BY JAMES DREW
 |
| Anne Glover |
In late 2011, Professor Anne Glover, who is the chairwoman of the Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of Aberdeen, an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, a member of the Natural Environment Research Council and a Fellow of the American Academy of Microbiology, and was the first Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) for Scotland from 2006-2011, was appointed as the EU’s first chief scientific advisor.
Her role will be to work, according to the official announcement “closely with Commission President José Manuel Barroso…to provide high-level, independent and timely scientific advice at every stage of policy development and delivery”.
It took considerable time and effort for New Europe to land an interview with Professor Glover – her very demanding new role is putting her under considerable pressure to deliver during the remainder of Barosso’s term, and there are many demands being made to speak with her, but she nevertheless emerged as engaging, committed and passionate about her cause.
Given the huge responsibility of her position, does Professor Glover feel qualified to educate EU citizens on what may be gained from new technologies?
“Now, I am certainly not advocating a ‘this is new, let’s just try it, let’s not think about it’ approach, but I feel that we definitely have to balance risk and reward when it comes to the benefits of science – EU citizens are risk averse in comparison with American citizens, and this does have an impact on how European citizens accept new technology, and embrace those different processes and procedures.
"Can I say categorically that there is no risk from eating genetically modified food, for example? Well, as a scientist, I can’t say ‘no, there is no risk’ because there is a risk associated with everything. I can, however, categorically say that there is risk associated with eating conventionally farmed produce – there is risk associated with everything.
“For me, for example, there are enormous opportunities on the horizon with the advent of nanotechnology – people’s immediate reaction seems to be ‘ooh, new technology, that sounds risky’, but nanotechnology needs to be talked about, and this is part of my role – I certainly want to engage widely with the media, so that we can talk about the absolutely excellent science that’s being delivered in Europe, it’s world-beating stuff, and I think that the EU’s citizens are not really aware of the brilliance that is being generated on their own doorstep.
“Now, if that brilliance can be translated into the economy, into health, into looking after the environment, our transport systems and so on, then we have a very rosy future indeed, as long as we don’t think ‘oh no, it’s new, it’s different, it’s not what I’m used to, therefore I don’t want to hear about it’.
“Nanotechnology, for example, can give us excellent options for our health – when I take a pill for a headache, then there might be an option in the future for me to take a ‘nanopill’, which would solve my headache but would also, while the ingredients for the pill were in my body, might also be examining what else was going on in my body, and be able to transmit to my computer some information that might say ‘actually, Anne’s arteries are looking a touch furry’, or whatever.
"People might say ‘oh, I don’t know if I would like that’, but it’s a bit like science fiction, and we’re living through it - how lucky can we be, living in the 21st century, where so much of the knowledge that we have now is being developed into new technology and new devices?
“Concerning people taking control of their own health, if I was able to give you a 'little laboratory in a pill’, and you swallowed it, and it reported back that, say, you had permanent liver damage, and that in a couple of years you will have a real problem, you would be far more willing to change your diet and drink intake, that you could attend to your problem with a simple lifestyle change.
"I simply think that this would be marvellous, and society as a whole would benefit, because you probably wouldn’t need to be hospitalised later on, no insurance policy would be necessary, so the economy would benefit hugely as well.
“This is why I feel it is so important to talk to people about risk versus reward, but also to expose them to some of the excitement, because there has to be a reason why I am so excited about it, and yet the man or woman in the street is less engaged.”
Do you therefore feel that anti-science propaganda is always misplaced?
“Such propaganda is often misplaced, because not everyone has the right quality of information, or is exposed to the right level of debate.
"If someone says something to you, or you get a little snippet or read a headline, and it says something quite negative and you’re not going to pay any more attention, you’re still going to have in your mind that it doesn’t sound like a good thing, and if someone asks you’ll say you’re probably not going to go for that.
"But I believe that we have an obligation to open our minds a bit more, and that’s not just an obligation of citizens, but also of politicians and policymakers. However, politicians and policymakers are also very aware of public opinion, so I see my role as not being to browbeat politicians, but rather to try to guide them towards the evidence.
"If I can get citizens to say ‘that’s interesting, let’s talk more about that, let’s have a debate about that’, and the media join in, then I feel this would be a real achievement in my role, to empower politicians and policymakers to explore nanotechnology further.”
This interviewer is convinced that Professor Glover is the kind of woman who keeps her word –New Europe will keep you posted on her progress and plans during the remainder of her time in her exciting new role.
Fonte: New Europe
