I have come to the opinion that the people, the experts, who know best about the impacts of a certain technology or product are those, quite often, most constrained to speak out against it.

The first conscious formation of that opinion was several years ago when I was then studying in London; I was trying to obtain expert opinions of the esteemed Imperial College academics, one on the proposed electricity transfer by underwater cables from Bakun dam to the peninsular, and the other from a civil engineering study of the dam. The electrical lecturer made some snide remarks about environmentalists and the other seemed uncommunicative  colleagues one meets every day in the tea-room or at seminars. Academics, believe it or not, are social animals too, happy for friendship and praise and loathe animosity or being given the silent treatment.

Conflict of interest

In the United States especially, academics can work in industry, or look forward to work in industry, or even own businesses. The conflict of interest between objective knowledge-seeking and business interests is obvious. Their opinions on the question of impacts, especially, will be coloured. If they spoke positively for a technology or product, we have to reserve judgment: Was that their honest opinion or were they speaking on behalf of their interests?

The Royal Society of Canada, a premier scientific society, in their report on biotechnology, Expert panel on the future of food biotechnology (2001), raises "serious concerns about the undermining of the scientific basis for risk regulations in Canada due to the ... extensive and growing conflict of interest within the scientific community due to the entrepreneurial interests in resulting technologies and the increasing domination of the research agenda by private corporate interests".

They propose more university-based, independent, research. This means one that is publicly funded.

The best universities, with the biggest research, get the biggest corporate funding. Monsanto, the most aggressive in promoting biotechnology, donated US$62 million to Washington University; Hoechst (now Aventis) gave US$70 million to Harvard. Wellcome Trust  do not expect too many of them to speak against it. (And, of course, you will find many who will speak for.)

But for those who do, take them seriously.

The long and the short of the matter is, those with the most credibility to speak against the flow are those that have long been shackled.

Dr ROSLI OMAR is an academic interested in the impact of science and technology on society and environment (being bred on the white-heat of technology creed himself), be they dams, genetic engineering, or machines. He believes technology, as used at present, is sustaining an unsustainable development — the worst of all possible paradoxes.