Letter: The uses of science
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Sir Richard Sykes ("Science must allay the public's fears", Podium, 14 September) displays exactly the limited perspective on scientific development which creates public fear. In misrepresenting the debate as one between those who are for and against science, he misses the point, which is whether science is put to good use or bad.
Greenpeace strongly supports the application of science and new technology to amend environmental problems, such as our initiatives to create markets for ozone- and climate-friendly fridges, PVC-free credit cards and renewable energy sources. We oppose misapplication of science which leads to uncontrollable environmental risks such as those posed by nuclear power and release of genetically engineered organisms, or continued investment in fossil fuel extraction technologies when we cannot safely burn the fossil fuels we have already.
If Sir Richard wishes to allay fears he should acknowledge the real dilemmas, not pretend that all those who question the bad applications of science have "a lack of real understanding" or see all "scientific advances as heralding Armageddon". In a recent poll across the whole of Europe, increased knowledge about genetic engineering led to no greater acceptance. "Real understanding" will not necessarily remove public concerns, because members of the public frequently bring different values to bear.
Dr IAN E TAYLOR
Scientific Political Adviser
Greenpeace UK
London N1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments