- Email: [email protected]
Cuttings
Perspectives
Cuttings
Lifeline
The Lancet has taken a rather perverse attitude to the Royal Society. Britain’s oldest scientific academy has an enviable record. And yet the editors of this journal have preferred to point at the Royal Society’s weaknesses rather than its strengths. While this may be entertaining, even valuably provocative, journalism, it upsets many scientists. The Royal Society is, after all, an emblem of British excellence. There is an opportunity now for The Lancet to put its weight behind what seems to me a very sensible series of recommendations concerning science communication. Science and the Public Interest is the result of 3 years of careful deliberation by the Royal Society. Its work suggests a thoughtful and serious engagement with public concerns about science. Patrick Bateson, the chair of the working group that wrote the review, called for nothing less than a wholesale “change in culture among researchers”. Incredible! The threat that Bateson dangled before scientists was some kind of new regulatory authority to control what scientists say. To stave off direct government interference in science, he urged scientists to realise how vulnerable they were. One possible avenue to restore trust would be to open up the peer-review system, to end the tradition of anonymous criticism; another would be to produce and publish lay summaries. Whatever the intervention, the essential cultural transition for science to make is to a more explicit consideration of the public interest. Most scientists would say that their work is valuefree. They owe a responsibility only to the truth. What others choose to do with their research is up to them, and is not the responsibility of scientists. Bateson disagrees with this widely held view. He argues that scientists must consider—“think deliberately about”— the implications of their work for the public. They must frame their communication to the public with these implications firmly in mind. Bateson seems to me on less secure ground when he urges the media to beware of reporting results presented at scientific conferences that have not been peer reviewed. If these conferences are open to media, what are journalists to do? The Royal Society’s latest foray into science and the public interest is to be welcomed. It puts the Society where it should be—in the thick of debate about the vital contribution science makes to society. Martin Rees, the Society’s new President, now has a useful platform from which to reach out to the public. He can grasp it with enthusiasm and confidence.
Antoine Flahault is in charge of the public health department at the Tenon Hospital in Paris, France. Head of Sentinelles (http://www.sentiweb.fr), he directs WHO’s collaborative centre for electronic disease surveillance. He has developed mathematical models for early warning and forecasts of infectious disease incidence. He has been recently designated by the French government to install a panel to coordinate research on Chikungunya.
Clarice Audrey [email protected]
www.thelancet.com Vol 368 July 15, 2006
What has been the greatest achievement of your career? Designing and developing FluNet, an electronic disease surveillance system that provides WHO headquarters with a tool for real-time global monitoring of influenza. What do you think is the most neglected field of science at the moment? Disease surveillance and more generally observation of life has been one of the most neglected issues in science for decades. What part of your work gives you the most pleasure? Working with PhD students without any mobile phones in the room. Which research paper has had most effect on your work, and why? A paper published in Science in 1999 about correlations between climate indicators and outbreaks of Rift Valley Fever in Kenya. It showed the value of such multidisciplinary work in countries where disease surveillance is lacking. Linthicum KJ, Anyamba A, Tucker CJ, et al. Climate and satellite indicators to forecast Rift Valley fever epidemics in Kenya. Science 1999; 285: 397–400. If you had not entered your current profession, what would you have liked to do? To have been a chef in a French restaurant in California. Who was your most influential teacher, and why? Alain-Jacques Valleron, a visionary scientist, who conceived and implemented most elements of electronic disease surveillance in France. He set up the French Sentinelles system in 1984 long before the widespread use of the internet. What is the best piece of advice you have received, and from whom? “Life is trouble, boss!”, from Zorba the Greek. What was your first experiment as a child? Cookery. My father, a medical public health doctor for WHO, and my mother, a paediatrician, lived at that time in Lomé, Togo, and would entertain many guests. I often helped cook for them, and they always ate my rather dubious culinary attempts without any comments. Perhaps this is why I decided to orient my life to medicine rather than to cooking.
195
Cuttings
Lifeline
The Lancet has taken a rather perverse attitude to the Royal Society. Britain’s oldest scientific academy has an enviable record. And yet the editors of this journal have preferred to point at the Royal Society’s weaknesses rather than its strengths. While this may be entertaining, even valuably provocative, journalism, it upsets many scientists. The Royal Society is, after all, an emblem of British excellence. There is an opportunity now for The Lancet to put its weight behind what seems to me a very sensible series of recommendations concerning science communication. Science and the Public Interest is the result of 3 years of careful deliberation by the Royal Society. Its work suggests a thoughtful and serious engagement with public concerns about science. Patrick Bateson, the chair of the working group that wrote the review, called for nothing less than a wholesale “change in culture among researchers”. Incredible! The threat that Bateson dangled before scientists was some kind of new regulatory authority to control what scientists say. To stave off direct government interference in science, he urged scientists to realise how vulnerable they were. One possible avenue to restore trust would be to open up the peer-review system, to end the tradition of anonymous criticism; another would be to produce and publish lay summaries. Whatever the intervention, the essential cultural transition for science to make is to a more explicit consideration of the public interest. Most scientists would say that their work is valuefree. They owe a responsibility only to the truth. What others choose to do with their research is up to them, and is not the responsibility of scientists. Bateson disagrees with this widely held view. He argues that scientists must consider—“think deliberately about”— the implications of their work for the public. They must frame their communication to the public with these implications firmly in mind. Bateson seems to me on less secure ground when he urges the media to beware of reporting results presented at scientific conferences that have not been peer reviewed. If these conferences are open to media, what are journalists to do? The Royal Society’s latest foray into science and the public interest is to be welcomed. It puts the Society where it should be—in the thick of debate about the vital contribution science makes to society. Martin Rees, the Society’s new President, now has a useful platform from which to reach out to the public. He can grasp it with enthusiasm and confidence.
Antoine Flahault is in charge of the public health department at the Tenon Hospital in Paris, France. Head of Sentinelles (http://www.sentiweb.fr), he directs WHO’s collaborative centre for electronic disease surveillance. He has developed mathematical models for early warning and forecasts of infectious disease incidence. He has been recently designated by the French government to install a panel to coordinate research on Chikungunya.
Clarice Audrey [email protected]
www.thelancet.com Vol 368 July 15, 2006
What has been the greatest achievement of your career? Designing and developing FluNet, an electronic disease surveillance system that provides WHO headquarters with a tool for real-time global monitoring of influenza. What do you think is the most neglected field of science at the moment? Disease surveillance and more generally observation of life has been one of the most neglected issues in science for decades. What part of your work gives you the most pleasure? Working with PhD students without any mobile phones in the room. Which research paper has had most effect on your work, and why? A paper published in Science in 1999 about correlations between climate indicators and outbreaks of Rift Valley Fever in Kenya. It showed the value of such multidisciplinary work in countries where disease surveillance is lacking. Linthicum KJ, Anyamba A, Tucker CJ, et al. Climate and satellite indicators to forecast Rift Valley fever epidemics in Kenya. Science 1999; 285: 397–400. If you had not entered your current profession, what would you have liked to do? To have been a chef in a French restaurant in California. Who was your most influential teacher, and why? Alain-Jacques Valleron, a visionary scientist, who conceived and implemented most elements of electronic disease surveillance in France. He set up the French Sentinelles system in 1984 long before the widespread use of the internet. What is the best piece of advice you have received, and from whom? “Life is trouble, boss!”, from Zorba the Greek. What was your first experiment as a child? Cookery. My father, a medical public health doctor for WHO, and my mother, a paediatrician, lived at that time in Lomé, Togo, and would entertain many guests. I often helped cook for them, and they always ate my rather dubious culinary attempts without any comments. Perhaps this is why I decided to orient my life to medicine rather than to cooking.
195