Latest / The Science Diplomat / S1E6: Tracey Brown on evidence, accountability, and the public interest

Transcript

S1E6: Tracey Brown on evidence, accountability, and the public interest · The Science Diplomat

0:01
SPEAKER_01: Evidence doesn't speak for itself.
0:03
SPEAKER_01: It has to be questioned,
0:05
SPEAKER_01: communicated, defended and
0:07
SPEAKER_01: sometimes fought for.
0:09
SPEAKER_01: Today's guest has spent more than
0:10
SPEAKER_01: two decades doing exactly that.
0:13
SPEAKER_01: As the CEO of
0:15
SPEAKER_01: Sense About Science, an independent
0:17
SPEAKER_01: charity based in London dedicated
0:19
SPEAKER_01: to promoting the public interest in
0:21
SPEAKER_01: sound science and evidence,
0:23
SPEAKER_01: Tracey Brown has led campaigns that
0:25
SPEAKER_01: have transformed how evidence
0:27
SPEAKER_01: is used in public life.
0:30
SPEAKER_01: Sense About Science has helped
0:31
SPEAKER_01: change laws, influence
0:33
SPEAKER_01: government policy, and strengthen
0:35
SPEAKER_01: public accountability,
0:36
SPEAKER_01: all while championing the idea that
0:38
SPEAKER_01: evidence should be open to scrutiny.
0:40
SPEAKER_01: Tracey, welcome to The Science
0:42
SPEAKER_01: Diplomat, it's a pleasure to have
0:44
SPEAKER_01: you with us.
0:45
SPEAKER_01: I want to start off
0:46
SPEAKER_01: with this question.
0:47
SPEAKER_01: What drew you to
0:49
SPEAKER_01: this work in the first place?
0:51
SPEAKER_01: Was there maybe a conviction
0:53
SPEAKER_01: you had early on or
0:55
SPEAKER_01: something that came from a personal
0:58
SPEAKER_01: view of how the system works?
1:01
SPEAKER_00: Well, that's a really big question.
1:05
SPEAKER_00: I was frustrated
1:07
SPEAKER_00: that in
1:10
SPEAKER_00: quite a number of discussions in
1:13
SPEAKER_00: the sort of 90s,
1:15
SPEAKER_00: there was a real fashion for
1:17
SPEAKER_00: sort of throwing out the
1:19
SPEAKER_00: kind of factual basis for
1:21
SPEAKER_00: discussion.
1:25
SPEAKER_00: Around that time, there was
1:27
SPEAKER_00: a movement in academia
1:29
SPEAKER_00: towards something called
1:30
SPEAKER_00: postmodernism, which
1:31
SPEAKER_00: was this idea that we all have our
1:33
SPEAKER_00: own truth.
1:35
SPEAKER_00: It felt to me,
1:37
SPEAKER_00: coming to the academic world
1:39
SPEAKER_00: from very humble beginnings,
1:41
SPEAKER_00: where education had been my
1:44
SPEAKER_00: ladder, that
1:46
SPEAKER_00: this was a denial of opportunity,
1:48
SPEAKER_00: society, to people,
1:50
SPEAKER_00: to understand their world, in the
1:51
SPEAKER_00: excitement of being able to
1:54
SPEAKER_00: describe our world in
1:57
SPEAKER_00: facts and figures and to
1:59
SPEAKER_00: describe how we'd like it to be.
2:02
SPEAKER_00: Also during the '90s, I worked in
2:03
SPEAKER_00: Russia.
2:04
SPEAKER_00: It opened up from
2:06
SPEAKER_00: the Soviet Union.
2:09
SPEAKER_00: And I witnessed societies
2:11
SPEAKER_00: being able to ask questions like,
2:13
SPEAKER_00: you know, do we earn as much money
2:15
SPEAKER_00: as people in the next region for
2:17
SPEAKER_00: the same job?
2:18
SPEAKER_00: Is the river really not polluted?
2:20
SPEAKER_00: Are the assurances we're being given
2:22
SPEAKER_00: by government reliable?
2:24
SPEAKER_00: We were able to actually start
2:25
SPEAKER_00: exploring their world with
2:27
SPEAKER_00: questions, looking for evidence.
2:29
SPEAKER_00: And I saw how
2:31
SPEAKER_00: valuable that was for
2:32
SPEAKER_00: people to be able to
2:34
SPEAKER_00: understand the world around them and
2:36
SPEAKER_00: their place in it and to, so
2:38
SPEAKER_00: both in sort of social terms, but
2:39
SPEAKER_00: also in more
2:41
SPEAKER_00: sort of scientific terms.
2:44
SPEAKER_00: I came to Sense About Science,
2:46
SPEAKER_00: which was a sort of an early
2:48
SPEAKER_00: gathering of people concerned about
2:50
SPEAKER_00: similar things, with a lot
2:52
SPEAKER_00: of that in
2:54
SPEAKER_00: my back pocket.
2:55
SPEAKER_00: A lot of that concern.
2:56
SPEAKER_01: You've been a pretty vocal
2:58
SPEAKER_01: critic of the idea of a post-truth
3:01
SPEAKER_01: society, and I
3:03
SPEAKER_01: mean, why do you push back on it?
3:06
SPEAKER_00: I think sometimes we get
3:08
SPEAKER_00: confused about whether
3:11
SPEAKER_00: people's rejection of
3:12
SPEAKER_00: a particular point is actually
3:15
SPEAKER_00: a factual matter.
3:18
SPEAKER_00: So people, where
3:20
SPEAKER_00: this language about post-truth
3:22
SPEAKER_00: came from, it came from
3:24
SPEAKER_00: Brexit and to some extent the
3:26
SPEAKER_00: election of Trump in his first term,
3:30
SPEAKER_00: but there was a frustration that the
3:31
SPEAKER_00: public was embracing statements and
3:33
SPEAKER_00: views that were not
3:35
SPEAKER_00: evidence-based, and that they didn't
3:37
SPEAKER_00: care for the facts any longer.
3:39
SPEAKER_00: But I could point to so many
3:41
SPEAKER_00: examples where
3:43
SPEAKER_00: the public have been very insistent
3:44
SPEAKER_00: on getting the facts.
3:45
SPEAKER_00: There were a number of very high
3:47
SPEAKER_00: profile patients on inquiries
3:49
SPEAKER_00: in the U.K., for example,
3:52
SPEAKER_00: where large groups sought to
3:54
SPEAKER_00: have the truth about what had
3:56
SPEAKER_00: happened in major incidents.
3:58
SPEAKER_00: There was a big case in Norway of
4:00
SPEAKER_00: patients seeking to get
4:03
SPEAKER_00: the truth about clinical
4:04
SPEAKER_00: trials.
4:05
SPEAKER_00: My experience has been
4:06
SPEAKER_00: people are very motivated to
4:09
SPEAKER_00: have people in authority tell the
4:10
SPEAKER_00: truth and to have honest
4:13
SPEAKER_00: and independent statistics.
4:16
SPEAKER_00: So I didn't think we lived in a
4:17
SPEAKER_00: post-truth society.
4:18
SPEAKER_00: I think we lived in a posts-politics
4:20
SPEAKER_00: society, where people were getting
4:21
SPEAKER_00: frustrated with the political
4:23
SPEAKER_00: options and quite
4:25
SPEAKER_00: often were willing to throw that
4:27
SPEAKER_00: baby of evidence and
4:29
SPEAKER_00: facts out with the bath water.
4:32
SPEAKER_00: And that was perhaps where the
4:33
SPEAKER_00: problem is.
4:36
SPEAKER_02: I want to ask something that came
4:37
SPEAKER_02: out of my own journalism career,
4:39
SPEAKER_02: because I think it gets at a
4:41
SPEAKER_02: tension that's in all of this.
4:42
SPEAKER_02: Early on,
4:44
SPEAKER_02: as a young reporter, I assumed that
4:45
SPEAKER_02: if wrongdoing was documented early
4:47
SPEAKER_02: and clearly enough, somebody would
4:49
SPEAKER_02: want to do something about it.
4:50
SPEAKER_02: It felt like a social contract.
4:51
SPEAKER_02: Reporter sheds light on wrongdoing.
4:53
SPEAKER_02: People go, oh my gosh, the outrage.
4:56
SPEAKER_02: A government hearing is called.
4:57
SPEAKER_02: Somebody does something.
4:59
SPEAKER_02: Over time, of course, I realized
5:00
SPEAKER_02: that wasn't always true.
5:02
SPEAKER_02: Sometimes evidence leads to reform.
5:04
SPEAKER_02: Sometimes it's ignored.
5:05
SPEAKER_02: Sometimes it's scary.
5:07
SPEAKER_02: So, I'm wondering, looking across
5:08
SPEAKER_02: your own career, what do you think
5:10
SPEAKER_02: actually determines whether evidence
5:12
SPEAKER_02: leads to that?
5:14
SPEAKER_00: Quite often we see
5:17
SPEAKER_00: a finding or uncovering
5:20
SPEAKER_00: of evidence, the headlines,
5:21
SPEAKER_00: quite often there's a group of
5:23
SPEAKER_00: people who've known about that for
5:24
SPEAKER_00: some time and they're maybe trying
5:26
SPEAKER_00: to make it stick.
5:27
SPEAKER_00: I mean, a good example of that was
5:29
SPEAKER_00: the measles, mumps and rubella
5:31
SPEAKER_00: vaccine, the MMR vaccine.
5:34
SPEAKER_00: The original paper that was
5:35
SPEAKER_00: published in the Lancet that was
5:37
SPEAKER_00: later found to be fraudulent, people
5:38
SPEAKER_00: knew that there was something wrong
5:39
SPEAKER_00: with that paper.
5:40
SPEAKER_00: And certain very
5:41
SPEAKER_00: dogged journalists were really
5:43
SPEAKER_00: putting up on that.
5:45
SPEAKER_00: The zeitgeist was very much
5:47
SPEAKER_00: around the discovery of
5:49
SPEAKER_00: the next sort of
5:51
SPEAKER_00: big scandal, the next medical
5:52
SPEAKER_00: scandal.
5:53
SPEAKER_00: We'd had the French blood
5:54
SPEAKER_00: scandal, we'd had
5:56
SPEAKER_00: mad cow disease in the U.K.,
5:58
SPEAKER_00: we had a number of different
5:59
SPEAKER_00: scandals and people even
6:01
SPEAKER_00: remembered the
6:04
SPEAKER_00: whooping cough vaccine.
6:05
SPEAKER_00: And so it was kind of
6:07
SPEAKER_00: painted in that model and it was
6:08
SPEAKER_00: very difficult to penetrate that
6:11
SPEAKER_00: way of thinking, that search for the
6:12
SPEAKER_00: next story.
6:13
SPEAKER_00: Some people even said, you know,
6:14
SPEAKER_00: we're waiting for the next
6:15
SPEAKER_00: thalidomide story.
6:18
SPEAKER_00: And so it was really
6:20
SPEAKER_00: difficult to come with a different
6:22
SPEAKER_00: paradigm and say, actually,
6:23
SPEAKER_00: this is a researcher who's got
6:25
SPEAKER_00: carried away.
6:26
SPEAKER_00: There's a social and
6:26
SPEAKER_00: political context to these and
6:28
SPEAKER_00: a readiness to hear it.
6:30
SPEAKER_00: One of the first things we did was
6:31
SPEAKER_00: popularize an understanding of peer
6:32
SPEAKER_00: review, this thing that
6:34
SPEAKER_00: makes information that comes out of
6:36
SPEAKER_00: research different from
6:38
SPEAKER_00: other information.
6:40
SPEAKER_00: And the
6:40
SPEAKER_00: anticipation that your peers are
6:42
SPEAKER_00: going to scrutinize the work you've
6:44
SPEAKER_00: done requires from you a different
6:45
SPEAKER_00: standard.
6:47
SPEAKER_00: It wasn't something that scientists
6:48
SPEAKER_00: wanted to talk about.
6:49
SPEAKER_00: They thought this was just like the
6:50
SPEAKER_00: tedious process that they either had
6:52
SPEAKER_00: to do or be subjected to.
6:54
SPEAKER_00: But we managed to get that
6:56
SPEAKER_00: really far, I mean, even to make
6:58
SPEAKER_00: it a news headline.
6:59
SPEAKER_00: I mean, as a journalist you should
7:00
SPEAKER_00: be saying, is it peer reviewed?
7:02
SPEAKER_00: If someone comes along and says
7:04
SPEAKER_00: they've got this study that
7:06
SPEAKER_00: shows that there is more cancer
7:07
SPEAKER_00: around a mobile phone mask,
7:10
SPEAKER_00: a peer-reviewed study.
7:11
SPEAKER_00: Instead of just putting it straight
7:12
SPEAKER_00: on the radio, which we were seeing.
7:15
SPEAKER_00: We were pushing that in politics as
7:17
SPEAKER_00: well, asking politicians to
7:20
SPEAKER_00: weigh the submissions
7:22
SPEAKER_00: that they were receiving, to
7:23
SPEAKER_00: consider whether or not research was
7:25
SPEAKER_00: peer-ereviewed.
7:26
SPEAKER_00: It wasn't a question of, is it true?
7:27
SPEAKER_00: Is it absolutely watertight?
7:29
SPEAKER_00: It was just, has it been through
7:31
SPEAKER_00: some really kind of fundamental
7:32
SPEAKER_00: checks?
7:33
SPEAKER_00: That did so
7:34
SPEAKER_00: well that in the U.K., it became
7:35
SPEAKER_00: part of our policy practice,
7:38
SPEAKER_00: it became part of our schools
7:39
SPEAKER_00: curriculum.
7:40
SPEAKER_00: It became the policy of the BBC to
7:43
SPEAKER_00: always cite the paper that something
7:44
SPEAKER_00: was published in.
7:46
SPEAKER_00: And it's really hard for me to think
7:48
SPEAKER_00: back now 20 years ago.
7:50
SPEAKER_00: It wasn't unusual that newspapers
7:51
SPEAKER_00: could report
7:54
SPEAKER_00: a story without actually ever
7:55
SPEAKER_00: telling you what journal
7:57
SPEAKER_00: a paper was published in.
7:59
SPEAKER_00: So you could never trace the
8:01
SPEAKER_00: origins of that story.
8:02
SPEAKER_00: Another example is AllTrials,
8:04
SPEAKER_00: you know, where we campaigned
8:05
SPEAKER_00: globally to ensure
8:08
SPEAKER_00: that all the clinical trials that
8:10
SPEAKER_00: medicines are based on that
8:12
SPEAKER_00: we use today are published,
8:14
SPEAKER_00: not just half of them, not just the
8:16
SPEAKER_00: half that people want you to see.
8:18
SPEAKER_00: And that was a really effective
8:20
SPEAKER_00: campaign.
8:20
SPEAKER_00: When I think about
8:22
SPEAKER_00: what that required of so
8:24
SPEAKER_00: many members of the public, patients
8:25
SPEAKER_00: and consumers and as well as doctors
8:27
SPEAKER_00: and researchers, I'm
8:29
SPEAKER_00: really quite impressed at
8:32
SPEAKER_00: how people rose to that challenge.
8:34
SPEAKER_00: And we're talking about thousands of
8:35
SPEAKER_00: people in that instance.
8:36
SPEAKER_00: Thousands and thousands of people
8:38
SPEAKER_00: wrote to members of the
8:40
SPEAKER_00: European Parliament when
8:42
SPEAKER_00: a new piece of legislation was going
8:43
SPEAKER_00: through as part of that campaign.
8:48
SPEAKER_00: People were standing up reading
8:49
SPEAKER_00: letters from their
8:51
SPEAKER_00: voters about
8:53
SPEAKER_00: why it was so important to publish
8:54
SPEAKER_00: all clinical trials.
8:56
SPEAKER_02: You've obviously been a strong
8:57
SPEAKER_02: advocate of asking people for
8:58
SPEAKER_02: evidence for quite some time now.
9:01
SPEAKER_02: And around the time you were
9:02
SPEAKER_02: starting up Sense About Science, I
9:03
SPEAKER_02: was in the Washington AP bureau,
9:05
SPEAKER_02: writing about environment and energy
9:07
SPEAKER_02: and science and trying to
9:09
SPEAKER_02: dig up the evidence, always.
9:11
SPEAKER_02: And, you know, it was just amazing
9:13
SPEAKER_02: how much information you had
9:14
SPEAKER_02: to sort through and how many people
9:16
SPEAKER_02: you had to interview, and nobody
9:17
SPEAKER_02: would give it to you straight.
9:18
SPEAKER_02: It was really, really challenging on
9:20
SPEAKER_02: deadline.
9:21
SPEAKER_02: And
9:22
SPEAKER_02: one thing I began to realize,
9:24
SPEAKER_02: actually, was that governments or
9:26
SPEAKER_02: administrations would also use
9:28
SPEAKER_02: uncertainty as a reason not
9:29
SPEAKER_02: to act, and sometimes demand
9:31
SPEAKER_02: more evidence in order
9:33
SPEAKER_02: to delay action.
9:35
SPEAKER_02: I wonder,
9:37
SPEAKER_02: how do you distinguish between a
9:39
SPEAKER_02: legitimate call for more evidence
9:41
SPEAKER_02: and a political strategy
9:43
SPEAKER_02: designed to postpone decisions?
9:45
SPEAKER_00: The story that so many people
9:48
SPEAKER_00: would refer to, and this is smoking
9:50
SPEAKER_00: as well, that's weaponization
9:52
SPEAKER_00: of uncertainty.
9:53
SPEAKER_00: But I think climate is as good an
9:55
SPEAKER_00: example.
9:58
SPEAKER_00: The things, from the wider
9:59
SPEAKER_00: public point of view, there's just
10:00
SPEAKER_00: some basic stuff, that I think
10:02
SPEAKER_00: researchers do need to talk about
10:04
SPEAKER_00: their uncertainties.
10:05
SPEAKER_00: They shouldn't
10:05
SPEAKER_00: feel that they want to hide
10:07
SPEAKER_00: it in order to try to
10:09
SPEAKER_00: make a more compelling policy
10:11
SPEAKER_00: case.
10:11
SPEAKER_00: And I do think we've seen
10:14
SPEAKER_00: examples of that, unfortunately.
10:15
SPEAKER_00: I feel that that hands too easy
10:17
SPEAKER_00: a victory to everybody else.
10:21
SPEAKER_00: So there does need to be honesty
10:22
SPEAKER_00: about uncertainty.
10:24
SPEAKER_00: I think we can be clear at the same
10:25
SPEAKER_00: time that uncertainty doesn't
10:27
SPEAKER_00: mean we don't do anything,
10:29
SPEAKER_00: but actually everything that we're
10:30
SPEAKER_00: researching is uncertain or we
10:32
SPEAKER_00: wouldn't be researching it.
10:34
SPEAKER_00: That it doesn't means we know
10:35
SPEAKER_00: nothing.
10:35
SPEAKER_00: The example I often
10:37
SPEAKER_00: use with people is that,
10:39
SPEAKER_00: you know, it wasn't the
10:41
SPEAKER_00: whole story, we had Einstein later,
10:43
SPEAKER_00: but it was Newtonian physics that
10:45
SPEAKER_00: got us to the Moon, literally with
10:46
SPEAKER_00: a ruler and a pencil and
10:49
SPEAKER_00: a bit of Newtonian physics.
10:50
SPEAKER_00: Sometimes what we know is enough
10:52
SPEAKER_00: to make a decision.
10:54
SPEAKER_00: Journalists are maligned
10:56
SPEAKER_00: by scientists because
10:58
SPEAKER_00: they get blamed for all of their
11:00
SPEAKER_00: sort of exaggerations
11:01
SPEAKER_00: and hype and
11:03
SPEAKER_00: scare stories and all of this.
11:06
SPEAKER_00: I think journalists do a fantastic
11:07
SPEAKER_00: job of trying to pass
11:09
SPEAKER_00: information in exactly the
11:11
SPEAKER_00: way that you just described, John,
11:13
SPEAKER_00: which is trying to figure out,
11:15
SPEAKER_00: you know, follow the
11:17
SPEAKER_00: money bit.
11:17
SPEAKER_00: You know, who's in it for this?
11:19
SPEAKER_00: You've got people sticking to
11:21
SPEAKER_00: business as usual and
11:22
SPEAKER_00: feeling threatened by new
11:23
SPEAKER_00: information.
11:25
SPEAKER_00: You've got people who can give you
11:27
SPEAKER_00: a very convincing case about
11:29
SPEAKER_00: the research and evidence that they
11:30
SPEAKER_00: have, but then it turns
11:32
SPEAKER_00: out you talk to another research
11:34
SPEAKER_00: team and you find that
11:36
SPEAKER_00: taking a different approach is
11:37
SPEAKER_00: coming up with a very different
11:38
SPEAKER_00: answer.
11:40
SPEAKER_00: It's really hard as a journalist.
11:41
SPEAKER_00: You know, you're a generalist
11:42
SPEAKER_00: usually, and you're also trying to
11:44
SPEAKER_00: parse all these different motives
11:45
SPEAKER_00: that are in play and figure
11:47
SPEAKER_00: out where the truth might lie.
11:49
SPEAKER_02: I was always amazed, I would write
11:51
SPEAKER_02: this stuff that would, you know, hit
11:53
SPEAKER_02: the wire, go around the world
11:55
SPEAKER_02: and people would read these blurbs
11:57
SPEAKER_02: all around the world about here's
11:59
SPEAKER_02: what the White House did yesterday.
12:01
SPEAKER_02: Here's what they did.
12:02
SPEAKER_02: But, you, know, no one gave it to
12:03
SPEAKER_02: you straight.
12:04
SPEAKER_02: That was essentially my own
12:07
SPEAKER_02: evidence-based analysis after
12:09
SPEAKER_02: I might have poured through a
12:10
SPEAKER_02: thousand pages and talked to 30
12:12
SPEAKER_02: people and I'm tearing my hair out
12:14
SPEAKER_02: and then finally the 31st person, I
12:16
SPEAKER_02: was like, ah, that's it.
12:18
SPEAKER_02: I would have been wrong if I hadn't
12:19
SPEAKER_02: talked to this person.
12:20
SPEAKER_02: In the end,
12:20
SPEAKER_02: it was amazing to me how much it
12:22
SPEAKER_02: was all analysis and the
12:24
SPEAKER_02: truth as much as I could determine
12:27
SPEAKER_02: in the time that I had to determine
12:28
SPEAKER_02: it.
12:30
SPEAKER_02: And instead of saying a he said, she
12:32
SPEAKER_02: said story to try to stick to,
12:34
SPEAKER_02: to say, this is actually what
12:36
SPEAKER_02: happened, it just astounded me that
12:37
SPEAKER_02: people don't, they would read the
12:39
SPEAKER_02: paper and go, okay, now I know what
12:41
SPEAKER_02: happened.
12:41
SPEAKER_02: But that was
12:42
SPEAKER_02: my interpretation of what happened
12:44
SPEAKER_02: essentially, as best as I could make
12:46
SPEAKER_00: it.
12:47
SPEAKER_00: I wonder if scientists and
12:48
SPEAKER_00: researchers in general have got
12:50
SPEAKER_00: better though.
12:51
SPEAKER_00: I wonder they've got better at
12:52
SPEAKER_00: talking to journalists
12:54
SPEAKER_00: than talking to the public.
12:56
SPEAKER_00: I know that journalists used to
12:58
SPEAKER_00: be really frustrated trying to get a
13:00
SPEAKER_00: straight answer out of a scientist.
13:03
SPEAKER_00: They were either too busy imagining
13:04
SPEAKER_00: what their peers would think if they
13:06
SPEAKER_00: sounded too certain or too
13:07
SPEAKER_00: knowledgeable or too much like they
13:09
SPEAKER_00: were at the top of their game.
13:10
SPEAKER_00: Also I think clear
13:13
SPEAKER_00: of that public discourse
13:14
SPEAKER_00: and being trapped into saying
13:15
SPEAKER_00: something they didn't mean have a
13:17
SPEAKER_00: bit more confidence among
13:19
SPEAKER_00: our researchers now.
13:20
SPEAKER_00: I mean, a lot of fear when
13:21
SPEAKER_00: journalists started knocking at the
13:23
SPEAKER_00: door asking about GMOs,
13:25
SPEAKER_00: climate, vaccines,
13:27
SPEAKER_00: and mobile phones.
13:28
SPEAKER_00: And researchers
13:29
SPEAKER_00: just didn't know how to handle that.
13:30
SPEAKER_00: That's the kind of world that I came
13:32
SPEAKER_00: into.
13:34
SPEAKER_02: I always thought of proper
13:35
SPEAKER_02: journalistic science writing as a
13:36
SPEAKER_02: negotiation between precision and
13:39
SPEAKER_02: abstraction.
13:41
SPEAKER_02: You have to, you have to
13:43
SPEAKER_02: tend toward the abstraction as much
13:44
SPEAKER_02: as you can for a general audience,
13:46
SPEAKER_02: but of course you have to be
13:49
SPEAKER_02: precise and accurate when
13:51
SPEAKER_02: needed.
13:53
SPEAKER_02: And it was sort of a negotiation,
13:56
SPEAKER_02: even if it wasn't overtly
13:58
SPEAKER_02: that, that's essentially what was
14:00
SPEAKER_02: going on while talking with
14:01
SPEAKER_02: the scientists.
14:02
SPEAKER_02: Well, can't we just
14:03
SPEAKER_02: say this?
14:03
SPEAKER_02: And then
14:05
SPEAKER_02: there were always the key thing,
14:06
SPEAKER_02: there were always a few key very key
14:08
SPEAKER_02: people who had a scientific
14:10
SPEAKER_02: background and were excellent at
14:12
SPEAKER_02: communication, and would almost act
14:14
SPEAKER_02: as arbiters between journalists
14:16
SPEAKER_02: and the scientists.
14:17
SPEAKER_02: And they were absolutely essential
14:19
SPEAKER_02: because there was a certain point at
14:20
SPEAKER_02: which a general journalist even
14:22
SPEAKER_02: writing about science maybe
14:24
SPEAKER_02: doesn't have a PhD in physics and
14:26
SPEAKER_02: can't actually grasp, doesn't
14:28
SPEAKER_02: understand, and you need a scientist
14:30
SPEAKER_02: to explain it to you.
14:32
SPEAKER_00: There are many places where
14:35
SPEAKER_00: the answer is
14:36
SPEAKER_00: counterintuitive, or
14:40
SPEAKER_00: we rush, you know, we see
14:42
SPEAKER_00: a pattern.
14:43
SPEAKER_00: We, a number of people suffering
14:45
SPEAKER_00: from a particular condition, we
14:47
SPEAKER_00: see a common thread, and
14:49
SPEAKER_00: we jump immediately to the
14:50
SPEAKER_00: conclusion that that's a cause and
14:52
SPEAKER_00: effect.
14:52
SPEAKER_00: And it's really hard
14:54
SPEAKER_00: to step back from that.
14:55
SPEAKER_00: I always admire the fact that
14:56
SPEAKER_00: scientists can do that.
14:58
SPEAKER_00: And can invite us to think
14:59
SPEAKER_00: differently, to think during the
15:00
SPEAKER_00: pandemic how many times
15:02
SPEAKER_00: people tried to rush to different
15:04
SPEAKER_00: conclusions and potential.
15:07
SPEAKER_00: We thought it was a phone-like
15:09
SPEAKER_00: transmission, hand-to-hand contact,
15:10
SPEAKER_00: or surface-to-hand contact and
15:13
SPEAKER_00: so on, and it was absolutely
15:14
SPEAKER_00: convincing to the politicians,
15:16
SPEAKER_00: and trying to rein them in and say,
15:18
SPEAKER_00: hold on, it could get
15:19
SPEAKER_00: the aerosol, and yes, it turned out
15:21
SPEAKER_00: to be aerosol.
15:21
SPEAKER_00: We were looking for
15:22
SPEAKER_00: what best fits the facts.
15:25
SPEAKER_00: I think
15:27
SPEAKER_00: that trait among scientists
15:29
SPEAKER_00: and researchers is so helpful.
15:31
SPEAKER_00: I also think journalists have
15:33
SPEAKER_00: skills.
15:34
SPEAKER_00: I wouldn't like
15:35
SPEAKER_00: to read the papers as written by
15:36
SPEAKER_00: scientists.
15:37
SPEAKER_00: I would find them very
15:37
SPEAKER_00: boring.
15:39
SPEAKER_00: We need to know what's interesting
15:40
SPEAKER_00: about a subject to connect
15:43
SPEAKER_00: it to the kind of questions that
15:45
SPEAKER_00: people might have.
15:47
SPEAKER_00: Often as a journalist I think you're
15:49
SPEAKER_00: probably representing your own
15:51
SPEAKER_00: journey of understanding when you
15:53
SPEAKER_00: help your readers to
15:55
SPEAKER_00: figure something out.
15:58
SPEAKER_00: And being a generalist sometimes can
16:00
SPEAKER_00: really put you on the side of a
16:02
SPEAKER_00: reader or a viewer or listener.
16:04
SPEAKER_00: I think we need researchers to have
16:05
SPEAKER_00: a better understanding of how the
16:07
SPEAKER_00: news agenda works and a bit more
16:09
SPEAKER_00: realistic understanding of what
16:11
SPEAKER_00: a story is likely to be on a given
16:12
SPEAKER_00: issue.
16:15
SPEAKER_02: I wrote a story in 2006, for
16:16
SPEAKER_02: example, that I discovered
16:19
SPEAKER_02: somebody, well, somebody tipped
16:20
SPEAKER_02: me off who no one was listening to,
16:22
SPEAKER_02: and discovered that the Kyoto
16:23
SPEAKER_02: Protocol and the Montreal Protocol
16:25
SPEAKER_02: were at odds with each other.
16:27
SPEAKER_02: And I spent months investigating
16:28
SPEAKER_02: this, and 10 years later, they
16:30
SPEAKER_02: passed the Kigali Amendment to fix
16:32
SPEAKER_02: this issue.
16:33
SPEAKER_02: But I broke this big story in 2006,
16:35
SPEAKER_02: and I wasn't doing solutions
16:36
SPEAKER_02: journalism.
16:37
SPEAKER_02: I didn't have a solution
16:38
SPEAKER_02: but I just saw
16:40
SPEAKER_02: a problem and investigated
16:42
SPEAKER_02: and wrote about it.
16:43
SPEAKER_02: But in fact by shedding
16:45
SPEAKER_02: light, by providing the evidence for
16:47
SPEAKER_02: the problem, somebody,
16:49
SPEAKER_02: in fact, did do something about it.
16:50
SPEAKER_02: And 10 years later, you had the
16:52
SPEAKER_02: Kigali Amendment to fix this issue.
16:55
SPEAKER_02: And in retrospect, I think, well,
16:56
SPEAKER_02: that was, you know, actually a
16:59
SPEAKER_02: science diplomacy role
17:00
SPEAKER_02: that I served, but I was just
17:02
SPEAKER_02: functioning as a journalist.
17:03
SPEAKER_02: Which is also why I think now,
17:07
SPEAKER_02: I think that probably in the science
17:08
SPEAKER_02: diplomacy movement, journalism
17:10
SPEAKER_02: should be given more
17:12
SPEAKER_02: consideration, let's just say, as
17:15
SPEAKER_02: a part of the equation.
17:17
SPEAKER_00: Absolutely.
17:18
SPEAKER_00: I really agree.
17:20
SPEAKER_00: And I think there is a certain
17:21
SPEAKER_00: common thread that you can draw
17:23
SPEAKER_00: between a whole number of roles.
17:27
SPEAKER_00: Something that we at Sense about
17:28
SPEAKER_00: Science, we've called them
17:30
SPEAKER_00: public good curators.
17:31
SPEAKER_00: For want of a better phrase,
17:33
SPEAKER_00: that's not a very sexy phrase
17:35
SPEAKER_00: to use.
17:36
SPEAKER_00: People who actually assemble
17:38
SPEAKER_00: information in the public interest
17:41
SPEAKER_02: in some way, in
17:42
SPEAKER_00: order for us to have a
17:47
SPEAKER_00: better public discussion, we're all
17:48
SPEAKER_00: pulling in the same direction.
17:50
SPEAKER_00: We put librarians also in
17:52
SPEAKER_00: that category.
17:53
SPEAKER_00: We put specialist journalists there,
17:54
SPEAKER_00: investigative journalists there.
17:57
SPEAKER_00: And statisticians and data
17:59
SPEAKER_00: journalists.
18:00
SPEAKER_00: I think that there are a lot of
18:03
SPEAKER_00: people in society playing roles that
18:04
SPEAKER_00: we, kind of the infrastructure,
18:07
SPEAKER_00: through which information is
18:09
SPEAKER_00: delivered to us, but we don't think
18:10
SPEAKER_00: about it until it's missing.
18:11
SPEAKER_00: Almost as though a good journalist,
18:14
SPEAKER_00: especially a good journalist who
18:15
SPEAKER_00: will work their way through
18:16
SPEAKER_00: evidence, a good journalist is
18:18
SPEAKER_00: like our public representative
18:20
SPEAKER_00: there in the world,
18:22
SPEAKER_00: you know, asking the questions that
18:23
SPEAKER_00: we would love to be able to ask
18:25
SPEAKER_00: if we had a bit more knowledge about
18:27
SPEAKER_00: this, the access that they've got,
18:30
SPEAKER_00: the opportunity.
18:31
SPEAKER_00: So there goes our person
18:33
SPEAKER_00: asking for us.
18:35
SPEAKER_00: We've been very much on that side of
18:36
SPEAKER_00: things.
18:36
SPEAKER_00: People assume working with
18:37
SPEAKER_00: Sense about Science, people assume
18:39
SPEAKER_00: that I'm sort of doing
18:41
SPEAKER_00: science promotion.
18:43
SPEAKER_00: We should all understand the laws of
18:44
SPEAKER_00: motion or something,
18:46
SPEAKER_00: and in fact, what I'm really
18:48
SPEAKER_00: interested in is, from a public
18:50
SPEAKER_00: point of view,
18:52
SPEAKER_00: how it makes sense of the world to
18:53
SPEAKER_00: us.
18:54
SPEAKER_00: The people along the way, the
18:55
SPEAKER_00: infrastructure, along the way that
18:57
SPEAKER_00: helps us too.
19:01
SPEAKER_01: What kind of standards is that
19:03
SPEAKER_01: it's just more, it's more than just
19:05
SPEAKER_01: science communication and much of
19:07
SPEAKER_01: your work has involved bringing
19:08
SPEAKER_01: together scientists, policymakers,
19:10
SPEAKER_01: journalists and the public and also
19:12
SPEAKER_01: negotiating how evidence is
19:14
SPEAKER_01: understood, challenged and used.
19:16
SPEAKER_01: Our podcast is called The Science
19:18
SPEAKER_01: Diplomat.
19:19
SPEAKER_01: So I have to ask.
19:20
SPEAKER_01: Have you ever thought of yourself as
19:22
SPEAKER_01: one or does that framing
19:24
SPEAKER_01: not quite fit?
19:27
SPEAKER_00: Well, I've had to be quite
19:29
SPEAKER_00: undiplomatic sometimes in
19:32
SPEAKER_00: some of those journeys.
19:33
SPEAKER_00: I had to be quite blunt.
19:36
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, I think a key thing
19:38
SPEAKER_00: about being able to
19:40
SPEAKER_00: negotiate change is
19:42
SPEAKER_00: never to be completely on the
19:44
SPEAKER_00: outside and never to completely on
19:46
SPEAKER_00: the inside of a system.
19:48
SPEAKER_00: Let's imagine we want something to
19:49
SPEAKER_00: change in government, as we did with
19:51
SPEAKER_00: the Independent Science Advice,
19:52
SPEAKER_00: which is we
19:56
SPEAKER_00: wanted protection for scientific advisors who tell politicians
19:58
SPEAKER_00: how it is.
19:59
SPEAKER_00: We didn't want them to be fired for
20:01
SPEAKER_00: saying things that were unpopular.
20:04
SPEAKER_00: Because what would happen is that
20:05
SPEAKER_00: you would end up in those
20:07
SPEAKER_00: advisory positions with people who
20:09
SPEAKER_00: were too afraid to tell unpopular
20:11
SPEAKER_00: news to politicians.
20:13
SPEAKER_00: And you do want to have a
20:15
SPEAKER_00: conversation with
20:17
SPEAKER_00: people in government about the best
20:19
SPEAKER_00: way to make sure this doesn't happen
20:20
SPEAKER_00: again, and one in which people can
20:22
SPEAKER_00: trust you, that their
20:26
SPEAKER_00: questions about science
20:28
SPEAKER_00: or their questions about
20:30
SPEAKER_00: process are not
20:32
SPEAKER_00: immediately scandalized
20:34
SPEAKER_00: and put online or shared with
20:36
SPEAKER_00: everybody.
20:38
SPEAKER_00: I think it's,
20:40
SPEAKER_00: on the inside and the outside, it's
20:41
SPEAKER_00: having a foot in more than one camp.
20:42
SPEAKER_00: It's so important
20:45
SPEAKER_00: when you're trying to negotiate
20:46
SPEAKER_00: change, making it impossible
20:48
SPEAKER_00: for you to be captured, because
20:51
SPEAKER_00: what you learn about systems
20:53
SPEAKER_00: and government in particular,
20:56
SPEAKER_00: that they always want
20:58
SPEAKER_00: to keep themselves.
21:00
SPEAKER_00: It's almost like they inevitably try
21:02
SPEAKER_00: and convince you that
21:04
SPEAKER_00: nothing needs to change.
21:06
SPEAKER_00: Because everybody's got some
21:07
SPEAKER_00: skin in the game for how things are.
21:10
SPEAKER_00: And try and keep momentum,
21:12
SPEAKER_00: reform, for example,
21:14
SPEAKER_00: of clinical trial publication
21:16
SPEAKER_00: or science advice
21:19
SPEAKER_00: or just transparency
21:21
SPEAKER_00: around the evidence that
21:23
SPEAKER_00: government is using.
21:24
SPEAKER_00: It was another big campaign of ours,
21:25
SPEAKER_00: it's run in
21:27
SPEAKER_00: the U.K. and Canada, and a number of
21:29
SPEAKER_00: other countries.
21:30
SPEAKER_00: To try to keep that kind
21:32
SPEAKER_00: of momentum going
21:34
SPEAKER_00: you do need to have
21:36
SPEAKER_00: some external pressure on an
21:38
SPEAKER_00: organization.
21:39
SPEAKER_00: That's been my experience for sure.
21:41
SPEAKER_00: Maybe what a privilege it's been,
21:43
SPEAKER_00: you know, to work
21:45
SPEAKER_00: with scientists,
21:47
SPEAKER_00: researchers, all areas,
21:49
SPEAKER_00: same time as working with community
21:51
SPEAKER_00: organizations, government bodies
21:53
SPEAKER_00: and people in public service,
21:55
SPEAKER_00: and journalists.
21:55
SPEAKER_00: It's great to have
21:56
SPEAKER_00: a foot in all those camps.
21:57
SPEAKER_00: Sometimes it feels like no one's
21:59
SPEAKER_00: your friend.
22:00
SPEAKER_00: Everybody's cheesed off about
22:02
SPEAKER_00: hearing from you.
22:03
SPEAKER_00: But it is wonderful to work
22:05
SPEAKER_00: with some really talented people
22:06
SPEAKER_00: across all of those areas.
22:08
SPEAKER_01: Do you think this is
22:10
SPEAKER_01: something that needs to be protected
22:12
SPEAKER_01: in the way that we protect other
22:14
SPEAKER_01: public goods?
22:15
SPEAKER_00: It's a tricky question.
22:16
SPEAKER_00: Yeah, I think we need to
22:20
SPEAKER_00: start valuing
22:22
SPEAKER_00: things and, for
22:24
SPEAKER_00: example, one of the things that
22:26
SPEAKER_00: I think is absolutely crucial is
22:29
SPEAKER_00: independent statistics.
22:31
SPEAKER_00: And by that I mean
22:32
SPEAKER_00: statistics that are prepared to an
22:34
SPEAKER_00: independent standard that are not
22:36
SPEAKER_00: politically driven or to
22:38
SPEAKER_00: any other.
22:38
SPEAKER_00: In these sorts
22:41
SPEAKER_00: of things, data gathering, and
22:43
SPEAKER_00: so on, I think we need to value,
22:44
SPEAKER_00: as a public, realize how
22:47
SPEAKER_00: utterly essential they are to us
22:49
SPEAKER_00: for accountability, for
22:51
SPEAKER_00: evaluating anything that is said to
22:52
SPEAKER_00: us.
22:53
SPEAKER_00: But I'm
22:54
SPEAKER_00: nervous of anything that
22:57
SPEAKER_00: makes science
22:59
SPEAKER_00: beyond question, because that's not
23:01
SPEAKER_00: science.
23:01
SPEAKER_00: And there is a tendency, I
23:03
SPEAKER_00: think, in some ways, you
23:05
SPEAKER_00: see this in the attacks on climate
23:06
SPEAKER_00: change.
23:08
SPEAKER_00: What's the reaction to that?
23:09
SPEAKER_00: I understand why, but some of
23:11
SPEAKER_00: the reaction to that has been
23:12
SPEAKER_00: dogmatic.
23:14
SPEAKER_00: It's kind of pushed science facts
23:17
SPEAKER_00: in a way that then
23:19
SPEAKER_00: becomes quite ossified.
23:23
SPEAKER_00: Our conversation about
23:25
SPEAKER_00: what's going on with the climate
23:27
SPEAKER_00: should not be dependent on
23:29
SPEAKER_00: fixing a particular degree,
23:31
SPEAKER_00: three degrees or whatever in
23:33
SPEAKER_00: people's minds necessarily.
23:35
SPEAKER_00: Because when reality turns out to be
23:37
SPEAKER_00: slightly different from that, people
23:38
SPEAKER_00: have the opportunity to poke holes
23:40
SPEAKER_00: in it.
23:40
SPEAKER_00: But also it starts to blind
23:42
SPEAKER_00: us as the
23:45
SPEAKER_00: open-minded people to the
23:46
SPEAKER_00: possibility that things could
23:48
SPEAKER_00: be dramatically greater than that,
23:51
SPEAKER_00: or variable.
23:52
SPEAKER_00: You know, that that's not going to
23:53
SPEAKER_00: be, that three degrees of warming is
23:55
SPEAKER_00: not going to land evenly on the
23:56
SPEAKER_00: planet, right?
23:57
SPEAKER_00: Some people are going to experience
23:59
SPEAKER_00: really dramatic effects and some
24:00
SPEAKER_00: people are going to experience only
24:01
SPEAKER_00: minor change, which
24:03
SPEAKER_00: is profound as an important
24:05
SPEAKER_00: understanding.
24:07
SPEAKER_00: I think we have to be a bit careful
24:08
SPEAKER_00: that what we don't do in the defense
24:10
SPEAKER_00: of evidence is become dogmatic.
24:12
SPEAKER_00: A good example of it was during the
24:14
SPEAKER_00: pandemic, I felt that some of the
24:15
SPEAKER_00: pro-vaccination campaigns
24:17
SPEAKER_00: started to say things about the
24:19
SPEAKER_00: vaccine that were just not true,
24:21
SPEAKER_00: right?
24:21
SPEAKER_00: We didn't have all the
24:22
SPEAKER_00: answers.
24:24
SPEAKER_00: It wasn't 100% safe.
24:26
SPEAKER_00: No vaccine is 100% safe.
24:28
SPEAKER_00: And saying that to the public,
24:30
SPEAKER_00: you see why people became emphatic.
24:33
SPEAKER_00: But I feel like that
24:35
SPEAKER_00: is not helpful at
24:37
SPEAKER_00: all.
24:38
SPEAKER_00: So if what we mean by protecting,
24:41
SPEAKER_00: protecting evidence and protecting
24:42
SPEAKER_00: science, is to
24:45
SPEAKER_00: give it some sort of unquestioned
24:46
SPEAKER_00: status, then no.
24:49
SPEAKER_00: We shouldn't be doing that.
24:51
SPEAKER_00: We do, I think, need to
24:54
SPEAKER_00: distinguish more
24:56
SPEAKER_00: the types of information.
24:58
SPEAKER_00: We've talked about peer-reviewed
24:59
SPEAKER_00: literature, for example.
25:01
SPEAKER_00: We've talked about independent
25:02
SPEAKER_00: statistics that are prepared to
25:04
SPEAKER_00: certain standards.
25:05
SPEAKER_00: We've talked about even journalistic
25:06
SPEAKER_00: codes, you know,
25:08
SPEAKER_00: people, journalists who report and
25:09
SPEAKER_00: are subject to codes, unlike someone
25:11
SPEAKER_00: who creates content
25:13
SPEAKER_00: on the internet and can just
25:16
SPEAKER_00: use AI to
25:17
SPEAKER_00: create something that never
25:18
SPEAKER_00: happened.
25:18
SPEAKER_00: We need to celebrate those
25:20
SPEAKER_00: standards that people operate to
25:22
SPEAKER_00: and to own those ourselves
25:24
SPEAKER_00: as members of the public.
25:26
SPEAKER_00: To say, actually, that's part of our
25:27
SPEAKER_00: civic code, right?
25:28
SPEAKER_00: That's part of what makes society
25:30
SPEAKER_00: good and it makes it possible for
25:32
SPEAKER_00: me to participate in it.
25:36
SPEAKER_02: Amen to that, thank you for making
25:37
SPEAKER_02: that distinction.
25:38
SPEAKER_02: I actually want to push on the Ask
25:40
SPEAKER_02: for Evidence a bit, just because
25:42
SPEAKER_02: I do think there's a version of
25:44
SPEAKER_02: Ask for Evidence that I think can
25:46
SPEAKER_02: be weaponized.
25:46
SPEAKER_02: I think you even used
25:47
SPEAKER_02: that term earlier.
25:50
SPEAKER_02: And the approach assumes that
25:51
SPEAKER_02: there's an institution capable of
25:53
SPEAKER_02: answering the question.
25:54
SPEAKER_02: But I wonder what you think happens
25:57
SPEAKER_02: when people no longer trust
25:59
SPEAKER_02: the institution providing the
26:00
SPEAKER_02: answer?
26:02
SPEAKER_02: Can transparency actually
26:04
SPEAKER_02: rebuild that trust?
26:05
SPEAKER_02: Or is something deeper
26:06
SPEAKER_02: may be required?
26:08
SPEAKER_00: I'm glad you asked that question,
26:10
SPEAKER_00: John, because I'm really, it really
26:12
SPEAKER_00: is troubling me, too.
26:14
SPEAKER_00: And to some extent,
26:16
SPEAKER_00: I feel that we would have run
26:18
SPEAKER_00: the Ask for Evidence campaign in
26:20
SPEAKER_00: a more pushier
26:23
SPEAKER_00: way had it not been for
26:24
SPEAKER_00: that possibility of it,
26:26
SPEAKER_00: we began to see.
26:28
SPEAKER_00: Whereas people were asking
26:29
SPEAKER_00: rhetorically for evidence.
26:30
SPEAKER_00: Now, it's fair to say,
26:32
SPEAKER_00: you know, most of us will ask for
26:34
SPEAKER_00: evidence on something we're already
26:35
SPEAKER_00: a bit skeptical about.
26:37
SPEAKER_00: And that's okay.
26:40
SPEAKER_00: Most of us have got a pre-existing
26:42
SPEAKER_00: sense of where
26:44
SPEAKER_00: we want the answer to be on
26:46
SPEAKER_00: something, and we're more likely to
26:47
SPEAKER_00: ask questions about things
26:49
SPEAKER_00: that we don't feel inclined to
26:51
SPEAKER_00: believe.
26:52
SPEAKER_00: And that's fine.
26:55
SPEAKER_00: We have to retain open minds
26:56
SPEAKER_00: to there being an answer.
26:58
SPEAKER_00: When the Ask for Evidence campaigns
27:01
SPEAKER_00: launched some years ago now,
27:03
SPEAKER_00: I saw really great behavior where
27:05
SPEAKER_00: somebody wrote to,
27:07
SPEAKER_00: I think it was a pharmaceutical
27:08
SPEAKER_00: company, the pharmaceutical
27:10
SPEAKER_00: company wrote back in a really
27:11
SPEAKER_00: thoughtful way, shared
27:13
SPEAKER_00: evidence, they didn't just data
27:15
SPEAKER_00: dump, they shared the evidence, they
27:16
SPEAKER_00: explained what their thinking was,
27:18
SPEAKER_00: they shared the uncertainty.
27:20
SPEAKER_00: And the person who put the question
27:21
SPEAKER_00: in had to just kind of go, fair
27:23
SPEAKER_00: enough.
27:25
SPEAKER_00: That was like the ideal
27:26
SPEAKER_00: way that we should interact in
27:28
SPEAKER_00: society, but it's not how most
27:30
SPEAKER_00: people do.
27:31
SPEAKER_00: Really, it wouldn't have worried me
27:33
SPEAKER_00: so much, but now
27:35
SPEAKER_00: what we see is this kind
27:37
SPEAKER_00: of pile-ons -
27:39
SPEAKER_00: that people ask in this hectoring
27:42
SPEAKER_00: kind of way.
27:44
SPEAKER_00: They're not in the least bit
27:45
SPEAKER_00: interested in the answer.
27:46
SPEAKER_00: It's just a kind of
27:48
SPEAKER_00: snipey type of thing
27:50
SPEAKER_00: to say.
27:52
SPEAKER_00: It goes alongside vexacious
27:54
SPEAKER_00: complaints and other ways.
27:56
SPEAKER_00: So that worries me.
27:57
SPEAKER_00: It does worry me.
27:58
SPEAKER_00: I think the
27:59
SPEAKER_00: campaign itself has been really
28:00
SPEAKER_00: quite valuable and particularly
28:02
SPEAKER_00: valuable for when people ask
28:04
SPEAKER_00: about government decisions.
28:06
SPEAKER_00: Because at
28:07
SPEAKER_00: times, we underestimate people's
28:09
SPEAKER_00: ability to accept
28:11
SPEAKER_00: evidence that is contrary
28:13
SPEAKER_00: to what they think.
28:14
SPEAKER_00: So for sure we have an inclination
28:17
SPEAKER_00: towards evidence that confirms
28:19
SPEAKER_00: our biases, our beliefs.
28:21
SPEAKER_00: I also see other examples like,
28:23
SPEAKER_00: for example, parents
28:25
SPEAKER_00: who worry about letting their kids
28:26
SPEAKER_00: play outdoors.
28:27
SPEAKER_00: We're relieved to hear that the
28:29
SPEAKER_00: risk of them being abducted by a
28:31
SPEAKER_00: stranger is not as big as it might
28:33
SPEAKER_00: seem from their impression of news
28:35
SPEAKER_00: stories and true crime
28:38
SPEAKER_00: cases and all this kind of thing.
28:40
SPEAKER_00: People sometimes are assured by
28:42
SPEAKER_00: evidence in the opposite direction
28:44
SPEAKER_00: for their fears and worries and
28:46
SPEAKER_00: pre-existing beliefs.
28:47
SPEAKER_00: The internet gives us quite a
28:48
SPEAKER_00: horrible sense of how people behave.
28:51
SPEAKER_00: We do see public-spirited use of it.
28:53
SPEAKER_00: So I'm so torn.
28:54
SPEAKER_00: I'm so torn about the future of that
28:55
SPEAKER_00: campaign because I meet people
28:57
SPEAKER_00: all the time who tell me it's
28:59
SPEAKER_00: transformed how they think, they
29:01
SPEAKER_00: love it, it makes them feel
29:02
SPEAKER_00: empowered, because they've got
29:03
SPEAKER_00: answers out of institutions they
29:05
SPEAKER_00: thought would just ignore them.
29:07
SPEAKER_00: And on the other hand, I see
29:08
SPEAKER_00: examples where people are
29:11
SPEAKER_00: in this, as you say,
29:12
SPEAKER_00: a weaponized way.
29:14
SPEAKER_02: I've written stories, going back to
29:16
SPEAKER_02: the kids here I see in Switzerland
29:17
SPEAKER_02: who are amazingly walking themselves
29:19
SPEAKER_02: to kindergarten by themselves,
29:21
SPEAKER_02: and then conversely in Washington
29:23
SPEAKER_02: where I grew up, a completely
29:25
SPEAKER_02: different attitude toward it, and
29:27
SPEAKER_02: actually what really matters is the
29:29
SPEAKER_02: evidence that you're talking about,
29:30
SPEAKER_02: is the statistics about
29:32
SPEAKER_02: crime that get
29:35
SPEAKER_02: buried in all of this.
29:37
SPEAKER_02: It's really interesting.
29:39
SPEAKER_02: But following up on your worries, I
29:41
SPEAKER_02: mean, I'm wondering, and you sort of
29:42
SPEAKER_02: answered this, but I mean
29:43
SPEAKER_02: increasingly, it's not really
29:46
SPEAKER_02: the evidence versus no evidence,
29:48
SPEAKER_02: it's these competing claims to
29:49
SPEAKER_02: evidence.
29:50
SPEAKER_02: I don't know how you want
29:51
SPEAKER_02: to describe it, but it's political
29:52
SPEAKER_02: movements, governments,
29:54
SPEAKER_02: corporations, advocacy groups, you
29:56
SPEAKER_02: know, they all present their own
29:57
SPEAKER_02: evidence now, and I'm wondering,
29:59
SPEAKER_02: so how would you recommend that
30:01
SPEAKER_02: citizens navigate that environment?
30:04
SPEAKER_00: And I think that is really
30:06
SPEAKER_00: a tricky one because
30:08
SPEAKER_00: people have,
30:10
SPEAKER_00: I think, seen, we've seen a
30:11
SPEAKER_00: sort of failure of political
30:12
SPEAKER_00: authority and other types of
30:14
SPEAKER_00: authority, deference to traditional
30:16
SPEAKER_00: authorities of all kinds.
30:19
SPEAKER_00: And therefore, people play in
30:20
SPEAKER_00: the scientific authority quite
30:22
SPEAKER_00: a lot.
30:23
SPEAKER_00: So now what you see is think
30:24
SPEAKER_00: tanks presenting their findings
30:27
SPEAKER_00: not as
30:28
SPEAKER_00: a particular type of
30:30
SPEAKER_00: economic approach like Keynesianism
30:32
SPEAKER_00: or whatever.
30:33
SPEAKER_00: They present
30:34
SPEAKER_00: their findings as
30:36
SPEAKER_00: a piece of research evidence,
30:38
SPEAKER_00: because it's believed that that's
30:40
SPEAKER_00: the way that
30:42
SPEAKER_00: authority, you're getting authority.
30:44
SPEAKER_00: And so it makes it
30:46
SPEAKER_00: really confusing.
30:48
SPEAKER_00: There's so much cherry
30:50
SPEAKER_00: picking of parts
30:52
SPEAKER_00: of the story.
30:53
SPEAKER_00: For the most part, I ask myself,
30:55
SPEAKER_00: it's not that many times
30:57
SPEAKER_00: when a decision to
30:59
SPEAKER_00: be made,
31:01
SPEAKER_00: and that we can have more than one
31:02
SPEAKER_00: idea in play.
31:04
SPEAKER_00: One thing can be true.
31:07
SPEAKER_00: I wonder whether, again,
31:09
SPEAKER_00: sort of coming to the kind of online
31:11
SPEAKER_00: world and the way
31:12
SPEAKER_00: in which that rewards polarization
31:16
SPEAKER_00: by, you know, it
31:18
SPEAKER_00: encourages polarization, because
31:19
SPEAKER_00: polarization is what makes people
31:20
SPEAKER_00: react, which means they spend
31:22
SPEAKER_00: more time online and
31:26
SPEAKER_00: and that then rewards
31:27
SPEAKER_00: the platform.
31:30
SPEAKER_00: The concern I have with that is
31:32
SPEAKER_00: that we have to take sides on
31:33
SPEAKER_00: everything and see it all as, you
31:35
SPEAKER_00: know, to be decided one way or the
31:37
SPEAKER_00: other.
31:38
SPEAKER_00: Every conflict in the world is
31:39
SPEAKER_00: something we should take a side on
31:41
SPEAKER_00: rather than see that it can be true
31:43
SPEAKER_00: that both sides are giving an
31:44
SPEAKER_00: account and both sides can be true.
31:46
SPEAKER_00: Life is messy like that.
31:47
SPEAKER_00: And it's the same with scientific
31:49
SPEAKER_00: issues, I think.
31:50
SPEAKER_00: We've become quite intolerant of the
31:52
SPEAKER_00: idea that,
31:54
SPEAKER_00: and I mean look at the autism
31:56
SPEAKER_00: discussion at the moment.
31:57
SPEAKER_00: The people who founded the thinking
32:00
SPEAKER_00: of spectrum come
32:02
SPEAKER_00: to wonder whether that's
32:05
SPEAKER_00: actually true.
32:06
SPEAKER_00: It's not become helpful
32:07
SPEAKER_00: diagnostically and it's
32:10
SPEAKER_00: also not giving
32:12
SPEAKER_00: a complete account of what
32:14
SPEAKER_00: people are experiencing.
32:15
SPEAKER_00: For is it time for
32:17
SPEAKER_00: us to look at this again and wonder
32:19
SPEAKER_00: if another way of conceiving that
32:21
SPEAKER_00: is necessary, particularly in
32:23
SPEAKER_00: light of the better
32:25
SPEAKER_00: genetics that we have
32:27
SPEAKER_00: around it all now.
32:29
SPEAKER_00: And
32:30
SPEAKER_00: instead of people saying,
32:32
SPEAKER_00: okay, that's a really important
32:34
SPEAKER_00: discussion for scientists to have,
32:35
SPEAKER_00: what you have immediately is
32:37
SPEAKER_00: kind of activist polarization
32:39
SPEAKER_00: on this, of taking sides and
32:41
SPEAKER_00: polarizing everything, making it
32:43
SPEAKER_00: like, well, the scientists who are
32:45
SPEAKER_00: questioning this, they're
32:46
SPEAKER_00: questioning my existence or they're
32:47
SPEAKER_00: question my diagnosis.
32:49
SPEAKER_00: I think that is a very difficult
32:50
SPEAKER_00: environment in which to have
32:52
SPEAKER_00: ultimately very nuanced discussions
32:54
SPEAKER_00: where we might not
32:56
SPEAKER_00: find out the answer for quite
32:58
SPEAKER_00: some years to come.
32:59
SPEAKER_00: So I think polarization is
33:01
SPEAKER_00: a huge problem.
33:04
SPEAKER_00: I mean, I think it just really
33:06
SPEAKER_00: alienates us from the truth.
33:08
SPEAKER_00: Because I guess in some countries,
33:09
SPEAKER_00: maybe that's been more of a problem
33:11
SPEAKER_00: in public life for longer.
33:12
SPEAKER_00: I mean in the United States, they're
33:14
SPEAKER_00: having a much more polarized space
33:19
SPEAKER_00: where we're noticing the sort of
33:21
SPEAKER_00: lobbying that gets done.
33:22
SPEAKER_00: For example, around trials when
33:24
SPEAKER_00: we were asking for clinical trial
33:26
SPEAKER_00: reporting.
33:27
SPEAKER_00: The kind of submissions that were
33:28
SPEAKER_00: being made by corporate lobbyists
33:31
SPEAKER_00: in the U.S.
33:32
SPEAKER_00: where the world
33:33
SPEAKER_00: was going to end because of
33:36
SPEAKER_00: us asking the Food and Drug
33:37
SPEAKER_00: Administration to enforce its rules.
33:41
SPEAKER_00: Drugs wouldn't be available,
33:43
SPEAKER_00: patients wouldn't be treated.
33:45
SPEAKER_00: I mean, it was so dramatic
33:48
SPEAKER_00: and extreme.
33:50
SPEAKER_00: We found that much more extreme than
33:52
SPEAKER_00: in the European situation where
33:54
SPEAKER_00: people attempted to find some common
33:56
SPEAKER_00: ground.
33:57
SPEAKER_00: I think it
33:58
SPEAKER_00: becomes very difficult to ascertain
34:00
SPEAKER_00: the truth when people dig in and
34:02
SPEAKER_00: things become polarized.
34:03
SPEAKER_00: My heart goes out to people working
34:05
SPEAKER_00: in areas of science where that's
34:07
SPEAKER_00: the case.
34:09
SPEAKER_00: I mean, whether that's in certain
34:10
SPEAKER_00: medical conditions or
34:12
SPEAKER_00: things like gender dysphoria,
34:14
SPEAKER_00: things have become very, very
34:17
SPEAKER_00: politicized and polarized.
34:20
SPEAKER_00: It really amazes
34:22
SPEAKER_00: me that we still have researchers
34:24
SPEAKER_00: brave enough to try and help guide
34:26
SPEAKER_00: the public through the latest
34:27
SPEAKER_00: research.
34:29
SPEAKER_00: That's of course why we have the
34:30
SPEAKER_00: Maddox Prize at Sense About Science.
34:32
SPEAKER_00: We've just launched again
34:34
SPEAKER_00: this year and which is that
34:36
SPEAKER_00: we award every year a scientist
34:38
SPEAKER_00: for research from around the world
34:40
SPEAKER_00: who has done that, who's stood up
34:42
SPEAKER_00: to immense pressure but
34:44
SPEAKER_00: continued to insist on telling
34:46
SPEAKER_00: their story.
34:48
SPEAKER_00: I think amazing stuff like
34:52
SPEAKER_00: Bambang Hero Saharjo's forensics
34:53
SPEAKER_00: about fire, can
34:55
SPEAKER_00: come in and look at how a fire is
34:57
SPEAKER_00: set, and work out whether it was
34:59
SPEAKER_00: deliberately set, or whether it
35:00
SPEAKER_00: happened by accident.
35:01
SPEAKER_00: And he has continued, despite
35:03
SPEAKER_00: the fact that many of his colleagues
35:05
SPEAKER_00: have taken really large
35:07
SPEAKER_00: amounts of money from and
35:09
SPEAKER_00: are employed as experts by the palm
35:11
SPEAKER_00: oil companies who are
35:12
SPEAKER_00: setting some of those fires.
35:15
SPEAKER_00: He has continued just to think,
35:18
SPEAKER_00: I have a role in public service, to
35:20
SPEAKER_00: tell the government, to tell the
35:21
SPEAKER_00: people what's actually going on, and
35:23
SPEAKER_00: continue to do that.
35:25
SPEAKER_00: Really, really impressive, despite
35:27
SPEAKER_00: threats to his life and
35:29
SPEAKER_00: all of that.
35:30
SPEAKER_00: We owe a lot to those
35:30
SPEAKER_00: people.
35:31
SPEAKER_01: A lot of the biggest public
35:33
SPEAKER_01: disputes today don't really seem
35:35
SPEAKER_01: to be just about facts.
35:36
SPEAKER_01: They seem to focus a lot about
35:38
SPEAKER_01: the values, risks,
35:41
SPEAKER_01: and I guess identities that are
35:43
SPEAKER_01: associated with these facts.
35:45
SPEAKER_01: Where do you think the limits of
35:47
SPEAKER_01: evidence actually are when
35:49
SPEAKER_01: it comes to decision-making?
35:50
SPEAKER_01: And can evidence ever be enough
35:52
SPEAKER_01: on its own?
35:54
SPEAKER_00: Hmm.
35:56
SPEAKER_00: That's probably a question we have
35:57
SPEAKER_00: to ask ourselves, you know, are any
35:59
SPEAKER_00: of us truly evidence?
36:02
SPEAKER_00: So we're a social creature,
36:04
SPEAKER_00: aren't we, and we're culturally
36:06
SPEAKER_00: driven, and so
36:08
SPEAKER_00: we behave
36:11
SPEAKER_00: according to how people around
36:13
SPEAKER_00: us.
36:15
SPEAKER_00: It's always going to be a lot more
36:16
SPEAKER_00: complicated than simply
36:18
SPEAKER_00: looking at the evidence.
36:20
SPEAKER_00: But I think the other side of that,
36:21
SPEAKER_00: Amna, is that most people have
36:23
SPEAKER_00: no skin in the game on most issues.
36:26
SPEAKER_00: They're prepared to believe a range
36:28
SPEAKER_00: of different things.
36:28
SPEAKER_00: They don't come
36:29
SPEAKER_00: at something with
36:31
SPEAKER_00: a pre-existing idea and they're
36:33
SPEAKER_00: quite open-minded.
36:34
SPEAKER_00: But I think that's the case.
36:35
SPEAKER_00: Sometimes
36:35
SPEAKER_00: we get a different impression of the
36:37
SPEAKER_00: public because the voices that
36:38
SPEAKER_00: we hear are the single
36:40
SPEAKER_00: issue campaign voices or
36:42
SPEAKER_00: the shrill voice.
36:44
SPEAKER_00: For most people, I think
36:46
SPEAKER_00: there's a bit of open-mindedness
36:47
SPEAKER_00: about a lot of issues.
36:50
SPEAKER_00: So my feeling is there's something
36:51
SPEAKER_00: to play for in terms of
36:54
SPEAKER_00: looking at the evidence with
36:56
SPEAKER_00: people.
36:59
SPEAKER_00: I don't think any of us are
37:01
SPEAKER_00: immune to
37:03
SPEAKER_00: our cultural beliefs
37:06
SPEAKER_00: and being shaped by those things.
37:08
SPEAKER_00: Interestingly, I have this challenge
37:10
SPEAKER_00: with scientists,
37:12
SPEAKER_00: if you mean by scientists, STEM
37:14
SPEAKER_00: scientists.
37:15
SPEAKER_00: They so often, I come
37:17
SPEAKER_00: from a social science background, so
37:20
SPEAKER_00: it really frustrates me that
37:21
SPEAKER_00: scientists will sometimes say things
37:23
SPEAKER_00: about society, that these sweeping
37:25
SPEAKER_00: statements
37:27
SPEAKER_00: and prejudices read off of whatever
37:28
SPEAKER_00: story they read in a particular
37:30
SPEAKER_00: newspaper, usually of a particular
37:32
SPEAKER_00: political persuasion, and
37:34
SPEAKER_00: that they think that's really okay,
37:36
SPEAKER_00: but they would shout like
37:38
SPEAKER_00: crazy over someone
37:40
SPEAKER_00: just going off about their
37:41
SPEAKER_00: prejudices about a vaccine, for
37:43
SPEAKER_00: example, and yet they think it's
37:45
SPEAKER_00: really okay to do that, to say
37:47
SPEAKER_00: things that everybody thinks.
37:49
SPEAKER_00: Well, no, clearly everybody doesn't
37:50
SPEAKER_00: think this, you know, and so
37:52
SPEAKER_00: I think we all have our blind
37:54
SPEAKER_00: spots.
37:56
SPEAKER_00: I do think there's something really
37:58
SPEAKER_00: quite amazing about
38:00
SPEAKER_00: research careers,
38:03
SPEAKER_00: researchers who are,
38:05
SPEAKER_00: well, claim that
38:07
SPEAKER_00: ability to question things
38:09
SPEAKER_00: which are quite compelling
38:11
SPEAKER_00: ideas.
38:11
SPEAKER_00: So despite the fact that they have
38:12
SPEAKER_00: to write really strongly worded
38:15
SPEAKER_00: grant applications in which they've
38:17
SPEAKER_00: already discovered the thing they're
38:19
SPEAKER_00: looking for, despite that,
38:20
SPEAKER_00: despite the fact that they have to
38:22
SPEAKER_00: hype their work and fight so hard
38:23
SPEAKER_00: for a promotion, they're actually
38:25
SPEAKER_00: always, a lot of
38:27
SPEAKER_00: scientists are still always
38:29
SPEAKER_00: questioning what
38:31
SPEAKER_00: their assumptions are.
38:34
SPEAKER_00: I find that a quite impressive
38:36
SPEAKER_00: thing, I really do.
38:37
SPEAKER_00: Did you find that, John, with being
38:39
SPEAKER_00: a journalist, that they are
38:41
SPEAKER_00: slightly different, scientists are a
38:42
SPEAKER_00: slightly different beast?
38:45
SPEAKER_02: Oh yeah.
38:46
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
38:46
SPEAKER_00: Yeah.
38:49
SPEAKER_01: I wanted to go towards AllTrials
38:52
SPEAKER_01: and I think that's
38:53
SPEAKER_01: where it kind of all comes together,
38:55
SPEAKER_01: right?
38:55
SPEAKER_01: Because you're not really
38:56
SPEAKER_01: just dealing with the communication
38:57
SPEAKER_01: gap, you're dealing with
38:59
SPEAKER_01: institutions that have active
39:00
SPEAKER_01: interests in keeping evidence
39:02
SPEAKER_01: hidden.
39:03
SPEAKER_01: What was it like navigating that?
39:05
SPEAKER_01: Who are maybe the hardest people
39:07
SPEAKER_01: to kind of just move around with?
39:12
SPEAKER_00: Let me tell you how
39:14
SPEAKER_00: AllTrials started.
39:15
SPEAKER_00: So AllTrials started because Ben
39:17
SPEAKER_00: Goldacre, who is
39:19
SPEAKER_00: a scientist, also
39:22
SPEAKER_00: was a column
39:23
SPEAKER_00: writer, popular writer of science,
39:26
SPEAKER_00: had written an expose of
39:28
SPEAKER_00: what was going on, the failure
39:30
SPEAKER_00: to publish trials.
39:33
SPEAKER_00: He'd written a big expose, he'd
39:34
SPEAKER_00: written a big book, he had done a
39:35
SPEAKER_00: book tour, and nothing had changed.
39:38
SPEAKER_00: And quite a number of
39:40
SPEAKER_00: people in medicine had been trying
39:41
SPEAKER_00: to get change, had written strongly
39:43
SPEAKER_00: worded editorials in the journals
39:45
SPEAKER_00: and things like this, and nothing
39:47
SPEAKER_00: had changed.
39:48
SPEAKER_00: And he came to see me because I
39:49
SPEAKER_00: had a bit of reputation
39:52
SPEAKER_00: about winning most of the fights
39:53
SPEAKER_00: that I pick, as he
39:55
SPEAKER_00: said it.
39:56
SPEAKER_00: So we had a conversation about what
39:57
SPEAKER_00: it would take to change
40:00
SPEAKER_00: this.
40:00
SPEAKER_00: And it was quite
40:02
SPEAKER_00: forbidden to think about the
40:04
SPEAKER_00: global pharmaceutical industry,
40:06
SPEAKER_00: but not just that, also the
40:08
SPEAKER_00: established medical organizations,
40:09
SPEAKER_00: many of whom found
40:11
SPEAKER_00: it fine.
40:13
SPEAKER_00: One said to me early on in the
40:15
SPEAKER_00: AllTrials campaign, when I said,
40:17
SPEAKER_00: well, shouldn't your organization
40:19
SPEAKER_00: be signing up behind this?
40:21
SPEAKER_00: He said to me, well, I think it
40:22
SPEAKER_00: all went wrong when we let the
40:24
SPEAKER_00: public read the peer-reviewed
40:26
SPEAKER_00: literature.
40:26
SPEAKER_00: Well, where do I start with an
40:28
SPEAKER_00: attitude like that?
40:31
SPEAKER_00: So it was a challenging set
40:33
SPEAKER_00: of people to move.
40:34
SPEAKER_00: And then you have
40:34
SPEAKER_00: government agencies,
40:36
SPEAKER_00: the agencies that register the
40:38
SPEAKER_00: trials, that give license to
40:40
SPEAKER_00: the medicines, who
40:42
SPEAKER_00: were really afraid of changing
40:43
SPEAKER_00: their rules, and
40:45
SPEAKER_02: didn't have resources, and so on.
40:48
SPEAKER_00: We found it
40:50
SPEAKER_00: takes one of those organizations
40:52
SPEAKER_00: in each of those sectors to
40:54
SPEAKER_00: give the lie to the excuses
40:56
SPEAKER_00: that the others are making.
40:58
SPEAKER_00: Those were
40:59
SPEAKER_00: IQWiG, the German regulator,
41:01
SPEAKER_00: broke ranks and signed up.
41:03
SPEAKER_00: That made it easier for us to get
41:05
SPEAKER_00: through the doors of all the other
41:06
SPEAKER_00: regulators to work
41:08
SPEAKER_00: with IQWiG, as
41:11
SPEAKER_00: it's known, to challenge the
41:13
SPEAKER_00: excuses others gave
41:15
SPEAKER_00: about why they couldn't implement
41:16
SPEAKER_00: change.
41:18
SPEAKER_00: GlaxoSmithKline, the pharmaceutical
41:20
SPEAKER_00: company, they signed up
41:23
SPEAKER_00: and they may have had their reasons.
41:24
SPEAKER_00: I mean, you know, they've
41:26
SPEAKER_00: had their transparency issues and so
41:27
SPEAKER_00: maybe they were trying to emphasize
41:30
SPEAKER_00: they'd turned a corner, but they
41:31
SPEAKER_00: signed up.
41:33
SPEAKER_00: And that was incredibly helpful,
41:34
SPEAKER_00: because until that point, a
41:36
SPEAKER_00: very convincing case was coming out
41:38
SPEAKER_00: of the pharmaceutical industry,
41:40
SPEAKER_00: that if we were to publish the
41:42
SPEAKER_00: results of clinical trials, this
41:43
SPEAKER_00: would compromise patient privacy
41:45
SPEAKER_00: and safety, and also
41:47
SPEAKER_00: destroy their intellectual
41:49
SPEAKER_00: property in these
41:52
SPEAKER_00: case reports,
41:54
SPEAKER_00: in these study reports.
41:56
SPEAKER_00: Some of which was like 600 pages
41:57
SPEAKER_00: long.
41:58
SPEAKER_00: They were saying they would
41:58
SPEAKER_00: all need to be redacted.
42:00
SPEAKER_00: There would be big legal battles.
42:02
SPEAKER_00: And of course, this is the sort of
42:03
SPEAKER_00: stuff that really frightens
42:04
SPEAKER_00: governments and frightens regulators
42:06
SPEAKER_00: from getting behind something
42:08
SPEAKER_00: because they don't want to
42:10
SPEAKER_00: undermine innovation, nervous
42:12
SPEAKER_00: about things like social privacy,
42:13
SPEAKER_00: with all the
42:15
SPEAKER_00: right trigger buttons that they were
42:16
SPEAKER_00: pushing.
42:17
SPEAKER_00: But as soon as GlaxoSmithKline
42:18
SPEAKER_00: signed up, it gave the lie.
42:19
SPEAKER_00: GlaxoSmithKline
42:21
SPEAKER_00: said actually, we've looked
42:23
SPEAKER_00: at the clinical study report, only
42:26
SPEAKER_00: about two pages where something
42:28
SPEAKER_00: needs redacting.
42:29
SPEAKER_00: It's really easy for us to do and
42:31
SPEAKER_00: publish those.
42:33
SPEAKER_00: Necessarily, we can create a gateway
42:35
SPEAKER_00: where people have to have a good
42:36
SPEAKER_00: medical reason for getting into all
42:37
SPEAKER_00: the detail after those reports,
42:40
SPEAKER_00: but this by and large will be
42:42
SPEAKER_00: transparent.
42:42
SPEAKER_00: And so that's
42:44
SPEAKER_00: what flipped the switch.
42:45
SPEAKER_00: That was my approach.
42:47
SPEAKER_00: When we were a tiny
42:49
SPEAKER_00: organization that works by
42:51
SPEAKER_00: finding others who will work with us
42:52
SPEAKER_00: and pressing them that they should.
42:55
SPEAKER_00: The only way to affect change on a
42:57
SPEAKER_00: global scale is a global scale.
42:59
SPEAKER_00: We now have, from parts of
43:01
SPEAKER_00: Europe, certainly the pharmaceutical
43:03
SPEAKER_00: giants now are 97%
43:05
SPEAKER_00: compliant, most of them were less
43:06
SPEAKER_00: than 50% when we started.
43:08
SPEAKER_00: It's amazing.
43:11
SPEAKER_00: The FDA does now
43:13
SPEAKER_00: enforce its
43:15
SPEAKER_00: regulations.
43:19
SPEAKER_00: We, around the world, you know, we
43:21
SPEAKER_00: saw similar patterns.
43:22
SPEAKER_00: So it was a really difficult thing
43:23
SPEAKER_00: to do, but by finding one
43:26
SPEAKER_00: example in each sector,
43:28
SPEAKER_00: getting, you just have to break one,
43:31
SPEAKER_00: and then you have a chance of
43:32
SPEAKER_00: getting through overly polarized
43:34
SPEAKER_00: anything.
43:34
SPEAKER_00: Because there are often,
43:36
SPEAKER_00: if you're saying something from the
43:37
SPEAKER_00: outside, there is often someone
43:39
SPEAKER_00: on the inside saying, we should
43:40
SPEAKER_00: really do this better.
43:42
SPEAKER_00: Do what you can to give strength to
43:44
SPEAKER_00: their elbow.
43:46
SPEAKER_00: Don't say that everyone that works
43:47
SPEAKER_00: at GlaxoSmithKline, you know,
43:49
SPEAKER_00: doesn't care about patient safety.
43:51
SPEAKER_00: Because then you just drive everyone
43:52
SPEAKER_00: together, they all hunker down.
43:54
SPEAKER_00: If you start saying, actually, I
43:55
SPEAKER_00: know there are people in this sector
43:57
SPEAKER_02: who really care,
43:59
SPEAKER_02: the future of drug discovery and
44:01
SPEAKER_00: patient safety, it's really
44:02
SPEAKER_02: important that we all start looking
44:03
SPEAKER_00: at that future together.
44:05
SPEAKER_00: At the same time as saying, you're
44:07
SPEAKER_00: gonna be on the wrong side of
44:08
SPEAKER_00: history to everybody else.
44:10
SPEAKER_00: That's how you build a coalition,
44:12
SPEAKER_00: you know.
44:17
SPEAKER_02: Following up on your phrase, giving
44:19
SPEAKER_02: strength to the elbow, you got
44:21
SPEAKER_02: the principles for the treatment of
44:22
SPEAKER_02: independent scientific advice into
44:24
SPEAKER_02: the U.K. ministerial code, which
44:26
SPEAKER_02: is quite a feat.
44:28
SPEAKER_02: And I wondered, how did you actually
44:30
SPEAKER_02: do that?
44:31
SPEAKER_02: Because drafting a good principle is
44:32
SPEAKER_02: one thing, but getting it into a
44:34
SPEAKER_02: government document is a completely
44:36
SPEAKER_02: different kind of work.
44:38
SPEAKER_02: And has it held also?
44:39
SPEAKER_02: And do formal commitments like that
44:41
SPEAKER_02: actually change behavior?
44:42
SPEAKER_02: Or do they mainly
44:44
SPEAKER_02: give you something to point to when
44:45
SPEAKER_02: things go wrong?
44:47
SPEAKER_00: That's a good question.
44:48
SPEAKER_00: You have to cycle back
44:50
SPEAKER_00: around on these things quite often.
44:53
SPEAKER_00: There's kind of two questions.
44:54
SPEAKER_00: One is about how
44:56
SPEAKER_00: you get it in.
44:57
SPEAKER_00: And there's a certain degree of
44:59
SPEAKER_00: understanding the dynamics,
45:02
SPEAKER_00: what's going on in that
45:03
SPEAKER_00: circle, the policy world, the
45:05
SPEAKER_00: political world, at the same time as
45:07
SPEAKER_00: you're pushing.
45:08
SPEAKER_00: This goes to our earlier
45:09
SPEAKER_00: conversation about why sometimes
45:12
SPEAKER_00: you can break a story, and
45:14
SPEAKER_00: it really sticks.
45:16
SPEAKER_00: Sometimes it takes ages before
45:18
SPEAKER_00: it captures people.
45:19
SPEAKER_00: The second point is about how you
45:21
SPEAKER_00: make it stick.
45:22
SPEAKER_00: I do feel that
45:23
SPEAKER_00: we have this kind of cycle in public
45:25
SPEAKER_00: life where there's
45:27
SPEAKER_00: a lack of institutional memory about
45:28
SPEAKER_00: every 10 to 12 years, and
45:30
SPEAKER_00: you have to make
45:33
SPEAKER_00: the same case again.
45:35
SPEAKER_00: So.
45:36
SPEAKER_00: Example in the U.K.
45:37
SPEAKER_00: was BSE,
45:39
SPEAKER_00: mad cow disease,
45:41
SPEAKER_00: which fundamentally came down to
45:43
SPEAKER_00: scientific advice and to government
45:45
SPEAKER_00: being too lowly, going in
45:47
SPEAKER_00: at a much lower level, which meant
45:48
SPEAKER_00: that you had civil servants who
45:50
SPEAKER_00: were afraid of being the bearer
45:52
SPEAKER_00: of bad news and who
45:54
SPEAKER_00: were easily pushed back.
45:57
SPEAKER_00: And scientific advisors at the time,
45:58
SPEAKER_00: who were just nervous of
46:00
SPEAKER_00: giving the whole story.
46:02
SPEAKER_00: Politicians accepted
46:04
SPEAKER_02: political pressure.
46:06
SPEAKER_00: Where that story came from.
46:08
SPEAKER_00: That led to a lot of discussion
46:09
SPEAKER_00: about the importance of speaking
46:11
SPEAKER_00: truth to power, the elevation
46:13
SPEAKER_00: of scientific advice.
46:15
SPEAKER_00: We've got some really good
46:16
SPEAKER_00: innovation from that.
46:17
SPEAKER_00: We have chief scientists in each
46:19
SPEAKER_00: government department now.
46:21
SPEAKER_00: That argument was well made on the
46:23
SPEAKER_00: back of the BSE crisis.
46:25
SPEAKER_00: There was a lot discussion about
46:26
SPEAKER_00: importance of red teaming, which is
46:28
SPEAKER_00: something that came out of the Cuban
46:29
SPEAKER_00: Missile Crisis.
46:30
SPEAKER_00: That tells you how many times we
46:32
SPEAKER_00: have to keep on learning this
46:33
SPEAKER_00: lesson.
46:34
SPEAKER_00: That someone needs to try and break
46:36
SPEAKER_00: your plan.
46:36
SPEAKER_00: Someone needs to actually
46:37
SPEAKER_00: say, why might you be wrong?
46:39
SPEAKER_00: What if we are wrong?
46:41
SPEAKER_00: If COVID is not transmitted hand
46:43
SPEAKER_00: to hand, no,
46:45
SPEAKER_00: does that leave all the measures
46:47
SPEAKER_00: that we're putting in play?
46:48
SPEAKER_00: We have to keep relearning the
46:50
SPEAKER_00: importance of that in public life.
46:54
SPEAKER_00: So I do feel some responsibility
46:56
SPEAKER_00: to kind of keep bringing these
46:57
SPEAKER_00: elements back into play.
46:59
SPEAKER_00: The principles of independent
47:00
SPEAKER_00: scientific advice have resulted
47:03
SPEAKER_00: in quite a different
47:04
SPEAKER_00: status for scientific advice across
47:06
SPEAKER_00: government.
47:07
SPEAKER_00: Thanks for the elbow.
47:08
SPEAKER_00: There's a great example here,
47:10
SPEAKER_00: because there were people agitating
47:12
SPEAKER_00: for improved scientific advice on
47:14
SPEAKER_00: a whole range of issues across
47:16
SPEAKER_00: government, and the implementation
47:17
SPEAKER_00: of those principles was just one
47:19
SPEAKER_00: part of a change in the mood
47:22
SPEAKER_00: they could capitalize on
47:23
SPEAKER_00: and press their case further forward
47:25
SPEAKER_00: as well, so successfully.
47:27
SPEAKER_00: I would say probably it's those
47:29
SPEAKER_00: changes that
47:32
SPEAKER_00: have made more of the day-to-day
47:33
SPEAKER_00: impact than anything that I did.
47:36
SPEAKER_01: Is there a global dimension
47:38
SPEAKER_01: to this fight that we
47:40
SPEAKER_01: may not be paying enough attention
47:42
SPEAKER_01: to?
47:43
SPEAKER_00: I'm reminded sometimes when
47:45
SPEAKER_00: I give talks internationally
47:48
SPEAKER_00: of just
47:49
SPEAKER_00: a wide variety of circumstances in
47:51
SPEAKER_00: which researchers are trying to
47:54
SPEAKER_00: bring their findings and their
47:56
SPEAKER_00: insights into the public space.
47:59
SPEAKER_00: For example, you know, in
48:01
SPEAKER_00: large parts of Africa there's still
48:03
SPEAKER_00: a real reliance on the
48:05
SPEAKER_00: expertise if you take the English
48:07
SPEAKER_00: speaking parts of Africa
48:09
SPEAKER_00: and the expertise of South Africa.
48:12
SPEAKER_00: Actually even just their journalists
48:13
SPEAKER_00: and what they decide are news and
48:15
SPEAKER_00: therefore that carries through.
48:18
SPEAKER_00: Even to have your own
48:20
SPEAKER_00: science and reporting in
48:23
SPEAKER_00: your nation is quite
48:25
SPEAKER_00: a privilege.
48:30
SPEAKER_00: The pandemic was an interesting one,
48:32
SPEAKER_00: because having the same issue around
48:33
SPEAKER_00: the world, we could see, we could
48:35
SPEAKER_00: look at all these different
48:36
SPEAKER_00: societies and see how they fared
48:38
SPEAKER_00: differently, how the leading
48:40
SPEAKER_00: scientific voices around the
48:41
SPEAKER_00: governments were configured.
48:43
SPEAKER_00: Were they from the academy?
48:45
SPEAKER_00: Were they from, you know, research
48:47
SPEAKER_00: institutions?
48:48
SPEAKER_00: Were they appointed government
48:49
SPEAKER_00: spokespeople?
48:50
SPEAKER_00: Were they health ministers who
48:51
SPEAKER_00: suddenly found themselves having to
48:53
SPEAKER_00: report on really quite complex
48:55
SPEAKER_00: changing pictures.
48:57
SPEAKER_00: This is really interesting.
48:59
SPEAKER_00: And there's also an example of the
49:01
SPEAKER_00: danger of that gap,
49:04
SPEAKER_00: because in Rwanda
49:06
SPEAKER_00: a few years ago,
49:08
SPEAKER_00: for a conference where we obviously
49:09
SPEAKER_00: talked a lot about the reflections
49:11
SPEAKER_00: around the world with International
49:14
SPEAKER_00: Government Science Advisors
49:15
SPEAKER_00: Conference, there was a lot of anger
49:18
SPEAKER_00: in Rwanda,
49:20
SPEAKER_00: Uganda, countries where they had
49:21
SPEAKER_00: young populations whom the
49:23
SPEAKER_00: damage of staying at home
49:26
SPEAKER_00: economically,
49:28
SPEAKER_00: and the damage of moving all of
49:29
SPEAKER_00: their health resources away from
49:30
SPEAKER_00: things like anti-malarial
49:32
SPEAKER_00: prevention, and infant diarrhea
49:34
SPEAKER_00: prevention towards
49:36
SPEAKER_00: COVID, no sense.
49:38
SPEAKER_00: It made a lot of sense in
49:40
SPEAKER_00: aging populations of Italy
49:42
SPEAKER_00: and Switzerland and the U.K.
49:44
SPEAKER_00: and Canada,
49:46
SPEAKER_00: and Japan.
49:47
SPEAKER_00: It made very little sense
49:48
SPEAKER_00: in their populations to take
49:50
SPEAKER_00: those type of measures.
49:51
SPEAKER_00: And there was
49:53
SPEAKER_00: a perception that there was a real dominance
49:55
SPEAKER_00: of policy that
49:56
SPEAKER_00: was derived from countries
49:58
SPEAKER_00: that had much bigger voices
50:01
SPEAKER_00: in science, science policymaking,
50:03
SPEAKER_00: et cetera, and an
50:05
SPEAKER_00: assumption that a one-size-fits-all
50:07
SPEAKER_00: model, and even a belief that
50:09
SPEAKER_00: actually some of the international
50:11
SPEAKER_00: agencies, like the WHO,
50:13
SPEAKER_00: too much were influenced by what
50:15
SPEAKER_00: works for, say, European countries.
50:18
SPEAKER_00: There is a danger of imposing
50:22
SPEAKER_00: our assumptions
50:23
SPEAKER_00: on other countries, and they don't
50:25
SPEAKER_00: necessarily work.
50:25
SPEAKER_00: I think there is a
50:27
SPEAKER_00: gap there definitely.
50:27
SPEAKER_01: Thank you again for joining us
50:29
SPEAKER_01: on The Science Diplomat.
50:30
SPEAKER_01: It was lovely to
50:32
SPEAKER_01: learn about your experiences,
50:34
SPEAKER_01: and thank you for
50:36
SPEAKER_01: sharing about why evidence matters.
50:39
SPEAKER_01: This is The Science Diplomat signing
50:40
SPEAKER_01: off.
50:41
SPEAKER_02: Thank you.