Atheists and Humanists: Contribution to Society

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking in the gap, but I realised only late last night that I had the opportunity to take part in this debate. I will add a few words about science, the discipline which, more than any other, depends on reason and regard for evidence. For me, the scientific approach lies at the heart of humanism as well as atheism.

We all accept that science has made us healthier and wealthier. What has been seldom acknowledged or realised is that since the Enlightenment, which it helped to bring about, science has played an essential part in making us more civilised. Science is the enemy of autocracy because it replaces claims to truth based on authority with those based on evidence and because it depends on the criticism of established ideas. Scientific knowledge is the enemy of dogma and ideologies and makes us more tolerant because it is tentative and provisional and does not deal in certainties. It is the most effective way of learning about the physical world and therefore erodes superstition, ignorance and prejudice, which have been causes of the denial of human rights throughout history. Science is also the enemy of narrow nationalism and tribalism and, like the arts, is one of the activities in this world that is not motivated by greed.

What can compare, for example, with the recent achievement of the Large Hadron Collider, a venture of collaboration by 10,000 scientists and engineers from 113 countries, free from bureaucratic and political interference? Those people put aside all national, political, religious and cultural differences in pursuit of truth and for the one purpose of exploring and understanding the natural world.

Without the contribution of science, which is, in my view, the rock on which atheism and humanism are built, we would be less inclined to be critical, tolerant and understanding and more prone to prejudice, bigotry and tribalism. We would be a less civilised society.

Health and Safety: Common Sense Common Safety

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, I greatly welcome the balanced report of the noble Lord, Lord Young, as well as his declared belief that,

“our entire approach to risk assessments needs to change across the board”.

I want to make two points: one particular and the other general. First, bureaucracy is not confined to the application of health and safety regulations, as in some of the cases that other speakers have cited. The following are some questions that have been drawn to my attention from a form sent by the Care Quality Commission to dentists to complete:

“How do you ensure that the views and experiences of people who use services are listened to and acted upon when running your services? How have the views and experiences of people who use services, their carers and representatives influenced your service priorities … ? What are you doing to increase the influence people have on the planning or delivery of the services? How do you ensure people’s equality, diversity and human rights are actively promoted in your services?”.

This is one of the misapplications of human rights that that noble Lord, Lord Faulks, referred to in his delightful maiden speech. The questions continue:

“How does the promotion of equality, diversity and human rights influence how you deliver services across the range of regulated activities?”.

How are dentists to answer these kinds of questions? They are addressed to qualified professionals, cost many thousands of pounds and take many wasted hours to complete. In the words of the dentist who sent the form to me, “It’s barmy”.

My second, more general point is about the anti-risk society, which has been partly fostered by the so-called precautionary principle. The principle is now so widely accepted that it has almost become an 11th commandment: “Thou shalt not take unnecessary risks”. Tony Blair once declared in a major speech:

“Responsible science and responsible policy-making operate on the precautionary principle”.

In fact, the principle is either so obvious that it does not need stating, so vague that it is useless or—alas, more frequently—formulated in a form that is positively harmful to progress. A lot of the time it says, in effect, “If there is serious evidence that what you do may cause harm, be careful”. Who could possibly disagree?

The second form of the principle, contained in various laws and regulations, of which the Cartagena protocol solemnly signed by Governments is probably the most important, is so verbose, complex and vague that I defy anyone to explain clearly exactly what it says. It can be interpreted to mean anything. I will not cite the full protocol because of, first, lack of time and, secondly, tedium. The main use of the principle, however, is in the form with which I am concerned, defined in these terms:

“When an activity raises threats of harm … measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not … established scientifically”.

Note the absence of the need for scientific advice. As a result, it is usually requested that a new process or innovation be proved safe before it is licensed or permitted. That means that the principle can be invoked, as it often is, by press campaigns, by campaigns by green lobbies or by public fears and alarms.

No wonder that the principle is the favourite slogan of green fundamentalists—the Prince Charleses of this world who want to go back to nature, who are suspicious of modern science and whose cry is essentially, “Stop the world, I want to get off”. It has, for example, led to the near-universal ban on growing GM crops in Europe, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that in more than 12 years of their cultivation outside Europe they have caused no harm to health or the environment. They are now grown in an area of the world that is more than four times the size of the whole of the United Kingdom.

The principle has led to an anti-risk climate in which potential harm is no longer weighed against benefit. Carl Djerassi, the man who invented the pill, has said that in today’s climate the pill would never have been licensed. Aspirin, which has turned out in many ways to be a wonder drug, would also be banned because it can cause harm. These are only a few of many examples.

Generally, obeisance to the principle helps to foster the anti-risk society. Excessive caution is the watchword of pessimism. At a seminar yesterday, Matt Ridley, the author of many splendid books, reminded us of a Woody Allen joke. Mankind, he said, is at a crossroads. One sign reads “To despair” and the other “To extinction”. We must make up our minds.

It is high time that the principle was completely abandoned. It represents the triumph of the Jeremiahs. It is the victory of the Spartan spirit, fearful of the terrors that change may bring, over the Athenian spirit that looks for new worlds to conquer—the victory of the Luddites who want to stop innovation over those who want to try it out.

I welcome the paper that the noble Lord, Lord Young, has produced. The right to cross new frontiers of knowledge, which science stands for, should be promoted, but the anti-risk society would seek to stifle it at birth. That would mean a world without excitement, exuberance, imagination or innovation, doomed to gradual economic and intellectual decline. It would be a paradise, with the greatest respect, only for lawyers.

One of many good things that the coalition has started to do is reintroduce some common sense into the assessment of risks. I warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Young, on his report, which I hope will be the start of a more general common-sense revolution.

Energy: Nuclear Safety

Lord Taverne Excerpts

Thursday 11th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. Yes, it is absolutely at the centre of any decision going forward that we keep an effective safety regime—a regime that has indeed been congratulated on being a world leader. We would absolutely aim to keep that objective front and centre.

[Lord Taverne]

My Lords, given the vital importance of this order to the nuclear programme and therefore to the future of environment policy—and, indeed, of energy security—should not effective control over and responsibility for such matters, given the delay that there has already been, be transferred or, in effect, ceded to the Department of Energy and Climate Change?

[Lord Freud]

I thank my noble friend for that question. The inspectorate is kept separate for very good reasons, which are connected to my last answer. If you have one department whose job is to put nuclear resources on the ground, so to speak, it is important that another, independent department is ultimately responsible for making sure that that is done in the safest possible way. That is the rather peculiar reason for my standing here discussing nuclear energy, as my role in this House is to look after nuclear safety in this country.