Examination of Witnesses (Questions 980-986)
DR RICHARD
PIKE, PROFESSOR
MARTIN TAYLOR,
DR CAROLINE
WALLACE AND
DR PETER
COTGREAVE
24 MAY 2006
Q980 Dr Harris: I want to ask you
about the precautionary principle because your evidence, as the
Royal Society evidence talked about the precautionary principle
having several conflicting definitions, but then in your evidence
you talk about the precautionary principle, not a precautionary
principle. Should it be flexible and undefined and vague or should
it be more defined and therefore less flexible?
Professor Taylor: All I can say
is that when we speak to the precautionary principle I think we
are speaking of the generic one, as I think has been discussed
in this room, where there is a paucity of scientific evidence
and what do you do, how do you handle that. There are formal definitions
apparently in the document by POST and that is where the plurality
comes from. I think it would be good if we could all fix on one
definition.
Q981 Dr Harris: Do you think the
Government has done that across departments?
Professor Taylor: I am not aware
of that. That would be helpful.
Q982 Dr Harris: They talk about a
precautionary approach and define that.
Professor Taylor: Maybe that is
a thing we could take up with Dave King to try and clarify what
is meant by fixing the precautionary principle.
Q983 Chairman: I think if the Royal
Society could do that and actually define the precautionary principle
you would do mankind a huge favour, and particularly Dr Harris.
Professor Taylor: I am not sure
if that is a joke or homework!
Chairman: Both.
Q984 Dr Harris: The Royal Society
point out that the misapplication of the precautionary principle
can cause real harm. I think it was the Royal Society of Chemistry
that gave two examples, one of which was the precautionary approach
taken with regard to DDT which it is said, and there is good evidence,
caused millions of deaths from malaria without any good evidence
of benefit, and other examples as well. What do you think the
way forward is on the precautionary principle?
Dr Pike: The way forward is obviously
to think through the policies or the decisions one makes. In other
words, with DDT there was obviously a short-term benefit and there
are other examples where there are short-term benefits but other
things come into play. One has to think through what those are
before you actually make decisions.
Chairman: Margaret?
Q985 Margaret Moran: We have touched
during this session on the role of the media in terms of shaping
public perception, but can you just tell me what you think is
the primary role of public engagement? Is it to shape their opinions,
is it inform the public or is it to receive concerns back from
the public? How can we manage the expectations of the people we
are consulting so that we get the best scientific outcomes?
Dr Cotgreave: I think the answer
is probably all three of those things. I think you need to shape
public opinion, you have got to lead, but you have also got to
take public opinion into account, hear what it is, and if you
want to shape public opinion and know what it is, you have got
to inform people of the basis behind the things that you are doing.
I think it is probably all three of those things. Sorry, what
was the second part of the question?
Q986 Margaret Moran: How do we manage
the expectations of the people being consulted?
Dr Cotgreave: I think you have
to be a lot more honest with people than we have been in the past.
BSE is a classic example of this where Ministers went round saying,
"Beef is perfectly safe," and John Gummer gave his daughter
that beef burger that she did not want to eat. That is not a party
political point. I think ministers of any persuasion would have
done that at that time. Nobody really believed him and believed
the Government and they were right because in fact the Government
was misrepresenting the level of uncertainty that the scientists
had given them. The Scientific Committee had said that there was
a remote risk that this could be dangerous. Nevertheless, the
Government went round saying it was perfectly safe. So I think
you have got to be much more honest with people. My reading of
the way things are done these days is, for example, on bird flu
you see Dave King on the news, on the telly or in the paper much
more often than you ever used to see Bill Stewart in the days
of BSE. You see the scientists and you know "this is someone
whom I can trust. This is not a party politician trying to sell
me a beef burger; this is someone being honest with me and hedging
their comments around a little bit of uncertainty." You cannot
manage expectations by telling people it is perfectly safe when
everybody knows that nothing is perfectly safe.
Dr Wallace: We would agree that
one of the main objectives of communicating with the public is
to be honest about uncertainty and stop that turning into panic.
The MMR issue rumbled on was because it was not addressed properly.
An example of when it was done well was in the 2001 foot and mouth
outbreak with the concern that burning carcasses on pyres would
affect the amount of dioxins in milk. John Krebs immediately appeared
in the media, explained what the risk assessment was, what the
proposed monitoring programme was and suggested that people consumed
milk from not within a two kilometre radius of the pyres, and
panic did not arise.
Chairman: I am very sorry but we have
to come to the end of this session. Can I thank you all enormously
for your contributions and forgive us for the shortness of our
time with you. We very much appreciate not only your contributions
but also the written evidence which you constantly give to us.
Professor Taylor, if you can resolve the issue of the precautionary
principle you will do mankind a great favour.
| 
