The original article was published on the website of the French Newspapaer Le Monde (9 juin 2011) : "Confisquer le débat sur les enjeux de la science, c'est affaiblir la démocratie"
In a recent opinion column published in Nature[1] regarding the Fukushima disaster, the journalist Colin Macilwain emphasized the legitimacy of the general public’s fears and denounced the condescension of nuclear experts as being counterproductive. Although Fukushima has illuminated the gap between the views of experts and those of the public, such condescending attitudes are not restricted to the nuclear energy debate. A simplistic vision opposing enlightened scientists with an ignorant public shapes the perception of modern society by a part of the scientific community.
This vision that puts the scientific expert in the position of holding all the knowledge before an ignorant public is, in my opinion, misleading. Conspiracy theories spread by for example, anti-vaccine movements, do threaten scientific and medical advances. However, concerns surrounding a given application of scientific knowledge do not necessarily mean obscurantism. Such concerns may be rooted in legitimate fears concerning the societal stakes of scientific application. In this respect, scientists should be open to mindsets that are different from their own.
Last year, the handling of the H1N1 influenza pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) led to suspicions being raised as to the role of the pharmaceutical industry regarding pandemic preparedness and response. In response to these unfounded allegations, influenza experts castigated the public as being irrational and ignorant. Since, numerous workshops targeting journalists have been set up throughout Europe to explain the scientific basis of influenza control policies, in the hope of restoring the public’s confidence in influenza vaccination.
The assumption that suspicions regarding the WHO’s management of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic were rooted in ignorance has however been invalidated by a recent review discussed at the 64th World Health Assembly in Geneva (16–24 May 2011). Although the review rules out allegations of a spurious pandemic and praises the timely identification of the new H1N1 influenza virus and the subsequent response by WHO, it also points out several shortcomings, some of which fuelled public suspicion. In particular, the review emphasizes the lack of clear and accessible information regarding the severity of the pandemic and the lack of transparency regarding the conflicts of interest of experts advising WHO. “By failing to acknowledge legitimate reasons for some criticism, WHO may have inadvertently contributed to confusion and suspicion”, the review concludes.
Although the allegations of fabricating a spurious pandemic are unfounded, it is the responsibility of all those who are engaged in pandemic preparedness and response to open an honest debate with the public about how the 2009 H1N1 pandemic was handled.
In a society where marketing is king, neither vaccines, nor drugs, nor healthcare can escape the logic of the market. Without a proper debate on the management of vaccination policies, the public’s doubts will remain. At a time when governmental arrogance is challenged more than ever in Spain and elsewhere across Europe, to continue to confiscate the debate would not only weaken confidence in science but would also diminish our democracies.
[1] Colin Macilwain. Concerns over nuclear energy are legitimate. Nature. 30 March 2011
