2 November 2006
Tony Blair speaks about his passion for science during a wide-ranging interview with New Scientist magazine. The PM gives his views on subjects including MMR jabs, GM foods and climate change.
He says he sees science as vital to Britain’s future and "almost as important as economic stability".
You can listen to the interview as mp3 or read a transcript below.
- Listen to the podcast, mp3, 21MB (opens in new window)
- Visit the New Scientist website (opens in new window)
Parts of this transcript may have been edited
Read the transcript
Interviewer:
Prime Minister, can I ask you first of all about your own personal take on science. You were at school, you presumably studied science at some stage?
Prime Minister:
I am afraid I always, and I am very open about this, that I was very poor at science at school and I have actually become a lot more interested in it in later life, and I have also started really to regret that when I was younger I didn’t engage with it more fully and learn more.
Interviewer:
Why didn’t you? Were you turned off science at school?
Prime Minister:
Yes, I found the basic concepts difficult to understand, if I am honest about it, and it is actually only in later life I have started to think about it more and look at it more, and also as I have become as a political leader really taken with the importance of science to the country’s future, and that is really where I come to it now. So I don’t pretend any scientific knowledge but I do I think understand its importance to Britain’s future.
Interviewer:
So tell me about that. How do you see science now, what are its virtues?
Prime Minister:
I think it is to the future of the British economy as important as economic stability almost, it is almost that important. The future for the British economy is about science, it is about being at the cutting edge of the knowledge economy. If we do not take the opportunities that are there for us in science then we are not going to have a successful modern economy, because the truth is we will be out-competed on labour costs, you can export capital and technology anywhere, it is our human capital that is most important and it is at the cutting edge of science that that human capital can be most exploited for the country’s future.
And we have got to give the country a great deal more confidence about science and its place in the future, and that is the reason why I am doing this lecture. And I first talked about this a few years back when I gave the lecture about Why Science Matters, and everything that I have seen here and round the world has only increased my sense of its importance.
Interviewer:
For many scientists, I think many scientists get into science with a view to discovering something in the universe, finding out truth if you like. Do you have a view on that, do you follow scientific discoveries in that sense at all?
Prime Minister:
Yes I do, but I follow them obviously from a more practical application. And one of the reasons why we have more than doubled the science budget in the country, why we have introduced the research and development tax credit and so on, and why we encourage so much now the link between the academic and the business world is because Britain has traditionally been very good at invention and scientific discovery, not so good at its commercial exploitation, and obviously for me the two of those things go together.
Interviewer:
There is a kind of dichotomy here in the sense that you do have a group of academic scientists who are interested in, as I said, discovery, and you have a world of business science as well, pharmaceuticals being the most obvious one in this country. How do you bridge that gap?
Prime Minister:
Well it is a very good question. I think that you need a certain amount of pure research, and you also need to have the excitement and creativity that comes around scientific discovery. But if you also have universities and research centres sufficiently attuned to what is going on in the private sector, then hopefully discoveries are being made, discoveries that have a real utility. And if you look at the differences that will be made in healthcare in years to come through genetics, but also just through the development of technology, if you look at the environment now on climate change, which is a massive area for technological and scientific development, and bioscience, these are areas where we should be the lead nation in these areas and we have got a lot of strengths in science but we have got to build those.
And in particular I would like to see a situation where science is far more important in schools, that we are getting high quality science teachers into schools, that people can see there is also a link, and this is the reason for setting up for example specialist science and technology colleges so that you have actually got businesses that are interested in taking forward science, getting involved in how science is taught in the classroom.
Interviewer:
Taking teaching as an example, this country is in a bit of a pickle with its science teachers I think, in particular with physics and chemistry teachers. Let me explain why, though you probably know. We need inspiring teachers in order to inspire kids to go into these subjects, at the moment that is not happening. How do we fix that, how do we make that happen?
Prime Minister:
Well one of the things we are doing, we have got this new centre in York which is the Science Learning Centre which has been a really great innovation, so you can get science teachers to come in and have some residential time learning about new scientific developments, and then there is going to be a series of regional science centres. I visited one in County Durham just the other day, where you will get schools that will have a specialist science application and then other schools in the area can come in and the pupils get taught in that environment. We are also giving incentives for people to become science teachers, and we are also finding that those people studying science who are engaged with enterprise as well, we have increased that from 3,000 I think in the late 1990s to something like 24 - 25,000 today. So there is a lot that is going on and I think we should look at this as something that you build up over a generation.
But I would also like to see groups of some of the leading as it were entrepreneurs in the scientific field, both academics and business people going into the schools and giving kids a sense of excitement, not just about scientific discovery but actually about the huge job opportunities there are in science today. In environmental technology we have gone from a few years ago 150,000 people employed in the field to almost half a million, and these people are going to make money.
So I think it is important, and certainly this was the tendency when I was at school, was people saw science as something that you know "the boffins" did, business was something the hard headed person does. Actually when you visit universities today or you see some of these leading edge technology firms, there is an interaction between the business and academic world and we should be intensifying that.
Interviewer:
So I am interested, isn’t there a conflict of interest in some cases here? For example the IPCC Scientific Committee - that is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - has been criticised for being political, these scientists on that committee.
Prime Minister:
Political in the sense of?
Interviewer:
Of representing views other than the data if you like. The question is do you need pure scientists or is there a danger by bringing scientists and business too close together that you lose your impartial data, you lose your impartial scientists, or actually is that an idea that is past its time?
Prime Minister:
Well I think the truth of the matter is the more enthusiasm and inspiration you get around science, and in fact people realising there is a career, there are practical applications of science that are immensely exciting and that can be very rewarding, I think that generates support for the whole field of science and in that you will find the pure. The companies for example in the bioscience area know they need the pure research as well.
So I think there are difficult issues to do with conflicts of interest from time to time but I think that pales into insignificance frankly given the huge boost that comes from science, from people saying look here is (for example) the challenge of climate change and this is how we should be developing the practical ways of meeting it.
Interviewer:
If you look at the amount of GDP which Britain spends on research and development, we are considerably lower than many of our European countries and obviously a lot lower than the US, we see China and India doubling their spend on research and development. The contribution that is missing is not from government, it is missing from industry. How do you convince industry itself to pick up the challenge here?
Prime Minister:
Well this is where I think you need to present them with a vision of the business opportunities for the future and it is one reason why, quite apart from the obvious reason of protecting the climate, why we have taken such a lead role on this climate change issue. I think it is right, government has made a big extra investment in science, we aren’t doing as well as we should, on the other hand there are improvements happening now and as I say I think the research and development tax credit is worth about almost £2 billion now. And you have got industries like the pharma industry obviously which are big investors here. But one of the reasons for doing the speech is to say this is the future economically for this country and to create a sense that when people are moving into science and research, they are moving into an area that is going to have a big economic payback for the future. So I think over time this is something we can put right.
Interviewer:
You have been in power during two extraordinary occurrences, I am thinking here of the refusal of people in the UK to accept genetically modified crops, you were also in power when parents started refusing to have their children vaccinated with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. This is all about risk and the public’s perception of that risk. I am interested to know what you take away from those two occurrences.
Prime Minister:
Well the first thing is to be very careful about the media and its reporting of these things because the reporting of MMR frankly was disgraceful. There was absolutely no real scientific basis for the allegations that were made and it has caused a great deal of difficulty. I think GM is a different issue, although I did my best to make the case and I think at some point we need to return to the whole issue here. But I think there is also something else that has happened, as well as MMR and GM you have also had stem cell where the outcome has been rather different and more positive.
Now I think we have got to learn some lessons from that and the lesson that I learned is that you start with the public good, you know that is the important thing. And the bizarre thing about the GM debate, because I used to have this debate with people and I used to say to them, "you do understand a lot of the drugs that are now being produced, that are helping save lives, are the product of the same type of science, so how come they are going to save your life here and somehow we have got this sort of Frankenstein food idea when it comes to GM crops?" There is something that doesn’t match.
But I think funnily enough if we had started on the GM debate through medicine and then looked at the other aspects and made this an issue to do with the public good rather than what it seemed to be I think to some people, which is here are these American companies, they want to come in, and the term genetic modification, as I said to some of the scientists the other day, could only have been invented by those opposed to it rather than those in favour of it because the concept is one that strikes people as scary.
But actually this is why you also need the scientists to be engaged fully in proper public debate, and the other thing I want to do is to say the public actually should have confidence in science, and the scientific community has to interact with the public in order to explain things because people once they have it explained, there is nobody I have ever been through these debates with that once you have explained it they at least say well I have seen there is another point of view. Whereas if you have a debate by way of headline it is a pretty hopeless process.
But you are right, I took a lot of lessons out of that. I think the MMR thing really was a case of very, very irresponsible media reporting, but I think the difference between stem cell and GM was the difference between starting from the proposition of how do we help people - the positive and right way to construct the debate - and how do we help some commercial interest - which is the wrong way to start it.
Interviewer:
And I think you are right, I think you have hit the nail on the head. I would say that even in MMR to some extent it looked like the government had an agenda other than the public good, it looked like it had the agenda we must get this triple vaccine into as many children as possible, and I think one could have been more open and straightforward and possibly, immediately Wakefield’s paper came out, said OK we are pretty certain that MMR is safe but we are going to find out and we are going to have this study.
Prime Minister:
Yes, it is terribly difficult because if we were debating these issues in the New Scientist that might be a very good way of doing it, but there are one or two other newspapers who have not quite the same quality of objectivity. And my worry was that if we gave it even a prima facie credibility, before you knew where you were people would have assumed it was credible. Look, I think you have got to try and learn the lessons from this, and actually to be fair to the scientific community what they have done more recently in taking the time themselves, and I think there was a paper published just recently that I think will have laid most of this to rest.
Interviewer:
There have been several just in the last year, year and a half.
Prime Minister:
Yes, but part of the trouble is that the publicity you give to laying the scare to rest is never the same as the publicity of the scare. But anyway.
Interviewer:
Let’s talk about stem cells. You said recently that if America doesn’t want stem cell research, we do. And I am interested in why you think George Bush is so wrong in his policies in America.
Prime Minister:
You want a Bush story out of this, do you?
Interviewer:
And why do we want it so much? Do you see no ethical problems with stem cell research?
Prime Minister:
I think we have taken care of the ethical problems. There obviously are ethical issues to do with it, but I think that if it is the case that done properly and in a controlled way, and we have got all sorts of procedures around it, the fact is it can benefit people’s lives enormously.
But I think that we have approached that in the right way, just in the same way frankly, it is a different type of ethical issue but there are ethical issues about animal testing and you have to get those right and we have got actually the toughest regime in the world now. But on the other hand I have seen myself the experimentation that has been done in order to show how you can save lives through the treatment of heart disease for example and this is something that is right to do.
Interviewer:
I want to change tack slightly now. The world is now kind of very reliant on science, not just for discovering the universe but also in terms of culture, culture is shaped by scientific findings and as you say our economies are as well. So at a time when science is revealing more about us, about the universe, about human nature, the way we work, what makes us sick, what makes us well again, these are expressions of the power of rational thought, but we seem more and more to be moving away from rational thought in certain areas, whether it is using alternative medicines or fundamentalist religious beliefs. I wonder if you see any kind of a shift in this direction and whether you know what is going on.
Prime Minister:
Frankly I don’t. I think that most people today have a rational view about science and my advice to the scientific community would be you know fight the battles you need to fight. I wouldn’t bother fighting a great battle over homeopathy, I mean there are people who use it, people who don’t use it, it is not going to determine the future of the world frankly. What will determine the future of the world however is the scientific community explaining for example the science of genetics and how it develops, or the issue to do with climate change and so on, and I think in these regards I think most people are prepared to be very rational about it. I think however that there is a dimension that concerns and frightens scientists, never mind people, because as the science progresses there are so many possibilities. As I say I start from not merely admitting my ignorance but protesting it, but you know when I was over in California recently I was seeing some of how genetics will develop in the future and it is immensely exciting, but it also will raise in time a lot of issues about how much you want to control through the science of genetics, how we look, how we are, how we live.
In time to come I think there will be massive questions around this because obviously the possibilities for extending people’s lives very considerably, for all sorts of changes, some of which may be cosmetic in nature and therefore raise particular concerns and worries. This is why I think the scientific community in a way as it is coming out into the business community now, I think it has got to come out into the public and into society as a whole and engage in a very strong and deep dialogue with wider society. And I personally think people aren’t anti-science actually, I think there are various people who will exploit various issues, or drive various issues at people, that may be true and we have talked about some of the newspaper campaigns, but actually in the end I think as the stem cell debate showed in the end, and animal rights too, people in the end do actually come to a fairly rational point of view about it. However, I do think they will be quite staggered at some of the scientific advances that are going to be possible and I think it is important that the scientific community is out ahead of people getting that through this headline or that headline and actually engaging with it.
Interviewer:
I am interested in your views on creationism because this is one of the pet hates of the scientific community, as you probably know, and there has been some suggestion that some of the academies that have been set up are teaching creationism in British schools. Do you have any comment on that, do you think creationism is a good thing, a bad thing? I would argue that it is certainly not science.
Prime Minister:
No, and I don’t suppose the people who teach it or preach it would say that it is. But again this can be hugely exaggerated. I visited one of the schools in question and as far as I am aware they are teaching the curriculum in the normal way, and actually what they are providing in fact, which is far more important, they are providing the first disciplined high quality teaching that most of these kids have ever had. So as I say I think that if I notice creationism becoming the mainstream of the education system in this country, I think that is the time to start worrying. But it is really quite important I think for science to fight the battles we need to fight. That is why I would say getting into a huge argument with people who use homeopathic medicine, I wouldn’t bother going down that path. When MMR comes up, or stem cell, or GM, yes that is the time to have a real debate.
Interviewer:
Can I ask you about one of the fights that I think you believe in fighting, and that is the fight against climate change and I am just interested to know where you go from here, what is the next step in your view as far as climate change?
Prime Minister:
The next step is internationally to get an agreed framework with the major countries. I set up this process, which is the G8 countries Plus Five, and the Plus Five are China, India, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa. And the basic point, because the G8 has the major European countries and also America and Japan, the basic thing is to get the big countries of the world together and agree a post-Kyoto framework, the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012, get a post-Kyoto framework with a binding set of agreements in it. And what those agreements will do is effectively incentivise private business and industry to go after the scientific and technological solutions. They are out there, they just need to be developed and brought to market, and getting the right carbon price and so on is absolutely vital in doing this. So that is internationally, and nationally we should be world leaders in this area, let’s give ourselves world leadership, let’s be the people who actually are developing this stuff.
Interviewer:
How do you do that?
Prime Minister:
Well you do that I think not just by the amount of money that we are going to devote for example into research into renewables, which is now several hundred million pounds, but also in explaining to our own business and academic world there is going to be this opportunity here. You know in time to come there is going to be a fantastic opportunity. And for example, and this is a more controversial thing, but if you develop the new nuclear power stations and so on, again which will be a major development, and what was fascinating to me when I was at the European Summit last week is that at least half the countries around that table are thinking about the next stages of nuclear power, and how we have got again some expertise here so we should develop it. These issues to do with clean energy, clean coal, renewables, energy efficiency, this is going to be a vast market that opens up. So what we should be doing is from government driving it with seedcorn money, and in the business and industry and academic world saying to them look here are the opportunities and giving a sense of direction for the future of British industry, which I think would be really exciting for us.
Interviewer:
You don’t think there is any place for what some people have described as an international Manhattan project, get the world together in a co-ordinated way to try and …
Prime Minister:
Yes I do think there is a case for that, and actually if this European Institute of Science and Technology, which the Commission want to set up happens, that will be one forum in which that will take place. And yes I think there is room for cooperation internationally and there is also room for our own endeavour.
delicious
digg
facebook
