20130418_MW
Source: BBC Radio 4: World at One
URL: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/Walport%20interview%20180413.mp3
Date: 18/04/2013
Event: Sir Mark Walport on climate change and energy policy: "It's about balancing issues"
Credit: BBC Radio 4, also thanks to Andrew Montford (Bishop Hill) for the audio link
People:
- Pallab Ghosh: Science correspondent, BBC News
- Roger Harrabin: BBC's Environment Analyst
- Martha Kearney: BBC Radio 4 presenter
- Susan Rae: Announcer, BBC Radio 4
- Sir Mark Walport: Chief Scientific Advisor, UK Government
Martha Kearney: The World at One - this is Martha Kearney with 45 minutes of news and comment. From climate change to the recent measles outbreak, from energy to drugs, to what extent should scientific evidence shape government policy? In his first broadcast interview, the government's new Chief Scientific Advisor, Sir Mark Walport, will join us live.
* * *
Susan Rae: The government's new Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Sir Mark Walport, has urged researchers to make the case for greater funding. He was making his first speech to the Royal Society since taking over as the most senior scientist in government. Our science correspondent Pallab Ghosh was listening.
Pallab Ghosh: Professor Walport said that the scientific community had to make the case to government that its work is important to society and so should receive greater funding. As he set out his agenda for his new job, he said his aim would be to find better ways to translate the fruits of science into goods and services that would benefit the economy. Professor Walport also wants to ensure that government policies are informed by the best possible scientific evidence. As to his views on controversial topics, such as the use of pesticides and GM crops, he kept those to himself, saying only that it was important to examine such topics from all points of view.
Susan Rae: And you can hear Sir Mark Walport's first broadcast interview, as Chief Scientific Advisor, after the news.
* * *
Martha Kearney: Whether it's ash clouds or climate change, badgers or bees, providing ministers with scientific advice is certainly one of the most testing roles in government. The new Chief Scientific Advisor starts in the job this month, and Sir Mark Walport is here to give us his first broadcast interview. But before we talk to him, what are some of the pressing issues he's going to have to deal with? Here's our Environment Analyst, Roger Harrabin.
Roger Harrabin: The environment will form a substantial part of Sir Mark's in-tray. Climate change will be towards the top, with a big international assessment of climate science due later this year. He'll urge ministers to stand firm against climate sceptics, but I suspect his line may be less dogmatic than his predecessor about the remaining uncertainties in the science. A lot of his other big issues lie in the countryside. There's a question of how government funds its internationally agreed commitments on biodiversity, especially in the seas. There's a shift under way in the debate on genetically modified organisms. Then there's trees. Sir Mark will want to get to grips with what's happening to our disease-ridden forests - that's a real worry. Two farming issues may cause him sleepless nights. Bees - should we ban the neonic pesticides that may be killing them? And then badgers - that's a really controversial one, for the summer.
Martha Kearney: Roger Harrabin. Well, our science correspondent Pallab Ghosh joins me now. Let's just pick up on the point about badger culls - why is that so controversial?
Pallab Ghosh: It will be a tricky one for Professor Walport, because this summer farmers will begin culling badgers at two sites in south west England, in an effort to reduce the spread of TB in cattle. Now, one of the leading experts in the field, and indeed the man that hired Professor Walport, described the whole idea as a "crazy scheme", saying that it'll have a marginal effect at best. One of Professor Walport's roles is to ensure that the government's informed by the best possible scientific advice, so it'll be interesting to see how he answers questions on the issue now. And also, as things hot up, in the summer.
Martha Kearney: And what other issues will he have to consider, do you think?
Pallab Ghosh: Well, interestingly, Professor Walport's not supposed to be shop steward for the scientific community, but he did urge them to try and make the best possible case for greater funding, because even though the science budget has been relatively well protected, it's been frozen. It's effectively been cut by 10% because of inflation, and there have been savage cuts in some government departments. And he's urging the scientific community to make the best possible case, so that more than anything, it can help the economy with new innovations, and he wants to do that better. He also wants to address the issue of the immigration cap that this government has introduced, which is stopping some of the best scientists from coming into this country and also dissuading many students, which universities depend on. But, more than all, chief scientists are judged by their ability to deal with crises. You mentioned Fukushima, ash clouds - and it's at this moment that ministers, and indeed the nation, rely on one man, who'll be drawing on lots of other men and women as to how best to deal with these crises. So his greatest priority will be the unknown.
Martha Kearney: Pallab, thank you very much. Well, let's talk to Sir Mark Walport now. After all that, are you sure you want this job?
Mark Walport: Yes, it's rather a terrifying agenda, isn't it! [They laugh.] But it's important stuff.
Martha Kearney: Absolutely. Well, let's see if we can touch on some of those issues. I mean, I guess a particular problem is going to be the tension between the demands of the economy - when times are so difficult - and the environment. Your predecessor, Sir John Beddington, said that there is a need for urgency in tackling climate change. Would you agree with that?
Mark Walport: Yes, but I think all issues we've got to look at from the different angles, as it were. So let's take energy. So infrastructure is absolutely crucial for the UK. It's the quality of the infrastructure that distinguishes advanced economies from poorer ones. Take energy, which is an absolutely underpinning infrastructure for everything. When we look at energy, we're only going to get the policy right if we look at it from three different angles, really. So the first angle is energy security - we have to know that the lights will be there to go on.
Martha Kearney: Is there a risk, do you think, that the lights could go out? Because we had a warning, didn't we, from the Big Six energy suppliers, that that could happen.
Mark Walport: It's not going to happen in the short term. But it's something that we have to look at all the time. We've also got to look at energy from the perspective of cost. And then thirdly, we've got to look at it through the, sort of, lens of climate change and sustainability. But unless we look at it from all of those angles, we're unlikely to get the policy right.
Martha Kearney: And on the question of sustainability, we understand that George Osborne isn't going to commit to having low-carbon electricity by 2030, but then a number of eminent scientists believe that that means the government won't be able to meet its goals on climate change, and hence -
Mark Walport: But as I say, the issue is that we've got to look at it through all three of those lenses. We've got to look at it in terms of energy security. We've got to look at it in terms of being economically sustainable. Our industrial capacity depends on having affordable energy. People are already worrying about their energy prices. And absolutely we've got to consider the environment as well.
Martha Kearney: But that's interesting, you put the environment third. So would you say's there's a lower priority -
Mark Walport: No, no, they're all important. My job, as the government Chief Scientific Advisor, is to provide the best possible advice. The policymakers, the politicians, are going to have to look at it through all three of those - they're going to have to consider the science, they're going to have to consider the economics and they're going to have to consider the politics. My job is to make absolutely clear that they have the best evidence, and on climate, let me be absolutely clear - there is no question that the global climate is warming.
Martha Kearney: So if you agree with Sir John Beddington there's the need for urgency in tackling climate change, doesn't that mean the government needs to be acting now to ensure that we're producing low-carbon electricity in the future?
Mark Walport: The answer is government - this government and governments around the world - are acting now. But there's - they've also got to do it in a way that makes sure that the energy supply remains - we have to have secure supplies as well. It's about balancing issues.
Martha Kearney: Another balancing issue that you're going to have to have a view on is the tension between farmers and some scientists. So do you agree with Lord Krebs - one of the most respected scientists in the country - on the badger cull policy we had Pallab explaining, that he thinks that the current policy is a "crazy scheme"?
Mark Walport: Well, let's be clear what this is all about. Again, what this is about is actually about bovine tuberculosis, and bovine tuberculosis, ultimately, is a human health problem as well - it used to be a serious problem. And so it's about protecting humans and cattle from bovine tuberculosis, on the other hand, whilst having sensible policies to manage the natural world as well. And again, my job is to make the evidence clear. And, you know, to be specific on that, the evidence from trials is that if you take an area of about 150 square kilometres, and you're able to cull more than 70% of the badgers, then, over a number of years, seven or eight years, you would expect a reduction of bovine TB of about 12-16%.
Martha Kearney: But isn't that -
Mark Walport: Those are the data - it's for the politicians to decide.
Martha Kearney: But there's the big "if", about whether you know whether you've managed to get above 70% of the -
Mark Walport: So -
Martha Kearney: And isn't that why Lord Krebs has expressed his scepticism about it, and said that he'd rather go down the vaccination and bio-security route?
Mark Walport: So you're absolutely right, and a critical thing that has to happen is there has to be extremely careful evaluation, given the government policy decisions. The badgers were culled in a particular way. And of course that's right. If there was a licensed oral vaccine that was effective, that could be applied, that would be a very good solution. There isn't an oral vaccine for badgers, at the moment. There is an injectable vaccine, but that would be very hard to deliver. So again, one's got to look at it from all the different angles. But, as I say, my job is, as it were, to make clear what the effects of a badger cull might be, and to ask the sort of question you've just quite legitimately asked, which is: how do you know if you're going to be successful? And that's a key question. My job's to tell the politicians the issue. It's for them to decide. And they will have an opinion, you will have an opinion from this -
Martha Kearney: What is your opinion?
Mark Walport: My opinion is irrelevant, because it's no more important than your opinion or anyone else's.
Martha Kearney: Well, I think it would be a great deal more well-informed, but you're entering into another debate, which is a clash between the economic needs of farming and the environment, and that's over pesticides. And we had the Environmental Audit Committee of MPs saying the government's being extraordinarily complacent about these neonicotinoids, because they say a growing body of peer-reviewed research says that it's having a big impact on pollinators like bees.
Mark Walport: Yes, okay, so again let's look at the broad context. Firstly, neonicotinoids were first introduced in 1993 - so they've been in use for about 20 years - as a replacement for more toxic insecticides. Why do we use insecticides? Because, actually, if we don't have protection, then crops can suffer damage and that's bad for food sustainability, it's bad for the economy. We also use insecticides, of course, to control insect vector-borne diseases, as well, so diseases such as malaria, dengue, sleeping sickness are all carried by insect vectors. So we do actually need insecticides. But again let's -
Martha Kearney: But if those insecticides are harming pollinators -
Mark Walport: Absolutely -
Martha Kearney: - as the evidence suggests -
Mark Walport: - that's the other angle. And there is no question at all that if you look at the evidence, pollinators world-wide - and of course bees are iconic, and actually it's the bumblebee that's more susceptible to neonicotinoids than the honeybee. But you're right. Pollinators worldwide are in trouble. But the reasons for that are likely to be very, very complicated. And if you actually look at the scientific evidence, the scientific evidence is, frankly, uncertain. So, in the laboratory -
Martha Kearney: So, shouldn't you be applying the precautionary principle, which is what the MPs suggest?
Mark Walport: Well, but I think the precautionary principle is something that is often misinterpreted. It's often interpreted that if there's any risk at all, you shouldn't do something. Now, I mean, it's "look before you leap", but having looked, it's sometimes sensible to leap. So the precautionary principle doesn't say you should automatically stop doing something if there's any risk. But, I mean, I need to finish the point, because there is uncertainty, so - in laboratory conditions, there's no question that neonicotinoids affect bee behaviour, they affect colony formation. In the field studies that have been done so far, in bees, in agriculturally treated environments, there is no unequivocal evidence that it does harm bee colonies. Now, we need more research.
Martha Kearney: And one final question, on an issue that's of a high importance, particularly in south Wales, about the current outbreak of measles. What do you think that tells us about public attitudes towards scientific advice?
Mark Walport: Well, I think that's about - I mean, frankly, that was about a piece of extremely bad science, and then very bad communication of it. And I think it's - you know, it's an example of how people forget the danger of diseases such as measles. They become complacent when it appears to have disappeared. But it's just, I think, very clear emphasis of the huge importance of vaccination. It was, and has been, one of the major interventions in public health. And it's absolutely vital that people vaccinate their children.
Martha Kearney: Sir Mark Walport, many thanks indeed for running through some of the issues in your extremely busy in-tray.
Mark Walport: Thank you.