;)
The Guardian has a short piece in which various prominent fellows of the Royal Society discuss what they think new president Venki Ramakrishnan should do with his term of office, which kicks off soon. Most of it is rather dull, but Martin Rees's comments were interesting:
The Society should offer the public (and politicians) the best scientific assessment of controversial issues, without downplaying the uncertainties. Its policy work is crucial - and it’s good that Claire Craig, a scientist who is now one of Sir Mark Walport’s deputies, is joining the Society to head up this area of its work.
But when engaging with broader social or ethical issues, I think the Society should be wary of advocacy and should instead present options. It should encourage scientists to participate more actively in public debates on (for instance) responses to climate change, and the ethics of gene editing. But it shouldn’t take a collective stance on topics where there are seriously divergent views among experts, as well as non-experts.
This is interesting, because it suggests that Rees has undergone something of a Damascene conversion. In his his own time as President of the Royal Society, statements were issued ahead of each of the COPs, often demanding that particular policy steps be taken. And of course there was the 2007 "Climate Change Controversies" document, which told us that climate models were a "reliable guide to the future direction and magnitude of future climate change", a position which hardly overplayed the uncertainties.
If Rees is now steering a more moderate course, then that of course is to be welcomed. But it would be nice if he said publicly that the Royal Society had previously overstepped the mark. In that way, he might contribute to righting some of the wrongs that were done as a result. As it is, the damage - both to society, and to the reputation of the Royal Society - is still being done.