Source: BBC Radio 4: Moral Maze
URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01q8qqk
Date: 19/02/2014
Event: Moral Maze: Science and Morality
Attribution: BBC Radio 4
People:
Michael Buerk: Good evening. This winter's floods have been a nightmare for those who now have underwater kitchens, but they're a gift for the global warming worriers and warriors. A steady stream - how apt - of politicians in rubber footwear have declared, with varying degrees of certainty, that the rising waters are our fault. The head of the Met Office said "all the evidence" points that way. Mind you, as the sceptics rather cruelly point out, that same Met Office thought we would probably have a dry winter. The trouble with these issues - GM crops and embryo research have also caused a stir this week - is that the argument devolves into a conflict of scientific assertion - "The evidence shows"... "Oh, no it doesn't." Some say what they describe as "scientism" has replaced religion, a search for certainty which misunderstands what science is and can do. Is science the only rationality? And how do moral decisions get taken, in a world where so many of us are not only scientifically illiterate but philosophically ignorant? That's our Moral Maze tonight. Or panel: Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas, Anne McElvoy, Public Policy Editor of the Economist, the former Conservative Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo and the Anglican priest and opinionator Giles Fraser. Giles, I suppose priests must have an ambiguous relationship with science?
Giles Fraser: Um, I don't know if they do, actually. I mean, I'm sort of quite happy with the, um, sort of, findings of modern science on all the obvious things like evolution, and so forth. But my problem with it is when it becomes too much like religion, when it becomes a, sort of, like things being handed down by medieval cardinals, saying "This is the truth, and you mustn't question it". And I think it should be more sceptical about itself.
Michael Buerk: Anne McElvoy?
Anne McElvoy: Well, I have a bit of a problem with statements like "The science is clear" or the use of the word climate change "denier" when we really mean "sceptic". And I think there is a tendency to invest science with a conviction - and also a sort of certainty about what its implications are - that is much more interesting, much more contestable, and I hope we'll dig into that, a bit, tonight.
Michael Buerk: Michael Portillo.
Michael Portillo: When I was in politics, I found that one of the most useful qualities was scepticism - scepticism about all things, a willingness to question and interrogate and to doubt. And then, on top of that, perhaps, a willingness to do what one thought was right, and to convince others of that opinion. In other words, to attempt to lead.
Michael Buerk: Claire Fox.
Claire Fox: I'm always excited about what science and engineering, for example, could do with our ability to improve how we cope with whatever the climate throws at us, whether it's floods or drought or heatwaves or... you know, freezing conditions. But no, science doesn't tell us how to live the good life, it seems to me, and too often scientism is a bastardisation of the scientific method and scientific enquiry.
Michael Buerk: Panel, thanks very much indeed. Our first witness is Dr. Evan Harris, medical doctor and former LibDem MP, of course, a member of the advisory council of Sense About Science, which campaigns for evidence-based policymaking. Dr. Harris, so it's - from your point of view - it's the facts, nothing but the facts? What about when the facts - or at least the implications being draw from the facts - are in conflict?
Evan Harris: Well, it's firstly, sometimes, not the facts, because you can really only make policy on things where you can adduce evidence in a clear way, and there are plenty of areas where - of policymaking - where science or facts don't come into it. It's a genuine question of ideology or pure economics or even honouring manifesto commitments, dare I say. And even on those areas where, you know, there is an evidence base, they still may be trumped in the ultimate political decision, by those factors. But what is vital, is that the public - and it's a democratic business, this - are not duped, that politicians don't pretend that a decision they're making - quite legitimately, as I've said, but transparently on non-scientific grounds - is cloaked in pseudoscience or false science. You know, it's legitimate to say "We reject the science, because [of] the cost", and that's the problem we have, in politics, that people claim science when they shouldn't.
Michael Buerk: Michael Portillo?
Michael Portillo: So, translating that, for example, to the climate change debate - supposing even that we agreed that the science was clear - it would be perfectly reasonable, on the one hand, to say "Well then, we must try and do things to stop global warming", or to say, on the other hand, "We can't stop global warming, so we should invest in flood defences."
Evan Harris: Yes, that's a legitimate point, but you find, far too often, in this area, not everyone who takes the view that we shouldn't seek to reduce carbon emissions but seek to adjust to the new world - but some people try and maximise their position by saying that there is scientific dispute about what is known to be, on the overwhelming balance of evidence, man-made climate change. And there will always be - and it's important there are mavericks and sceptics, and I want to reclaim the term "scepticism" for the scientific method. You know, climate change sceptics are the mainstream.
Michael Portillo: Because it's important to be sceptical about science, isn't it.
Evan Harris: That's right. I mean, there's a philosopher - and we're discussing philosophy - who said that, as opposed to religion, science is the - adjusts its belief, based on what's observed, whereas faith rejects observation so that faith can be preserved. And Tim Minchin was the philosopher. There's a lot of truth in what he said - that is the difference between science and religion in the fundamentals.
Michael Portillo: So let me take another case - there was a big row between a government advisor called Dr. David Nutt and the then Home Secretary Jacqui Smith about cannabis. And I think, broadly speaking, he was saying that cannabis was less harmful than alcohol. But she rejected the policy implication of that - she wasn't going to legalise cannabis or ban alcohol. A perfectly justified political decision?
Evan Harris: Well, no, because the terms it was done [sic], was on the basis of harm reduction. So if you reject harm reduction, if you say that we just have an ideological opposition to a particular chemical compound but not to another, then it's fine, and - but she and Alan Johnson, who sacked him for expressing his independent - he was an independent scientific advisor, that means his views should not be dependent on who employs him, that's hopeless if you get all the BSE problems again, if you make scientific advice dependent on pleasing the government -
Michael Portillo: But even if it's on the basis of harm reduction, it's a perfectly reasonable political decision to say - to have an opinion - that, you know, if you legalise cannabis, or make it easier to get hold of, or whatever, you'll be sending a wrong signal to society - that's a political decision. And there's a much broader definition of "harm".
Evan Harris: Yes, so the problem - firstly, one can make the point that there was no evidence that these message-sendings actually work, and there's plenty of evidence that sending messages isn't true, that you don't get that effect from the change. But nevertheless -
Michael Portillo: - [inaudible] the whole business of politics - the whole business of politics is about sending messages.
Evan Harris: Well, no - sending messages is right when it achieves something, but the problem with what they did with David Nutt was that they sacked him for disagreeing. So they could perfectly easily say "This is our view - we don't base it on what the ACMD have concluded, independently - we base it on this". And the nature of politics is sometimes pleasing the tabloids and, you know, as long as you're transparent about it - I know it's a terrible thing to admit. But what they did was: they said "We're not going to have - we're not going to tolerate you arguing with us". And that was unacceptable and very damaging for the integrity of policy.
Michael Buerk: Claire Fox.
Claire Fox: One of the reasons why David Nutt, in a way, was in the position that he is, is because we have a period of when evidence-based policies, kind of, grow fashionable. So, I just wondered, kind of, broadly, outside of the realm of science, now, just to get your view on the balance - you know, if the evidence shows, for example, that the death penalty really would be - was a deterrent to murder, would we just have to go along with it, if the evidence showed that, or if there was less women sexually molested [?] or raped, if they wore burkhas?
Evan Harris: You're making a very fair point, but first you have to ask: is the question one that should solely depend on what the scientific says about the specific question? And there are certain things where you'd be appalled if you didn't take a scientific and evidence-based approach. Nuclear safety, childhood vaccination - because these are people who are vulnerable and you require there to be, I would say, rational evidence-based decision-making. But apart from those examples, there's plenty of room for morality. What I object to - let's say in, I don't know, a decision about about stem cells, for example - if people don't like the idea of using embryonic stem cells, they should say: "I don't want to do it, and I don't want to make the choice myself, but I'm not going to impose" - they shouldn't be able to impose their religious view on other people who don't share it and claim that it doesn't work, as stem cells do work.
Claire Fox: So disputes over science, then, is no way to resolve these big questions, because, for example, even on nuclear safety, you can know something is not safe and then you can use methods of making it safe, but that doesn't tell us whether we should have nuclear power. Or: it doesn't make nuclear, morally, good or bad. And it doesn't actually help, other than to just go: safety is one consideration, but actually that's not what happens [inaudible] -
Evan Harris: But in a democracy, the public - voters- are entitled to know the basis upon which decisions are made. So let's take the abortion debate. It was - the Parliamentarians generally said, and you can argue - and many people do - that this isn't a rational basis for making a decision - but they were going to base it on viability, the point at which the foetus is capable of surviving outside the mother. If that was the basis upon which they said they were making their decisions, and went to the electorate and said "Vote for me on that basis", then they ought to take - because that is a question that is capable of evidence, and there was a massive review that showed that that was 24 weeks - and to claim it was 12 weeks or 16 weeks was dishonest.
Claire Fox: Yes, but say... Well, can I just ask you a question, then?
Evan Harris: Just say you don't approve of it, full stop.
Claire Fox: No, no, and on that, I would agree with you and get rid of evidence-based policy, that's my point. But just on that very -
Evan Harris: No, no, just be honest about your basis.
Claire Fox: - and therefore I'm asking you. If, for example, it were possible - and I hope it will be - that science can make viability of a foetus ever earlier, for those who are having, for example, premature births and they want them, that will not alter at all my moral view on a woman's right to choose.
Evan Harris: But it will cause -
Claire Fox: Would it alter yours?
Evan Harris: As it happens, it wouldn't, but there are lots of Parliamentarians who said - and that's why they were tempted by the 22-week argument - they said that they were going to - that they based it on that question. And that would, if the evidence showed that it had come down - create a dilemma for them, and they'd either have to change the basis of their decision or they'd have to change their decision. But the voters are entitled to know.
Claire Fox: So evidence-based policy squeezes out moral decision-making.
Evan Harris: No, it only squeezes it out if you choose to - if you choose to say "I'm not basing it on the evidence", or "I am basing it on the evidence". And it's a fact-specific question, that.
Michael Buerk: Dr. Harris, thank you very much indeed. Thank you. Our next witness is Dr. James Panton, who's a lecturer in Politics, editor of a book called Science Vs Superstition: The Case for a new Scientific Enlightenment. What's wrong with big decisions? Political decisions, being made on the basis of pragmatic empiricism, rather than ideological fixation.
James Panton: Well, I think you've just summed it up in your question. We're making political decisions on the basis of pragmatic empiricism. And I think what's happened is that the, um -
Michael Buerk: The question was: what's wrong with that?
James Panton: What's wrong with that? Well, I think that what's happened is that where, kind of, older structures whereby we might once have made moral decisions - whether they be ideologies or moral principles or religions - have disintegrated and corroded, and instead, science has, kind of, been dragged in and is constantly being invoked. Really because it's seen as having some kind of source of moral authority that can back up our decisions, that very often we're not prepared to make - and, in particular, politicians and decision-makers are not prepared to make - on the basis of political arguments, and difficult moral dilemmas and trying to convince people.
Michael Buerk: Giles Fraser.
Giles Fraser: What is this thing called "scientism"?
James Panton: I think it's the tendency to invoke science across a whole range of areas where, really, science has no business. I think it's the tendency to suggest that a whole load of political questions and moral questions and ethical dilemmas can actually be answered with science. And, as I say, it's largely because a lot of those areas have really lost their authority, and so one of the few areas that we think we can trust is science, because it is objective, it is disinterested, it is impartial. And I say that's actually the problem, because decision-making is messier than that.
Giles Fraser: And has science, sort of, overbid as well, in terms of the areas that - its competence, within its competence?
James Panton: I think that's certainly true, though as a social scientist I wouldn't necessarily blame the scientists, or other social scientists, for wanting their research findings to have some kind of implication. But I think certainly a vacuum exists, at the heart of our political and moral lives, that has welcomed in scientists who are willing to make pronouncements and decisions and arguments in areas where really they shouldn't.
Giles Fraser: You see, I'm very sympathetic to all of this sort of thing that you say, but my problem with it is if you start, sort of, talking about scientism, you can easily be misheard as having a go at, as it were, good science. And you can give people all sorts of excuses to, you know, not have the MMR virus or -
James Panton [?]: Vaccine. [Giles and others are laughing.]
Giles Fraser: - vaccine, and -
Michael Buerk: Yeah, your scientific literacy is really impressive, Giles.
Giles Fraser: - so my problem is: how do you protect, as it were, good science from a sort of - this distorted thing that is, that is, I think, clearly there?
James Panton: Well, I think you pick up on a really important problem, which is the tendency to really bastardise and misunderstand science and what science can do, by politicising it. And therefore, by actually getting rid of what claims to truth and knowledge and objectivity science can provide us, because all science is then mired in this rather messy, mucky political decision. But I suppose I'd say I'd leave the scientists to, kind of, police their own territory, if you like, and to look after that. And I ask that they, you know, are perhaps a bit more honest in saying "These are not issues that we can speak to or give you an objective answer to".
Giles Fraser: But how do we police them? I mean, I agree, but how do we get them to police it, where, you know, my face cream says that it's scientifically proven to reduce wrinkles, okay - this is the sort of language. I mean, this language has now become so bastardised, it's very difficult to reclaim it back for something hard.
James Panton: Well, I - I - the only way I can envisage reclaiming it is to reclaim political decision-making and moral decision-making, the basis by which we actually make arguments based on principles and values, and by convincing people with arguments, and that speaks to your question about, you know: how do we avoid being misunderstood? I think we have to trust our audience a bit more. I think we trust the public a bit more, and say "These are arguments, these are contentious issues - this is where I stand". And of course there may be issues on which science has something to say, but there are many issues where science doesn't have something to say. And it's disingenuous of politicians and decision-makers to suggest that they don't need to make those arguments and instead to invoke the evidence.
Michael Buerk: Anne McElvoy.
Anne McElvoy: Isn't there a bit of a problem with simply, kind of, stopping the argument at the point when you can say "Evidence is contested"? Well, it may be, but it doesn't mean that some evidence isn't stronger than others, or that all evidence is equal.
James Panton: Well, I think that's absolutely right, but I mean, the character of empirical evidence is such that it can answer some kind of questions for us. I heard part of your earlier discussion about, I think, abortion and termination - the science may be able to tell us at what point a foetus can experience sensory pain. It may even be able to move to the point of telling us at what point a foetus could suffer, although that invokes a whole load of questions which are not purely scientific. But it can actually answer the question of whether we should or shouldn't have a termination.
Anne McElvoy: Yes, but I can see that you can end up in a place - I can see that we can end up in a place with you where we know an awful lot about what we can't do. But in fact, what people are more confused about - and indeed more, I think, morally confused about - is about how seriously are they supposed to take, say, the claims of some scientists - indeed, possibly the majority of scientists - on climate change and reducing CO2 emissions? You know, your questions don't seem to help very much.
James Panton: Well, I mean, I don't know if I can help people make those decisions if - it might be my starting point but I think politicians can perhaps help those decisions to be made, by saying these are political decisions. So the question of whether human beings do or do not cause climate change - strikes me as entirely plausible, that we do, but that doesn't answer the question of how we accommodate ourselves to changing climate patterns and how we develop society or not, or we reduce our - these are political and value-laden questions, aren't they, they're not -
Anne McElvoy: But you're, sort of - well, I can see your probability argument. Then it's really - please let me ask you a question.
James Panton: But what I'm saying is the science doesn't answer the question.
Anne McElvoy: Well, you've given quite a lot of answers, just let me try a question. A question would be: so, do you feel that it is possible that underneath the blanket of the science of climate change, there are - some people may have other agendas? They may not like globalisation, they may have other reasons for wanting to bring down CO2 emissions. You said earlier we should allow science to police itself, but is that entirely satisfactory?
James Panton: Well, I suppose I'm suggesting that we separate out the terrain and the kinds of questions on which scientists can give us compelling answers. And we separate that out from moral and political questions, which are about us actually making qualitatively different kinds of judgements, based on principles and values. And if we mire the two together, we get a confused version of both. And we let -
Anne McElvoy: So does that mean that you wouldn't have science invoked in the climate change argument, to the extent that it is?
James Panton: Well, I'd have it invoked in a different part, because it answers certain questions about what's happening with the climate. It doesn't answer questions about how we should then respond to that, in terms of what kind of society we want.
Michael Buerk: Dr. Panton, thank you very much indeed.
James Panton: Thank you.
Michael Buerk: Our next witness is Canon Dr. Alan Billings, who is - was - a director of the Centre for Ethics and Religion at Lancaster University, and also was Deputy Leader of Sheffield City Council. In fact, he contributed to the - that anti-Thatcherite report Faith in the City. He's on the line now from Sheffield. Dr. Billings, how far can the evidence - the science, if you like - take us in making decisions that affect people's lives?
Alan Billings: Well, I agree with your previous witnesses that we need to have, as far as we can, evidence-based policies, and our policy-making ought to be informed by the best science that's available. I mean, you're right to say that I've been a local politician - local politician, I might say, in the days when you could find finance to make a difference, so it's a very different kettle of fish now, where you're only implementing central government decision-making - but it's very important for us, then, if we were proposing some change to, let's say, schooling in Sheffield, that we had some evidence base on which to, you know, satisfy the policies and proposals that we were making.
Michael Buerk: I understand. Claire Fox?
Claire Fox: Dr. Billings, it's often said - and it's been said on this programme - that scientism is the new religion and scientists are acting like the new priesthood. But it seems to rather insult your profession. I just wondered if you could explain, for the listeners and for me, the difference you think that the authority of science - or scientism - might have, from what presumably you think is a genuine authority of the priesthood, of religion.
Alan Billings [laughs]: Well, yes I do think something like that has happened. I don't think this is quite as hubristic as it's been at some points in the past. If you look at the end of the 19th century, for example, you think of someone like Max Planck, who eventually became a very distinguished physicist - when he turned up at the University of Munich at the end of the 19th century, to tell the professor there that he wanted to do physics, he was told not to bother, since all the important work had now been done. Now, that kind of hubristic overclaiming, for science, I think, has gone - I think we've had a huge, then, explosion of science since the 1920s. But it's still there, that people do look - I think the recent floods are a very good example of this, that people are extremely anxious about the natural world and the way it seems to be overwhelming them, and they want to know that somewhere there are answers to the questions that they've got, that somehow we can control this. And science is the place to which they go. And then the attempt by people, both to explain and also, in a sense, to justify their own existence, gets very considerable.
Claire Fox: But in the recent witness we just had on, made the point that, you know, we maybe ought to be wary of blaming the scientists for this, but actually there's a moral vacuum because the politicians and the leaders who you'd expect some moral leadership from, like the Church, have vacated the arena. I mean, in an era of evidence-based policy, it strikes me that where you've got Creationists actually citing scientific papers - which they now do - and in fact on the recent debates on abortion and viabilities, we heard from an earlier witness, it's the anti-abortionists who were talking about the number of weeks and the scientific evidence shows. I mean, are - is it not the case that the Church is playing the evidence shows, the hiding behind the authority of science, just as much as anyone else?
Alan Billings: No, I think you're right, and it is very interesting that those people - you mention Creationists and those who are opposed to abortion - nevertheless reach for some sort of scientific justification of the positions that they hold. On the other hand - and I might say that those people are very few in number, in the churches and they're not really present in any representative way in the mainstream denominations - but on the other hand, I mean, science makes exaggerated claims. There was a good book a few years ago by Alan Gross called The Rhetoric of Science, in which he simply enumerates all the ways in which people have exaggerated and made overblown claims for what they're proposing. And I think we have to take into account that as well, which is what your previous witnesses have all been saying, that there is bad science as well as good science.
Michael Buerk: Michael Portillo?
Michael Portillo: Dr. Billings, in a democracy, what happens if the majority doesn't like what science tells it? For example, if it is revealed that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis?
Alan Billings: You mean, what happens in terms of the politics of the situation?
Michael Portillo: Yes, exactly.
Alan Billings: Yes. Well, I do think that politicians have to make their position clear, they have to have clear principles on which they're operating, I do think they have to come clean with the electorate and say what they are. And if they're going to oppose the science, then I think they have to say so, and tell us why that should be so. You've already referred to people's you know, the position of capital punishment, if it could be shown that capital punishment worked, then would the politicians fall in line? And I would hope that they would not, they would have their principles and they would say what they are.
Michael Portillo: But that bit of evidence about alcohol and cannabis, I mean, one reaction to that would be to legalise cannabis, the other would be to ban alcohol. Now, clearly, politicians will not think that's acceptable, so are they just being cowardly, in a democracy, if they say "Okay, people aren't going to like this, so we won't do it"?
Alan Billings: Well, they may be. I mean, they've got to be responsive to their electorate, they've got to be re-elected. The kind of evidence that -
Michael Portillo: Got to be re-elected. Got to be re-elected.
Alan Billings: Well, they're going to be re-elected or not re-elected. And sometimes there'll be an issue of absolute principle, on which they will want to take a stand. And then they won't be re-elected, if that conflicts with where the majority of the electorate are coming from. I just want to -
Michael Portillo: [Inaudible] - in particular, with your history around Faith in the City.
Alan Billings: Yes.
Michael Portillo: I mean, that was a period in which political ideology was very, very clear cut, and Margaret Thatcher, for example, was clearly leading from the front. Despite your opposition to what she stood for, could you, as it were, see the point of that sort of political leadership?
Alan Billings: Well, Mrs Thatcher chose to make an issue of Faith in the City. She could quite easily have said "Well, thank you very much for your report", put it on a shelf and left it.
Michael Portillo: To the main point?
Alan Billings: Well, she was quite a combative politician, and I think that she decided to take it on.
Michael Portillo: But the role of ideology, the role of political leadership?
Alan Billings: No, I do think that - I mean, I've got a lot of time for Mrs Thatcher, I think she made a lot of things very clear. And those of us who didn't agree with it, at least we knew what she was saying, and we knew why we disagreed with it.
Michael Portillo: I mean, is there a little bit of you - as there is a little bit of me - that is nostalgic for this? As we see politicians grasping for the science, doesn't a bit of us yearn for politicians who might go against the science and just tell us what they think?
Alan Billings: Yes, I do agree with that. I think we've become over-timid, and I think the new Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, has taken a stand on a number of issues, and I warmly applaud him for that, and I think the Church has returned to an older, more prophetic tradition, as a result of that. And that's all to the good.
Michael Buerk: Dr. Billings, thank you very much indeed.
Alan Billings: Thank you.
Michael Buerk: Our last witness is Professor Angie Hobbs, who's a Professor of Public Understanding of Philosophy at the University of Sheffield, and she's on the line from there - a bit of hot-desking in our studio in Sheffield, I imagine. [Laughing.] Your bottom's on the seat now, is it, Professor?
Angie Hobbs: Oh, absolutely.
Michael Buerk: Oh, good. Now, tell me, how does a philosopher make sense of competing scientific assertions, and how should we, for that matter?
Angie Hobbs: Okay, so, in as far as you can have a notion of a value-free fact or value-free scientific evidence - and plenty of people would even question that starting point - in as far as you can, you can't directly move from a fact to a value - from an "is" to an "ought", as the philosopher Hume would say, and I would agree with him - however, though you can't make that direct move, I do think that ethical philosophy needs to be, I would say, informed, scientifically informed. We've had arguments, so far tonight, looking at policy that's scientifically based, but I would prefer the phrase "scientifically informed". And yes, you look at the evidence, you look at the best evidence, bearing in mind that counter-evidence may come along. You look at what the majority of the most respected scientists are saying, bearing in mind that many of the great scientific discoveries in history have actually been made by maverick lone voices, not by majority views, so you always keep an open mind. You bear in mind you might be wrong. You cannot have complete certainty. We have to make moral decisions in a climate of uncertainty and doubt - we have to accept that- but we can still, and should be scientifically informed.
Michael Buerk: Marvellous. Anne McElvoy.
Anne McElvoy: Professor Hobbs, I can see that you end up, then, in a position where you're, sort of, very sceptical about everything, which some people may think is a value in itself. But if we actually look at the practical application, where we might want to look at the philosophical, ethical background to something like the arguments about flooding - particularly the Somerset example of people feeling, in some way, that they've been, in a way, ethically let down by government and its agencies - how does philosophy help us, there?
Angie Hobbs: Well, you said I end up being sceptical about everything, and I don't think that's, that's fair, because -
Anne McElvoy: Well, come to the Somerset argument, if you could.
Angie Hobbs: Okay, so, I think we can say that the best guess at the moment is that humans are affecting climate change, that it is happening. What we have to do is look at what happens if we're wrong about a particular position - and this, I think, is a point that's not been sufficiently made, so far, this evening. So supposing I believe that climate change is happening and humans are affecting it, and I decide to alter my behaviour. And supposing I'm wrong about that. But, nevertheless, I've done no particular harm to the world - the world will will probably be better off. If we take the reverse view, and if we deny that climate change is happening, and we decide not to affect our behaviour, and we're wrong, there is going to be even more catastrophe than we're seeing at the moment. So it's very important, not just to look at the scientific evidence, and how it is best interpreted, but "what happens if I'm wrong about this?" And -
Anne McElvoy: Yes, all right, but can I -
Angie Hobbs: - and then the huge weight is that we need to be changing our behaviour, far more than we are.
Anne McElvoy: So the huge weight, for you -
Angie Hobbs: And governments need to have been changing their behaviour far more.
Anne McElvoy: Let me just pitch in a little question, there, if I could. Is it not possible that - I think you're sort of, following, sort of, Voltaire principle there, you know, on his death bed, "This is no time to be making enemies", that there is no downside in addressing climate change, in the way that you suggest. Now I can see that there is an argument for it - I can also see that there is an argument against it, both political and economic, which you seem to have given very little weight to. But your intervention will lessen economic activity and industrial output. It may be very bad for countries which rely on these to press ahead with their development and make their people richer or indeed just less abjectly poor. So it seems already, under the guise of philosophy, you've pushed in a few assumptions, haven't you.
Angie Hobbs: No, I - no, I just haven't had time to explicate them, as yet. So what you make is a very good point, that once you've got your decision to alter your behaviour, according - because of the impact of CO2 emissions on climate change, that doesn't mean that you've just got a blanket policy for everything. So, to take an example - supposing I'm in a supermarket, trying to decide whether to buy local blueberries from Scotland or blueberries from New Zealand. Now, supposing I think - and I may be wrong about this, so people in New Zealand, please don't write in - supposing I think that there will be less of an impact on the environment if I buy the Scottish blueberries rather than the New Zealand blueberries. But that's going to be very, very tough on the envir- on the economy of New Zealand - they can't just be left to go to the wall. So you can - so yes, you factor all of this in, but I was not arguing that we always take the reduction of CO2 emissions our overwhelming priority in every decision that we make.
Anne McElvoy: You know, you did say that we would be lost [?] -
Michael Buerk: Thank you very much - Anne, we've got to stop there.
Angie Hobbs: We have to look at other goods as well, and the economy of New Zealand, for instance, is another good.
Michael Buerk: Hang on- we're, we're all there with you in New Zealand. Giles Fraser.
Giles Fraser: Just a philosophical question. You say that it's important to be scientifically informed about the facts, and so forth. But you also say, with Hume, that you cannot go from an "is" to an "ought".
Angie Hobbs: Exactly.
Giles Fraser: So what role does "informed", briefly, play - scientifically, factually informed - if you can't go from an "is" to an "ought"?
Angie Hobbs: Yes, but you'd still need to know what's going on. So here's an example. Supposing it was scientifically proved that people with red hair and pale skin are worse at athletics than other - groups with other colouring? Suppose - I mean, supposing that is scientifically proved - of course, it won't be, we have a redhead who gloriously won the long jump at the Olympics. But if that were the case, you can't then move to an automatic -
Giles Fraser: No, I understand that you can't move from an "is" to an "ought" - the question is: what role does "informed" do?
Angie Hobbs: Yep, just let me answer your question - I promise you I will. 'Cause then you could say "Well, in terms of policy, do we give redheads less money, 'cause they're not going to win gold at the Olympics -
Giles Fraser: No, I understand this example.
Angie Hobbs: - or do we give them more money, to help them, or do we do nothing?" But we still - so, though you've got that doubt, you still need that information. You're going to be worse off without that information.
Giles Fraser: Here's - let's change this one, because we're gone round this, a bit. And one of the things that we're talking about here is this business of scientism, and so forth. And people like Professor Stephen Hawking, they say science is going to replace philosophy, and that actually scientists [sic - I think he meant to say "philosophers" here] are just, sort of, clever bullshitters and they're not really proper thinkers, and only scientists are proper thinkers. How would you defend your profession against the incursions of this sort of thing?
Angie Hobbs: Okay... I know - well, Hawking makes his claim on the first page of The Grand Design, I seem to remember, He claims that philosophy is dead, not just God but also philosophy. Well, what is interesting about The Grand Design is he goes on really to just look at what Aristotle would call material and efficient causes. And, as you know, Aristotle also is interested in formal and final causes, asking different kinds of "What is it?" questions and "why" questions and "why something rather than nothing" questions. Those kinds of questions, in fact, Hawking doesn't address, and doesn't claim that science can address, and yet most philosophers would - and indeed most theologians would - be at least as interested in formal and final cause questions. So I would say that Hawking is not addressing many of the things that philosophers and others want to know about -
Michael Buerk: Professor Hobbs -
Angie Hobbs: - so there's still plenty of room for philosophy. Thank you.
Michael Buerk [laughing]: No, that's told him. Professor Hobbs, thanks very much indeed for joining us... Let's - let's review some of the things we've heard. I did sense, round the table, some sympathy for what our second witness, in particular, Dr Panton, was saying, particularly when he asserted that there was what he described as a "vacuum" at the heart of our political and moral lives, that is being filled with... scientific evidence, real or supposed. I sense you sympathised with that very much, Michael.
Michael Portillo: I did. I mean, I go back to the point I made in the preamble - that, you know, I think politics is about people standing for election, and if they get elected, then being willing to explain what they think and try and persuade other people to think it. And not just science but other things, too, like, you know, boards of inquiry and committees, and so on, are replacing political decision-making, which, apart from anything else, is having a powerful impact in our democracy. And I thought that Dr. Panton, you know, on one issue after another, explained that the political decision that has to be made is a value-laden decision, on which the science can be a guide up to a point, but you can't get away from it being political and value-laden.
Michael Buerk: Giles?
Giles Fraser: Yeah, well, I think I completely agree. I mean, I had to question him but I agree with everything he said [laughing], which is rather difficult when you're having to give a - I mean, I think he'e absolutely right. There's a sort of pseudo-authority that's conferred by science, which politicians can easily use to try and mask the fact that actually they really have to expose themselves to say "This is what I think, this is what I believe, this is where I stand". And the science bit can't hide the fact that at some point you've just got to - "This is where I stand". And that's making a choice and a judgement.
Michael Buerk: Er, Claire?
Claire Fox: I think that he - he did point out something, though, 'cause I think there's a tendency, even from what I was arguing, to end up, kind of, science-bashing and scientist-bashing. And I think that he was right to remind us that, actually, sometimes there's the people who lean on the authority of science, so that, you know, the problem is that, you know, on every single policy issue, and I would argue even moral issue - [inaudible] inclined to do it - somebody's waving a PhD thesis, saying "The evidence shows..." and they've no more familiarity with that evidence than [inaudible] or me - that's not the scientists' fault. The problem then, however, is that science can overreach itself and mission creep sets in. So you know, now we do have neuroscientists telling us that they can explain religious feeling - everything, morality, everything we've ever thought - it's over-deterministic explanation of everything we do.
Michael Buerk: But he did say a couple of things that I invite you to disagree with. One: he said we need to trust the public a bit more - well, you know, when that comes to the death penalty or, you know, with many people the membership of the European Union or so, you know, politicians aren't inclined to to that, are they. And the other thing he suggested was that we should try to separate out science from moral, political - science from value decisions. How possible, Anne McElvoy, is that?
Anne McElvoy: Well, I thought his point was rather weak on the majoritarianism that, you know - because you're just going to throw it open to the public and you're going to leave us with an endless plebiscite? I mean, certainly very keen on democracy as the great expression of the public will, but I think we could all come up with examples where we think that simply taking a very tight time frame, a very whipped-up subject and saying to the public "What would you do?" is maybe not the most wise way forward - we're also responsible for what comes after and for successor generations. No, my problem, in a way, with Dr. Panton was a different one, which was this sort of suggestion that if evidence is always contested - it speaks to Claire's point about science-bashing - but there is, there are cases in which science on one side is - seems to be clearer than on the other. It's not an absolute - one would always hear the other side, but - there are many examples, I would say, in which the evidence base is rather stronger one way than the other. And I think how the public debate responds to that is very interesting, and it is the tricky thing about climate change.
Michael Portillo: Can I footnote here that - I think a lot of listeners will think we're speaking from an ivory tower in the centre of London, when we produce the argument about the death penalty as the knockout argument - you couldn't possibly do what the public wants to do, on the death penalty. Well, a lot of people out there will say "Why shouldn't you do [inaudible] on the death penalty?" And they might indeed say that, you know, when they last looked at the evidence, there were many fewer murders when there was a death penalty than there are now. I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but I think to kind of adduce that as the absolute knockout argument is to be completely out of touch.
Giles Fraser: But this is the key thing about evidence, for someone like me, so you can give me whatever evidence you like about the death penalty, but my being against it is absolutely straightforward moral principle, nothing to do with evidence.
Michael Buerk: Can I move on to Dr. Harris, the first witness. I thought it was really rather interesting. I mean, he took - now Giles, I'll throw this at you - he just elevated science above, perhaps, religion - certainly religion, possibly ideology - on the basis that science does evolve, in the sense that, you know, it makes an observation, it changes, it moves with the pattern of discovery and thought, whereas religion and, to another extent, ideology [inaudible] - is that a [inaudible]?
Giles Fraser: Well, actually religion does - I mean, there are big books about the history of religion, and why are there big books about the history of religion? Because religion's changed. It has a history and it's responded to things. I mean, I think - and I think it's a cheap shot that he made about religion, but that's all fine - the really problematic thing is: he trusts science so much, that I actually wonder whether there is room for a sort of suspicion of the scientific method, scepticism about itself. You know, that's - if science has built on scepticism, I sometimes find there are some people who are not sufficiently sceptical about the very thing that they're trying to celebrate.
Claire Fox: Let's think about how this debate plays out. On the one hand, I could say: well, the people who, sort of, in the discussion on climate change, at the moment, are almost saying "You know, Mother Nature's got us back", I mean that's a kind of environmentalist that sounds rather like Genesis Chapter 6 and, you know, "Wicked Man will be punished by the floods and off you go, Noah". I mean, it sounds to me very similar, but the thing that's utterly extraordinary for me is there's no redemption from this, and this is what drives me mad. I don't think our Dr. Harris - I don't think Dr. Evan Harris was like this, but it is true that if you say that climate change and the whole discussion around climate change shouldn't lead immediately to cutting down on CO2 emissions, you've got to take a different attitude to the environment, you are called a "denier", a "flat-earther" and silenced, and that's one way that science has been adop- co-opted, as it were, to shut down debate. So the point about the public -
Michael Portillo: As though those scientists didn't have an agenda, as though some of those scientists weren't signed up to a particular view, as Anne McElvoy mentioned during the programme, signed up to a particular view about capitalism, about globalisation, about economic growth, which I believe probably some of them are.
Michael Buerk: Anne?
Anne McElvoy: I think the dividing lines are just not as clear in this, as perhaps we might have thought when we set out, at the beginning of he programme. I certainly found myself hearing from some witnesses, you know, thinking "Actually, I kind of bought a lot more really from Evan Harris, about his respect for the scientific method. But I think that what he perhaps underplayed was that the line between religious belief, science, rational thinking, progress - and what you adduce from that, I would say there are lots of crossovers between these things.
Michael Buerk: But wasn't there a sympathy -
Anne McElvoy: When people try to, sort of, put up a drawbridge - as they do if you use words like "denier" - then that's when you get into trouble, it's when you try to push people to one side of a divide.
Michael Buerk: Wasn't there a sympathy around the table for Dr. Harris, at least on the basis of wanting some sort of clarity on the basis of which things are - decisions are made?
Anne McElvoy: Yes, but I suppose my point is that sometimes you cannot have this absolute clarity. I understand the desire for it - I think Giles Frser made the very interesting point there about this sort of wanting it to be godlike. If people spoke of God and their religious belief in those uncompromising terms that some people now speak about science, I think we would write them off as fundamentalists.
Claire Fox: But isn't it interesting, because it was interesting that Evan Harris made that point, because I think the people who are not clear are the people who cite the science. I mean, he was almost implying: well, there are people who use pseudoscience to hide their ideological motives. But I say there are people who use good science to hide their ideological motives. I mean, it doesn't really matter. The point is: why do you need to hide your ideological or your moral motives? Have the courage - and this is where it comes to the public. It's not: have the courage to trust the public per se, it's: have the courage to trust the public that you can persuade them to agree with you. And if you can't, then you've lost the argument - you can't hide behind the science as a compensation.
Michael Portillo: I thought Professor Angie Hobbs, our last witness, fell into an elephant trap when she described how it was clear to her, as a philosopher, that the least dangerous thing to do was to go along with trying to interfere with the climate, because that way we won't come to grief. That seemed to me, as Anne pointed out, to ignore all sorts of issues. And it seemed to me to be a political position masquerading as a philosophical argument.
Michael Buerk: Giles, very briefly - an epilogue.
Giles Fraser: Well, I mean, all this stuff about science and religion here - it seems to me that one of the things, coming from a religious tradition myself, I realise that we've got a really bad tradition, we've been too hubristic and not enough modesty about our claims about the world, and I hope science can also not fall into the traps that religion have made.
Michael Buerk: Okay. That's it for this week, from our panel - Anne McElvoy, Claire Fox, Michael Portillo and Giles Fraser. And from me. Until the same time next week, goodbye.