Listening recently, and very belatedly, to the 'Dimbleby Lecture' given by Sir Paul Nurse I found myself revisiting a number of issues I've previously pondered.
Sir Paul is an 'Old Boy' of my own school, not that that is anything to brag about. We both attended Harrow County School for Boys, Sir Paul 3 years or so before me, and we both had some of the same teachers. Indeed, Sir Paul made reference in his lecture to the inspiration he gained from his biology teacher, Keith Neal, who also taught me. Our careers seem to have diverged from school days with Sir Paul going on to win a Nobel Prize and become President of the Royal Society, the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world, as well as receiving a knighthood while I remain ........................... . I hold no grudges and have no envy :-)
During his lecture, Sir Paul made reference to the great benefits that science has bestowed on mankind to date and sought to assure us that it could continue to do so into the future if our education systems were adequate. There is no doubt that many countries can meet this latter criterion even if our own cannot. He laid great store on the 'scientific method' by which new discoveries are held to be nothing but theories until properly and rigorously tested. He also laid great emphasis on the advances of medical science in the last century, a field with which his own research is closely associated.
While I have little argument with what Sir Paul said, I do have some issues with some of the things he left unsaid. Specifically, he referred to research into genetically modified crops, gene therapy and stem cell research without referring to the unfolding disaster story surrounding antibiotics. You may well ask what is the connection between these seemingly disparate issues and I will explain.
We are constantly told that genetic modification carries no dangers, that doctors can, in future, cure assorted diseases through the manipulation of genes and that stem cell research is the basis of eternal life. What no one talks about, at least in public, very loudly or in a way that the general public understands, is that previous ventures into such areas have been less than wholly successful.
When antibiotics were first brought into general use, no one gave any thought to the potential Darwinian consequencs; that is, that the bacteria would become immune to their effects. When steroids became the drugs of choice for various conditions, no one thought they would end up being too dangerous to use routinely. These treatments were advised by scientists, no doubt the best of their day and acting in the very best interests of society, who have been proved to have been wrong in very important ways.
Today we are being asked to accept the word of today's best scientists that GM crops, gene therapy and the rest, are the way forward; we are being told that they carry no danger and are essential to our survival. Are today's scientists so arrogant that they can afford to ignore the lessons of history ?
Everything has its place in the ecosystem in which we live and that includes the nasty little bugs that sometimes kill us; it also includes us, and we trifle with this order at our peril. For every bug we wipe out, another will take its place; for every bug that is destroyed by an antibiotic, another will aries that is immune. This is evolution as described by Darwin and it has yet to be shown as being anything but immutably true.
Paul Nurse talked of the prevention of illness and even seemed to suggest the prevention of old age; in these aims he is horribly misguided. Human kind needs change in order to progress and part of the mechanism of that change is death; to try to extend human life beyond a natural span, by artificial means, is a step too far and will result in some as yet unknown reaction from the natural world. The increasing use of a battery of vaccines and drugs will, ultimately, result in the rise of viruses and bacteria that are new and resistant; we already have seen the rise of HIV and the occurrence of the human version of BSE. Bacteria are becoming increasingly resistant to existing antibiotics to such an extent that there are fears we will be unable to combat ANY bacteria in a few years time.
Where Sir Paul actually stands on these issues was difficult to determine. On the one hand, he praised the scientific method, which should exclude the occurence of disasters arising from inadequate research and short-term actions, and on the other he appeared to be promoting the achievement of the very goals that this same 'short-termism' seeks.
Many years ago, John Wyndham wrote a number of books that attempted to deal with some of these isses. In the 'Day of the Triffids' he showed what might happen if specially bred ( = genetically modified) plants became out of control; in 'The Chrysalids' he explored some of the potential horrors of a post nuclear world. Wyndham was writing more than 60 years ago and yet his messages ring loud and clear today - we mess with nature at our own risk.
No comments:
Post a Comment