DIFFICULTIES IN APPLYING THE SCIENCE COURT TO REAL CONTROVERSIES Experience has exhibited a number of difficulties most of which will have to be faced in any attempt to improve communication between the scientific community and the public: [1| There is an array of interests vested in the present “flexible” system including politicians and industrialists who utilize confusion about the state of scientific knowledge in defending their policies, scientists whose positions depend on their willingness to be cooperative in disregarding the frankness rule when supporting partisan policies, and institutions financially supported by doing “studies” for sponsors comfortable with their previous output. [21 Distinguished scientists who are quite prepared to answer pointed questions from their expert adversaries in scientific meetings are frequently unwilling to publicly answer the questions of their expert adversaries when they make scientific statements relevant to public policy matters. This unwillingness was responsible for the dilution of the science court procedures begun by Bailar at the National Institutes of Health to the present “Concensus Procedures.” Perhaps this unwillingness is related to the generally low esteem for the treatment of scientific matters by the legal courts. In the science court it will be necessary to exhibit that ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated and that rules of procedure similar to those in a scientific meeting will be enforced. [3] Perhaps the most important difficulty in implementing the science court is exhibited by the frequent observation that the procedure will be welcomed by partisans who see themselves as underdogs. Partisans who see themselves winning with procedures as they are will resist the introduction of new procedures whose outcome is unpredictable. The impetus for improvement in communication between the scientific community and the public will have to come from those who are persuaded that procedural improvements are needed to adequately manage our very powerful technology. [4] It must be recognized that before the science court can attain its full utility a considerable development would be required. Thus it will be necessary to develop procedures which are not only acceptable to all parties but will as perceived as leading to a full statement of the current knowledge. It will also be necessary to develop the profession of scientific advocate with adequate protection for those who defend viewpoints unpopular with powerful interest groups. CONCLUSION It is my position that Science and Technology play so large a role in our lives that it is imperative that in its governance we begin the transition made centuries ago in other important areas — from a government of men to a government of laws. The development of procedures and institutions devoted to credible communication between the scientific community and the public, when there is controversy in the scientific community and when the information is needed for the making of public policy, could play a role in this important transition. The science court is offered as a beginning step in this development.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==