Scientists have no chance against spin doctors
Last week, touched by winning a science prize at the the Royal Society, I donated it to the family of David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after governmental criticism associated with his research into weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Not everyone thinks mine was the right decision, on the grounds that science should not be sullied by bringing politics into it. From my years looking at the history of science, I do not agree. For science often leads to technologies that can undermine the established powers in society - and when those powers fight back, they fight to win.
Sometimes that retaliation is deadly and scientists die for the truth. Soviet authorities of the 1930s, for example, hated biologists who pointed out that changing a plant's environment did not alter its genetic nature. That truth undercut the authorities' belief that by altering society, they would be able to create a new Marxist man in a single generation. If there were any exceptions to this idea at all - if fussy agronomists tried to insist that it did not apply to crop plants - then those opponents had to be crushed. Many were demoted; others were sent to prison, beaten or killed.
George W. Bush's attitude to science is less deadly, of course, but similar in essence. The US president and many of his supporters know that if the public were to be convinced that present uses of coal and oil were putting the planet in grave danger, there would be an outcry to change fundamentally how those industries operate.
Two worlds are set on a collision course. One is the world of science, where objective inquiry serves as a tele???-scope for seeing the world as it exists around us and accurately foretelling what is going to happen. In that world, what counts is finding the truth and adjusting your actions - and, if need be, changing established industries - accordingly.
But in the world of politics, what is most important is what you have previously decided you are going to hold to. Anyone who threatens those goals has to be blocked, for they get in the way of what you consider the greater good. Often that is for the best - just think of any political change or institution you especially like that had to be pushed through against strong opposition.
The problem comes when the two worlds collide. For in the short-term, the world of politics almost always wins. Politicians are good at pressing the buttons of emotion, or group feeling, or character assassination, or selective evidence - all the old rhetorical devices of the classical Greeks. Very few scientists can fight back. Although in their private lives they might be psychologically astute, their profession teaches them that arguments are ultimately won by appeals to the truth. That is their reflex: it is what they are habituated to do. Against spin doctors, leaked governmental whispers, smooth lobbyists and the like they have scarcely any defence.
There is an added twist. These two worlds operate on different timescales. Scientists are exceptionally good at picking out small indicators of what is happening in the outside world, and accurately foretelling their consequences. That is the enormous power that centuries of development in instrumentation and analytic technique have given them. Politicians, however, naturally take more of the layman's attitude, where only evidence that is large-scale and immediately obvious is truly important.
In my books I have written about many people who, like Kelly, abided by the logic of science, confident that what they saw would be justified as time went on. Yet so often they crashed up against the very different world of politics and established power, and they ended up crushed by it.
At the Royal Society last week it all came to a head. Shortly before the prize evening I had had a long talk with a military friend, recently back from Iraq. He was very patriotic and in no way a pacifist. But it was clear to him that he and his colleagues had been misled: their mission had been inaccurately conceived from the start.
That is the final danger of the two worlds clashing. It was easy for deft bureaucrats and media within the political world to hound and slander Kelly. But not only was that an injustice against a decent person; it led to his accurate insights about the real world being dismissed. I could not change that. But I could help remind people that it was wrong.
The writer won the Aventis prize last week for his book Electric Universe (Little, Brown). His most recent book is Passionate Minds: The Great Enlightenment Love Affair (Little, Brown)
科学家的政治
上周，我获得了英国皇家学会(Royal Society)颁发的一项科学奖。感动之余，我将奖金捐给了英国科学家大卫?凯利(David Kelly)的家人。凯利对伊拉克大规模杀伤性武器的调查招致了政府批评，而后自杀身亡。
并非每个人都认为我的决定正确，他们的理由是，科学不应该因牵涉政治因素而受到玷污。但根据我对科学史的多年研究，我对此无法认同。因为科学往往会带来能够动摇社会既有权力的技术――而当这些权力拥有者进行反击的时候，科学力量会与之抗争，直至赢得胜利。
有些时候，这种报复是致命的，科学家会为真理而献身。举例来说，上世纪30年代时的苏联当局，就痛恨一些生物学家，因为后者指出改变植物的环境并不能改变其基因性质。而当局相信，通过改变社会环境，他们能够仅用一代人的时间，就培养出一个像马克思那样的人，但上述真理削弱了他们的这种信念。对于这种观点，只要存在任何的异议――比如不更事的农艺学家试图坚称，这并不适用于农作物――那么，这些反对者就会遭到迫害。许多人被降级降职；一些人被投入监狱，遭到拷打或杀害。
当然，乔治?W.?布什(George W. Bush)对科学的态度不那么极端，但本质上却差不多。这位美国总统和他的许多支持者明白，如果公众确信，目前煤和石油的使用正将地球置于极大的危险之下，那么他们会大声疾呼，要求彻底改变那些产业的运作方式。
有两个世界处在一条冲突的轨道上。一个是科学的世界。在这里，客观调查就像是一台望远镜，通过它来观察存在于我们周遭的世界，并准确地预言将要发生的事情。在这个世界里，重要的是找到真理并相应地调整你的行动――同时，如果必要的话，改变现有的产业。
但在政治的世界里，最重要的是你先前确定的、自己将要坚持的目标。任何威胁到这些目标的人都必须被封堵，因为他们影响你实现心目中更重要的利益。这往往是出于好意――只要想想就知道：任何你特别青睐的政治变革或制度，都是要顶住强大反对才得以实现的。
但是当两个世界发生碰撞时，问题就出现了。因为在短期内，几乎总是政治的世界获胜。政治家们长于煽动情感、挑动群体情绪、或发起人身攻击、或是选择性展示证据――希腊古典著作中所有古老的辩论方法他们都会。很少有科学家有能力回击。尽管在私人生活中，他们或许在心理方面很精明，但所从事的职业告诉他们：争论最终要靠坚持真理赢得。这是他们的条件反射：是他们惯于采取的做法。面对政治家的媒体顾问、泄露出来的政府密谈、圆滑的游说者等等诸如此类的东西，他们几乎没有任何防卫能力。
还有另一个扭曲的地方。这两个世界在按照不同的时间坐标运转。科学家特别善于捕捉外部世界所发生事件的微小征兆，并精确预测其结果。这是数百年来，人类在使用仪器和分析技术方面的进展所赋予他们的强大力量。然而，政治家却自然而然地更多采取外行的态度，只有证据广泛存在、立时可看见，才是真正重要的。
在书里，我写过许多像凯利那样的人――他们遵循自然科学的逻辑，相信随着时间的推移，他们所看到的将会得到证实。然而，他们如此频繁地与截然不同的政治世界和既定权力发生冲突，并最终被压成齑粉。
上周在皇家学会，这种状况发展到了极致。在颁奖晚会开始前不久，我与军界一位刚从伊拉克回来的朋友进行了一次长谈。他非常爱国，而且怎么说也算不上一位和平主义者。但是，他很清楚，他和同事们受到了误导：从开始起，他们的使命就构想错了。
这就是这两个世界发生碰撞的终极危险。对于政治世界中经验老到的官僚主义者和媒体而言，无情追逐和攻击凯利轻而易举。然而，这样做对于这样一个正派人来说是不公平的，不仅如此，还使他对真实世界的洞见遭到摒弃。我无力改变这一切。不过，我可以帮个忙，提醒人们那是错误的。
