Since our future will be profoundly influenced by, if not wholly dependent upon, the degree to which we understand the world in which we live threats to the free development of science deserve close attention. I made some brief allusion in my first Address to the Society in 1976 to freedom of scientific research and the danger of political interference. Since then the situation has not improved and I make no apology for returning to the subject today. Ominously, voices have been raised claiming that limits should be set to scientific enquiry -that there are questions which should not be asked and research which should not be undertaken. These are matters which ought to be taken seriously the more so as they have not only been raised by members of the lay public but have even found support among some scientists. Currently the main focus of this attack upon the freedom of choice of the research scientist is to be found in biology. It is particularly marked in the area of molecular biology especially in relation to recombinant DNA, genetic engineering, the ageing process and the genetic component of differences in human beings.
It seems to me that the motives behind this questioning are of two types. The first is simple fear of disaster stemming from dangers inherent in the nature of the research or in the methods employed to carry it out. The second is more complex but is essentially ideological and includes quasi-religious objections; it sees in the new knowledge which is sought a threat to the established order of society or to the creation of a system predetermined in the light of some political dogma. In many cases both motives are mixed up with one another and it can be difficult at times to separate and identify them. A typical - and topical - example is to be found in the much publicised debates about recombinant DNA research. Since it involves the incorporation of genes or gene fragments from all kinds of organisms into a bacterium there to be transmitted indefinitely there is obviously a theoretical possibility of danger in such research. Those who call for its prohibition, claim that one might, in doing such work, accidentally create a new pathogenic organism resistant to all known antibiotics and might, again by accident, allow it to escape from the laboratory and cause a world-wide epidemic of some new and untreatable disease. (It is only fair to point out that as far back as 1974 scientists themselves pointed out the need to pursue recombinant DNA research under conditions of safety like those commonly employed in any research dealing with pathogenic organisms.) This is, like all such cases, one in which we have to balance risk with benefit, for no venture into unknown territory can possibly be without risk. Fortunately there is reason to believe that the common-sense view of taking safety precautions will prevail and draconian measures based on fears more appropriate to science-fiction will not be invoked. But it has been a stormy business largely because of confusion in the minds of many members of the public between recombinant DNA and genetic engineering. This confusion was very evident in the much publicised activities of the mayor of Cambridge, Massachusetts and his committee who sought to decide whether recombinant DNA research should be forbidden in their area and raised the spectre of the production of Frankenstein-like monsters through such work. Now, if indeed such monsters were ever to be produced, it would be done by genetic engineering which is not the same as recombinant DNA, although it is true that recombinant DNA research is an essential preliminary and will bring nearer the day when genetic engineering will be possible and could then be applied to deal with certain diseases. But why is it always the more horrific science-fiction aspects of as yet unmade discoveries that are publicised?
In questioning genetic engineering we are concerned not with safety but with ideology; applied to human beings it could alter the shape of things in a way which might not fit with preconceived ideas of the future. Objections to research on the ageing process are again ideological; if it were successful in greatly extending the life-span it could, the objectors argue, gravely upset the age-structure of the population and with it the whole nature of society. And studies on the importance of genetic differences in human beings are frowned upon because they might yield results which would conflict with political dogma. It is attempts such as these to control science on ideological grounds that are most dangerous and they must be resisted at all costs. Ideological control is complete negation of all that science stands for since it rests on the assumption that we know what the future will or should be or that we wish the future to be the same as the present; whether this is for socio-political or quasi-religious reasons is irrelevant. The fact is - as I have already stated - that we cannot predict the future of society on our present knowledge with or without computers, and no society can remain static and stable simultaneously. Science asks questions and on the answers to them our future depends. To forbid questioning is therefore unacceptable. There are also practical reasons why the control of science by regulating what it may and what it may not study is not even reasonable. Attempts to do so are almost certain to fail since the discoveries which lead to new advances in technology (which is what affects us directly) are made almost at random and frequently in areas of science which have no obvious relation to practical issues. I recognise that the scale on which scientific research may be pursued must be determined by economic considerations but I am wholly opposed to any attempts to regulate or control the direction of scientific enquiry and I believe that in saying so I also speak for the Royal Society. I also believe it to be important that the public should understand our point of view, and that we as scientists have been too reluctant to present our views publicly. Perhaps we should do more to correct false impressions and allay fears about scientific matters which derive from the methods of presentation currently employed in the public media of communication.
What I have just said refers to science; the situation is different when we consider technology. Technology is simply the application of discovery or invention to the solution of practical problems and it is technology and not science which has a direct effect on our daily lives. Today, of course, it is largely science-based but there is no reason why it should not be directed according to national interests. Moreover, some technological developments which could be undertaken on the basis of scientific discovery could well be undesirable and ought to be restrained. Not infrequently new and apparently desirable technology can pose questions which we are unable to answer because we lack scientific knowledge. What we do not know could well be more dangerous than what we know; that is particularly so in matters relating to our natural environment. Many of our pollution problems have their origin in past technological developments which were undertaken without knowledge of their potentially harmful consequences. Today, concern is expressed about possible effects of supersonic transport or the extended use of certain aerosols upon the upper atmosphere on a global scale - for we have advanced technologically to a point where our actions could have a global rather than a mere local effect. In this particular instance what we lack is scientific knowledge of the upper atmosphere and especially of its chemistry. Such knowledge should be sought and although, as I have argued, one cannot control the direction of scientific enquiry by decree it should be both possible and acceptable to encourage research on a topic of this type perhaps by increased funding. It is unfortunate, however, that much of the scientific work needed in the environmental field is not very exciting, requires an elaborate interdisciplinary approach and does not offer much scientific kudos to the individual investigator. How to get round these problems and attract into the environmental field a larger share of our best scientific talent is a major problem at the present time.