Andy Stirling and Brian Wynne (Nature 471, 305; 2011) call respectively for a democratic approach to scepticism and for recognition that scientific evidence often forms only part of complex decisions. I agree with them on both counts.
Of course it is true that advancement is attained through criticism, scepticism and debate. But my point was that there can sometimes be a thin line between healthy scepticism and a cynical approach that ignores or distorts inconvenient evidence.
Where significant consensus exists on an issue, this has not always been made obvious; also, tokenistic opposing views can be presented in a way that exaggerates their support.
Clearly, the role of scientific evidence in decision-making must be considered in the wider political and social context. However, I make no apology for demanding that the fundamental evidence and weight of consensus in such cases is set out in a proper and fair way.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
See also: Intolerance: retain healthy scepticism
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Beddington, J. Intolerance: UK chief scientist responds. Nature 471, 448 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1038/471448d
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/471448d