Unearned access to the microphone
Tony’s been teasing Chuck. Excellent.
Tony Blair attacked the “anti-science brigade” yesterday for threatening Britain’s path to the future. He condemned the “outrageous distortion” of campaigners against pioneering technologies, insisting that they had to be defeated. His remarks at the King’s Centre, Oxford, will be taken as a thinly-veiled swipe at the Prince of Wales. Prince Charles has dismissed GM-food trials as unethical…Scientists would have a role in all the “big questions of our time – climate change, the spread of infectious diseases, water supply, biodiversity, terrorism,” said Mr Blair who confessed that he was a science “refusenik” at school. But he stressed the need to win the “irrational public debate” often surrounding scientific research. Without referring to Prince Charles or other campaigners by name, Mr Blair condemned the “powerful and vocal lobby, with access to all the media channels” that opposed technological breakthrough.
Exactly – with access to all the media channels. That’s the part about P. Charles that is so annoying. (Applies to P. Bush, too, as a matter of fact.) He has, because of an accident of birth, access to media channels that scientists (and architects and other assorted victims of P.C.’s whims) can only dream of. If he had any sense, it would occur to him that therefore he ought to take massive care not to abuse the privilege, instead of which he abuses it up one side and down the other. He makes the world a present of his uninformed opinions on technical subjects, instead of realizing that his influence and ability to mouth off are out of all proportion to his merit, his knowledge, his expertise, his insight, his ability to judge – and he does it on subjects with life and death consequences. It’s really quite revolting (as it is in the case of P. Bush, who also has every reason to be modest and careful).
OB: “He makes the world a present of his uninformed opinions on technical subjects, instead of realizing that his influence and ability to mouth off are out of all proportion to his merit, his knowledge, his expertise, his insight, his ability to judge…”
I can’t let this one go! No sir…er, mam, er…
You can’t apply ordinary rules to extra-ordinary people; and Prince Charles is undoubtedly one of the latter by virtue of His Membership in the Royal Family.
I mean, the Royal Family used to be Important because they ruled the country (and the Commonwealth).
Well, they don’t do any of that anymore, so they must be doing something else important, such as offering us guidance from their exalted position.
They must, mustn’t they?
Otherwise, what would they be there for, actually? There would be no real use for them, would there? Would there?
And perhaps the spittle-flecked activists that get access to media because of their passion and extremism, and because they generate controversial copy, are any better?
Hyperventilating about the Precautionary Principle and GM research is every bit as intellectually dishonest for Disgusted of Twickenham as it is for Prince Charles, and at least we already know Charles has bats in the belfry.
The day ANY media channel makes an honest attempt to help a viewer and voter assess the arguments in a scientific controversy, will be a great day for all. The day they expose the rhetorical manipulation of interest groups evenhandedly, we may well faint under the shock.
.
ChrisPer. “The day they expose the rhetorical manipulation of interest groups evenhandedly”
What about the Guardian column Bad Science ? And er… no wait, that’s it…
EXCEPT: Charles Windsor is like a lot of us: right sometimes, wrong sometimes.
He was undoubtedly correct about architecture and living conditions and he has used his wealth to help a lot of small busnisses and employment in depressed areas – the work of both “The Prince’s Trust”, andd the various firms operating under the “Duchy Originals” banner have been a showcase of how this sort of thing should be done.
The trouble is, he was exposed to who Private Eye used to call Lawrence van der Pump, and it didn’t help.
Yes, he’s wrong about homeopathy, and although I’m in favour of GM “crops” I’m very unhappy about the way it is going – I mean do YOU trust Monsanto?
GM anti-herbicide crops – so useful to Monsanto.
Are they developing crops that do better in drought/salty/ freezing conditins?
Well, they probably are, but not nearly as fast as the sorts that allow “M” to sell more herbicides.
So, a little more balance, please.
I’d be a little bit more impressed by Tone’s words on science if he wasn’t also busy defending faith schools and the teaching of creationism. To me it’s just him talking out of both sides of his mouth as usual.
GT – “Are they developing crops that do better in drought/salty/ freezing conditins? allow “M” to sell more herbicides.”
Yes, they are, certainly. I think the argument I’ve heard that disconcerts is not the ‘genes in the food, we’ll turn into fish-tomatoes!’ type, which is witless scaremongering balderdash, but the fact that the same companies developing the product will then effectively, because of aggressively marketed patents on seeds, own the whole production cycle within the 3rd world areas that would potentially come to benefit from such adverse-environmental impacts as you mention. The argument goes: Sucessful yields but market access 100% dominated by the US biotechs. Which, unless there are a supremely benign bunch of old hippies on the Monsanto board, is *likely* to mean further stitching up of agricultural sector in benighted parts of the world.
Chris Whiley. Exactly my feelings. He’s got no objection to creationism being taught if it means he can get education investment in new schools off-balance sheet…
Chris/Nick
My first thoughts as well.
[Prince Charles] makes the world a present of his uninformed opinions on technical subjects, instead of realizing that his influence and ability to mouth off are out of all proportion to his merit, his knowledge, his expertise …
Exactly.
The same applies to all celebrities who sound off on scientifically or ethically controversial matters – they are simply out of their depth. Their opinions are just that – opinions, more likely to be driven by wishful thinking than the pursuit of truth as a value in itself. Their views are of no more interest than those of the average layperson.
The point is that, even when Prince Charles is right, he is right for the wrong reasons. You might as well toss a coin – heads GM wins (it’s a good thing), tails GM loses (it’s a bad thing).
G. Tingey and Nick S– you simply missed Ophelia’s point. You’re off topic, so to speak, when you draw attention to the benefits of GM food.
G. Tingey: as to the L-word. You may be confusing lies with self-deception. As every sociobiologist knows, the best way of convincing people that mumbo jumbo makes sense is to convince yourself first. It’s very hard to tell the difference between the two, and no doubt there is a continuum between the ‘bare-faced’ liar and the self-deceiving cognitive opportunist, whose views just happen to be those that maximise his likelihood of getting laid or winning elections.
I mean, was Bill Clinton really lying when he said “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”? How do you define ‘not’?
Typical GT – demanding more balance right after saying Charles W “was undoubtedly correct about architecture”. Of course he wasn’t undoubtedly correct; there was abundant doubt.
I’m aware of the having it both ways aspect, obviously – after all I’m the one wot put the Blair and creationism article in News.
GT, it’s not a matter of ‘going on at’ you; it’s a rule, that’s all. It’s not optional and it’s not negotiable.
Cathal, I thought my criticism of the GM programme was related, as critics of it are usually right for somewhat wrong reasons, as indeed you say yourself. And your tone is a little sanctimonious.
And another thing –
“The same applies to all celebrities who sound off on scientifically or ethically controversial matters – they are simply out of their depth.”
But there is a huge difference between sounding off on ethical matters, which, like religion and politics, are inherently public subjects, so have to be open to public discussion, and sounding off on technical subjects. There is a body of knowledge in technical subjects.
See also:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6124522.stm
Erm, about architecture.
I’m afraid I subscribe to that school which cynically notes that a lot of town-planners and their ilk, who still seem to hanker after le Corbusier (patronised by the catholic church and the communist party) seem to live in pleasant semi-suburban homes.
Where would YOU rather live: Poundbury or Cumbernauld?
I will also echo the comments of the great folksinger Mike Harding on the reconstruction of Manchester during the 60’s-70’s when “they knocked down old slums, and built new ones.”
If it wasn’t for “Chuck” the ex-research station at Brogdale would have closed during The [edit] from Grantham’s anti-science cuts (os opposed to Holy Tony’s anti-science cuts) it is now a national centre for fruit breeding again. So, he is not anti-science as such, but his training leaves a lot to be desired, which given who he is, says a lot about our “establishment”, doesn’t it?
In the same way that both T. B. and M.T. have both: cut research science, destroyed our defences, and screwed the education system.
But all that is an opinion; you said Charles W was ‘undoubtedly correct.’ ‘Is undoubtedly correct’ is not a synonym for ‘thinks what I think.’
And sexist epithets are not a huge favourite of mine.
No, I do not think exactly what he thinks about arcitecture, but he is a lot closer to correct than the “planners” who want us all to live in weel-regulated, cctv-covered, and socially-controlled housing estates.
No to the panopticon society, thank you, wheter it comes from a church, the communists, or their mirror0image the nazis.
It’s all hideous, and it’s all terrifying.
And I refuse, pont-blank to name either our current dear leader, nor the ghastly thing from Grantham without some direct or indirect insult.
They both deserve it.
Yes but however strongly you feel on the subject of housing estates, surely you can see that ‘undoubtedly’ (in this context, a context where actual knowledge is the subject) is the wrong word, and that ‘correct’ isn’t much better. Emphasis is one thing, and that is another.
Similarly, insults are one thing, and sexist insults are another.
But there is a huge difference between sounding off on ethical matters, which, like religion and politics, are inherently public subjects, so have to be open to public discussion, and sounding off on technical subjects. There is a body of knowledge in technical subjects.
Also, there’s also a difference being a celebrity who has done something to become a celebrity, like making good films and good music – you can enjoy the product while ignoring the bad politics. It seems to me Prince Charles has no such redeeming virtues: he was born into the role of prancing around in a silly uniform and get public exposure for his opinions.
But there is a huge difference between sounding off on ethical matters, which, like religion and politics, are inherently public subjects, so have to be open to public discussion, and sounding off on technical subjects. There is a body of knowledge in technical subjects.
There is a difference, certainly. But is it that huge? Ethical issues are possible the most complicated of all, and while (say) Shirley MacLaine should be free to hyperventilate about (say) the ethics of premarital sex I see no reason to take her views as seriously as those of anybody else, or why the media should give her any publicity whatsoever. “Premarital intercourse justified in sexual emergencies, Shirley MacLaine says” is just about as authoritative as “Premarital intercourse justified in sexual emergencies, Joe Sixpack says.”
Compare with: “Premarital intercourse justified in sexual emergencies, Emmanuel Kant says.”
Now there’s a man whose views on the subject I might take seriously, if he were still alive to express them.
BTW, out of curiosity, what did you find sexist about GT’s postings?
Good point, Merlijn. It’s not as if anyone would pay to see Charles in a play or to read a book he’d written or to eat a dinner he’d cooked.
It’s pretty huge. Hugeish. Granted, I’d rather read, oh, David Luban on the ethics of torture than Tom Cruise. But the fact that there is real knowledge involved adds another layer.
I removed the sexist epithet from GT’s posting, so it’s not there anymore. I don’t find it sexist now.
Merlijn writes:
Also, there’s also a difference being a celebrity who has done something to become a celebrity, like making good films and good music – you can enjoy the product while ignoring the bad politics.
To the contrary, one could argue that genuine celebrities are even more like unguided missiles than Prince Charles, since we all know that Prince Charles‘s only achievement was to ensure that he was born in the right family. I reckon the general public is more likely to say “Oh, well, Tom Cruise must be a clever guy because he can act so well and so what he has to say about religion must be more meaningful that what Prince Charles has to say, since Prince Charles can only act the fool. Scientology can’t be all that bad.”
Now imagine Prince Charles were to convert to Scientology.
People would abandon the sect in droves.
Sadly, they wouldn’t. You would get a whole new demographic of blue rinse scientologists.
Nick S, thanks for sending me back to Bad Science; as a non-Guardianista in Australia I had missed it for the last few years.
Good stuff, Andy. It’s all in the Saxe-Coburg genes. AFAIR his Ur-Ur-Ur-Ur-Ur-Ur-granduncles were sleeping three to a bed to keep out the cold in Germany’s poorest dukedom way back in the late 18th century. Today they would probably be ‘on welfare’.
But it’s been sunshine all the way since the Coburgs ‘made it’ to high society’s top drawers via forced marriages of their daughters. Their descendants also did quite well out of their private property, the Belgian Congo.
He’s probably worried about going from shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in eight generations.
Ophelia wrote:
“It’s pretty huge. Hugeish. Granted, I’d rather read, oh, David Luban on the ethics of torture than Tom Cruise”.
Ah, Hugeish Granted. He was excellent in “Four Weldings and a Fun Park”.
It is a strange thing to find yourself arguing in defence of Charles but I have to say that his interventions in architecture have been overwhelmingly positive with some really fascinating results (and just one or two negative effects, well only one that I can think of).
Of course he is a ludicrous figure in some ways and represents a ludicrous instituion, but compared with any other PoW he has used his time and influence for a lot of good. The Prince’s Trust is a superb organisation and Charles is the man who drove it to being what it is.
I think I would give more weight to the man who has created one of the UK’s most effective and far-reaching charitable organisations than your average celeb, to be honest, even if they can dance or sing a bit.
ChrisPer, it took Nick S to send you back to Bad Science? But I link to it regularly! (But perhaps you don’t read News.) Ben Goldacre is a fan of B&W’s, by the way.
Good one, Paul.
“but I have to say that his interventions in architecture have been overwhelmingly positive with some really fascinating results”
Ask an architect about that.