edinburgh produced a report on the topic, which strongly made the point that, before we can have proper science-based policy making, we must have, among the public and politicians, better understanding of science. There are three areas in which our politics and science sometimes clash. One is to do with causality. Dr Simpson talked about the issues with the MMR vaccine, when a connection that was not a causal one between vaccination and autism led to a drop in herd immunity in Scotland—or to its disappearance. We must be honest and say that the problem was not just to do with the media; some politicians rode that bandwagon and contributed to the problem, which still has consequences today.

A second issue is to do with certainty. There is a lack of understanding that uncertainty is fundamentally built into the universe and science, so the question “Are you 100 per cent sure?” can never be answered with a “Yes.” Too often, we ask that question, although there cannot be the answer that we are looking for.

During the debate, we have already seen the biggest clash, which is to do with the way in which scientific consensus operates. Murdo Fraser hinted that he does not want to accept the scientific consensus on climate change. As we might expect, he was attacked by Patrick Harvie—who, of course, refuses to accept the scientific consensus on genetically modified crops, or on the safety of nuclear power and the contribution that it should make to our energy strategy.

Search Hansard contributions

Meeting of the Parliament 11 December 2012

In the same item of business