BY NIGEL HAWKES AND NICK NUTTALL
The five favourite causes
SCIENTISTS reacted more in sorrow than in anger yesterday to the attack by the Prince of Wales on science, delivered as part of the BBC's Reith Lecture series. But his views were welcomed by environmentalists, who said that the Prince had brought a religious dimension to the debate over sustainable development, the theme of this year's lectures. In his talk, broadcast last night, the Prince said that "nature has come to be regarded as a system that can be engineered for our own convenience. . .and in which anything that happens can be fixed by technology and human ingenuity".
Ideas about our duty of stewardship for the Earth had become "smothered by almost impenetrable layers of scientific rationalism" and we needed to rediscover "a sense of the sacred" in dealings with the natural world and with each other.
"If literally nothing is held sacred any more - because it is considered synonymous with superstition or in some other way 'irrational' - what is there to prevent us treating our entire world as some 'great laboratory of life' with potentially disastrous long-term consequences?" he asked.
Science should be used to understand how nature works, not to change it, the Prince said, calling for a new balance to be established between "the heartfelt reason of instinctive wisdom and the rational insights of scientific analysis".
The Prince's views, familiar in outline from previous attacks he has made on GM foods, took on a more explicitly religious tone with the suggestion that all modern science lacks a spiritual dimension.
Scientists did not agree, but were reluctant to condemn. Professor Derek Burke, former chairman of the Government's Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes and an active Christian who has just retired from a subcommittee of the Anglican Church's Board of Social Responsibility, said the Prince had portrayed the issues as "black and white, with the believers on one side and the non-believers on the other".
Many scientists shared the Prince's motivations. "It is a sense of wonder that drives many scientists to marvel at God's creation, from Newton to the present day," he said.
Martin Bobrow, Professor of Medical Genetics at Cambridge University, was more severe. "I think it is extremely unhelpful to convey a general attitude of being antagonistic to a scientific process," he said.
"I believe there could be great benefits, I also believe there are potential dangers, and I think it is important that we should concentrate on both, but keep a balance."
Vivian Moses of the pro-GM group CropGen, a visiting professor at King's College London, accused the Prince of confusing science and technology. "He is misusing the word science," he said. "Somebody unfamiliar with science may consider it cold and unfeeling, but those of us involved in it think it is directly concerned with reality and offers exciting insights into nature."
John Burn, Professor of Clinical Genetics at Newcastle University and a member of the Human Genetics Commission, said: "I think that he is reflecting an unease with the pace of change and I think that is understandable, but we must resist the tendency to say everyone has to stop changing."
But environmentalists gave the Prince's views a warm welcome. Lord Melchett, of Greenpeace UK, said: "My view is that it is about time somebody pointed out how bereft of humanity and human values it is for people to claim that they can take decisions simply on the basis of what they call 'sound science'. I think that approach is a denial of civilised human values, whether those values are religious or beliefs or emotions. These things matter to people."
Tony Juniper, policy director of Friends of the Earth, said: "The Prince has hit the nail firmly on the head. Science and technology have limits and are not meeting the needs of people or the environment, and we are pleased that he is prepared to say that."
Patrick Holden of the Soil Association, the body that campaigns on and certifies organic food, and of which the Prince is patron, said the Prince had dared to cross a threshold and question man's right to "redesign nature in our own image".
Theologians welcomed the Prince's contribution to the debate as "spot on".
John Madeley, a lay minister in the Oxford diocese who has just written a book on international trade and food shortages, said: "In the last few years we have had this headlong rush for growth, with forests torn down and large parts of the sea made barren. This lecture will help people to start thinking about what we are doing to the environment in the name of growth."
Dr John Polkinghorne, the Anglican priest and physicist who retired in 1996 as President of Queens' College, Cambridge, said: "In order to sort out what should be done we need to add wisdom to science's knowledge. But the Prince perhaps needs to realise or acknowledge more clearly that scientific knowledge is desirable, because knowledge is a better basis for decisions than ignorance."
The five favourite causes
Organic farming: the Prince converted his 300-acre Highgrove estate in Gloucestershire to organic agriculture in the 1980s. It produces a range of organic foods under the label Duchy.
Genetic engineering: the Prince fears it may damage the delicate, ecological balance of the countryside and should be opposed.
Architecture: the Prince has set up lectures and courses at Oxford University to promote more traditional, anti-modernist, design.
Greening industry: the Prince believes that business can help to deliver a more socially responsible society. His Business Leaders Forum runs seminars in Cambridge on Business in the Environment.
Prince of Wales Business Trust: promotes young entrepreneurs. Aims to help ethnic groups and those from run-down urban areas.
The Times 18.05.00 Mark Jones http://www.egroups.com/group/CrashList