Editor's Page The silence of scientists John Hanley is Monsanto's chairman and chief executive officer. He spoke earlier this month at a Washington, D.C., meeting of the U.S. Society of Toxicology. Here, verbatim, is part of what he had to say. I think [toxicologists] have a major role as molders of public opinion. People today eagerly seek assurances of safety. Because of that, unproven theories and concepts developed by toxicologists in their labs quickly become accepted as fact and are put to practical use—too frequently in government regulations. The dangers in this situation are obvious: misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and misapplication. What kind of role should you play in overcoming public misunderstanding of scientific research? Can you find better ways of communicating your results? The answers to these questions might mean that you're going to have to get more involved in the practical applications of your science—specifically in the brier-patch of risk assessment. From the periphery, it seems to me that you are doing an excellent job of determining toxicity. But that doesn't mean much if it is not applied to real-world situations like the workplace. Once we know its toxicity, what kind of hazard does the use of a particular chemical pose? What does "risk" really mean? Risk is a complicated equation involving toxicity, hazard, and potential for exposure. I suggest that your segment of society is best equipped to develop that equation. The public is not an unthinking mob, and it can understand the facts if properly presented. The problem is that the scientific facts are not always explained well enough or put in proper perspective. It's a fact that apple seeds can kill you—but what does that fact mean unless placed in perspective? That's a role I'm suggesting you consider—placing the facts in proper perspective, explaining them to the public. In the longer time frame, that may be every bit as important as coming up with reliable data in the first place. In fact, it's becoming more important. Like it or not, toxicology doesn't exist in a pleasant academic vacuum. It's naive to think that truth prevails just by the force of being right. If it's not communicated, if it's not put to sensible and responsible uses to solve real human problems, then the pursuit of scientific truth becomes an idle pastime. Toxicology today touches the real world of ordinary people regardless of the intention of the researcher. Therefore, toxicologists have a special obligation to evaluate and interpret their results to a general audience in order to minimize the possibility of misunderstanding. If you keep quiet when truth and reason are trampled on, you become an accomplice of the charlatan who distorted or covered up the truth in the first place. Acquiescence in this case is complicity. In the long run, I have faith that good science will prevail in public opinion. It must prevail. If we don't believe that, we might as well pack our bags and go home, leaving the pursuit of truth to soothsayers, mystics, and others who get their guidance from visions and revelations. If good science is not taken to the public then the multitude of pseudo-scientists and "instant experts"—who represent every imaginable special interest and flaky idea—will continue to speak for science in the making of public policy. Commit yourselves to a fair public debate. When you see a regulatory decision based on bad science, speak up. When you come across a dubious and self-serving claim by industry, set the record straight. The silence of scientists in public debate will mean that pseudo-science carries the day. "Instant experts" will speak for you if you don't. The result is public confusion and mistrust. Today the public perceives a situation in which those speaking for science cannot even agree on the fundamentals, and the scientific method seems to be vituperation. In the end, the public may come to question the reputability of science itself. If that happens, our society will have lost its vision. The great progress of our civilization has been directly related to the centrality of science in our culture. I ask you to take a hard look at your role in restoring science to its central position. Somebody's got to get things back in focus. •
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
March 24, 1980 C&EN
5
