Cuttings.

摘要

The Lancet has taken a rather perverse attitude to the Royal Society. Britain's oldest scientific academy has an enviable record. And yet the editors of this journal have preferred to point at the Royal Society's weaknesses rather than its strengths. While this may be entertaining, even valuably provocative, journalism, it upsets many scientists. The Royal Society is, after all, an emblem of British excellence.There is an opportunity now for The Lancet to put its weight behind what seems to me a very sensible series of recommendations concerning science communication. Science and the Public Interest is the result of 3 years of careful deliberation by the Royal Society. Its work suggests a thoughtful and serious engagement with public concerns about science. Patrick Bateson, the chair of the working group that wrote the review, called for nothing less than a wholesale "change in culture among researchers". Incredible!The threat that Bateson dangled before scientists was some kind of new regulatory authority to control what scientists say. To stave off direct government interference in science, he urged scientists to realise how vulnerable they were. One possible avenue to restore trust would be to open up the peer-review system, to end the tradition of anonymous criticism; another would be to produce and publish lay summaries. Whatever the intervention, the essential cultural transition for science to make is to a more explicit consideration of the public interest.Most scientists would say that their work is value-free. They owe a responsibility only to the truth. What others choose to do with their research is up to them, and is not the responsibility of scientists. Bateson disagrees with this widely held view. He argues that scientists must consider-"think deliberately about"-the implications of their work for the public. They must frame their communication to the public with these implications firmly in mind. Bateson seems to me on less secure ground when he urges the media to beware of reporting results presented at scientific conferences that have not been peer reviewed. If these conferences are open to media, what are journalists to do?