Tony Blair on Science

Note: This article contains the entire interview with Tony Blair. Edited highlights of this interview were published in the print edition of New Scientist - that shorter version is available here.

Audio: Download our exclusive podcast of the entire interview here (11MB, mp3 format).

During the 10 years he has been in office, British prime minister Tony Blair has presided over some dramatic developments in science and the way it has impacted on society in the UK, from advances in cloning to the closening relationship between science and business.

He’s also been in power during two hugely controversial incidents: the refusal of people in Europe to accept GM crops, and the refusal of British parents to have their children vaccinated with the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine.

On the eve of an important speech Blair is making on the future of UK science, he talked to Jeremy Webb about why he thinks science is so important to society, where he think things went wrong with GM and MMR, and how such issues would be resolved far more easily if scientists engaged more in the public debate.

How good were you at science at school?

I’m very open about this. I was very poor at science at school. I’ve become a lot more interested in it in later life, and I’ve also started to regret that when I was younger I didn’t engage with it more fully and learn more.

Why didn’t you?

I found the basic concepts difficult to understand. It’s only in later life I’ve started to think about it more and look at it more. It’s also only as a political leader that I’ve really taken to the importance of science to the country’s future, and that’s how I’ve come to it now. So I don’t pretend any scientific knowledge but I do I think understand it’s importance to Britain’s future.

What do you think are the virtues of science?

For the future of the British economy, it is as important as economic stability. If we do not take the opportunities that are there for us in science then we are not going to have a successful modern economy. We will be outcompeted on labour costs: you can export capital and technology anywhere. It is our human capital that is the most important and it is at the cutting edge of science that our human capital can be most exploited for the country’s future.

We’ve got to give the country a great deal more confidence about science and it’s place in the future. I first talked about this a few years back, and everything I have seen here and around the world has only increased my sense of its importance.

Many scientists get in to science because of what they can discover about the universe. Do you follow this side of science at all?

One of the reasons we have more than doubled the science budget, why we have introduced the research and development tax credit, and why we encourage so much the link between the academic and business world, is because Britain has been very good at invention and discovery and not so good at its commercial exploitation. For me, those two things go together.

How do you bridge the gap between science as an academic interest-discovering more about the universe-and science as an commercial enterprise?

You need a certain amount of pure research, and the excitement and creativity of scientific discovery. But if you also have universities and research centres sufficiently in tune to what is going on in the private sector, then hopefully discoveries will be made that have a real utility. In areas like climate change and the biosciences, we should be the lead nation. We have a lot of strengths in science and we have to build those. I’d like to see us getting high quality science teachers in schools, and also having businesses getting involved in how science is taught in the classroom.

How do you get more schoolchildren inspired by science?

I would like to see some of the leading entrepreneurs in the scientific field-both academics and business people-going into the schools and giving children a sense of excitement, not just about scientific discovery but also about the huge job opportunities in science today. In environmental technology we’ve gone from a few years ago 150,000 people employed in the field to almost half a million, and these people are going to make money.

The tendency when I was at school was to see science as something that “the boffin” did and business as something the hard-headed person did. Today there is an interaction between the business and academic worlds, and we should be intensifying that.

Is there a danger in making science close to business that you lose that sense of scientists as impartial-or is that idea past its time?

The more enthusiasm and inspiration you get around science, the more people realise that there are practical applications of science that are immensely exciting and rewarding, that generates support for the whole field of science. There are difficult issues to do with conflicts of interest that come up from time to time but I think that pales into insignificance given the huge boost that comes from science, for example when developing practical ways of meeting challenge of climate change.

The contribution that British industry makes towards research and development is considerably lower than in many other European countries and the US. How do you convince industry to pick up the challenge?

You need to convince them with the vision of business opportunities for the future. It is one reason why we’ve taken such a lead role on the climate change issue, other than the obvious reason to protect the climate. The government has made a big extra investment in science. We aren’t doing as well as we should, on the other hand there are improvements happening.

The research and development tax credit is worth almost two billion pounds now, and some industries such as pharmaceuticals are big investors here. Research and development is the future economically for the country. Over time, this is something we can put right.

You’ve been in power during two extraordinary science-related occurrences: the refusal of people to accept GM crops, and the refusals of parents to have their children vaccinated with the MMR vaccine. What have you taken away from those experiences?

The first is to be very careful about the media and its reporting of these things. The reporting of MMR was disgraceful. There was no real scientific basis for the allegations that were made and it’s caused a great deal of difficulty.

GM, I think, is a different issue. We’ve also had stem cell research, where the outcome has been rather different and more positive. The lesson I learn is that it’s best to start with the public good. In the GM debate, I used to say to people that a lot of the life-saving drugs now being produced are the product of the same type of science as GM crops. This is why you need scientists to be engaged fully in proper public debate. The public should have confidence in science, and the scientific community has to interact with the public to explain things. Once you explain these things, people at least see another point of view.

You said recently that if America doesn’t want stem cell research, we do. Why do you think George Bush is so wrong here, and do you see any ethical problems with stem cell research?

I think we have taken care of the ethical problems. There obviously are ethical issues to do with it, but I think that if it is the case that done properly and in a controlled way, and we have got all sorts of procedures around it, the fact is it can benefit people’s lives enormously.

But I think that we have approached that in the right way, just in the same way frankly, it is a different type of ethical issue but there are ethical issues about animal testing and you have to get those right and we have got actually the toughest regime in the world now. But on the other hand I have seen myself the experimentation that has been done in order to show how you can save lives through the treatment of heart disease for example and this is something that is right to do.

In certain areas, we seem to be moving further away from rational thought, whether it’s the rise of fundamentalist religious beliefs or the use of unproven alternative therapies. Do you see any shift in this direction?

I don’t. I think most people today have a rational view about science. My advice for the scientific community would be, fight the battles you need to fight. I wouldn’t bother fighting a great battle over, say, homeopathy. It’s not going to determine the future of the world. What is going to determine the future of the world, however, is the scientific community explaining-for example-the science of genetics and how it develops, or the issues to do with climate change. I think most people are prepared to be very rational about these issues.

There is a dimension that concerns and frightens scientists, let alone other people, because as the science progresses there are so many possibilities. I was in California recently seeing something of how genetics will develop in the future, and it is immensely exciting, but it will also raise a lot of issues. There will be massive questions around this. This is why the scientific community, just as it is coming out into the business community, has got to come out and engage in a very strong and deep dialogue with wider society.

I personally think people aren’t anti-science. I think as the stem cell debate showed, people come to a fairly rational point of view. However, I think people will be quite staggered at some of the scientific advances that are going to be possible and it’s important the scientific community is out and actually engaging with the issues.

One subject that is of great concern to scientists is creationism. There has been a suggestion that creationism is being taught in some British schools. What are your views on this?

This can be hugely exaggerated. I’ve visited one of the schools in question and as far as I’m aware they are teaching the curriculum in a normal way. If I notice creationism become the mainstream of the education system in this country then that’s the time to start worrying. As I’ve said, it’s really quite important for science to fight the battles it needs to fight. When MMR comes out, or stem cells, or GM, that’s the time to have a real debate.

What about the other big battle: climate change. Where do you go from here in that fight?

The next step is internationally to get a framework agreed with the major countries with a binding set of agreements for when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012. I set up this process with the G8 countries plus China, India, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa. The agreements will incentivise private business and industry to go after the scientific and technology solutions. They’re out there, they just need to be developed and brought to market. Getting the right carbon price is absolutely vital for doing this. We should be world leaders in this area, so let’s do that.

How do you do that?

You do that not only through investing in renewables-we’re putting in several hundred million pounds-but also explaining to our business and academic world that there is going to be this opportunity. The same applies, more controversially, if we develop the new nuclear power stations. At least half the European countries are thinking about the next stages of nuclear power. Again, we have expertise in this area and we should develop it. Clean energy, clean coal, renewables, energey efficienty-this is going to be a vast market.