R11. Perceptions of Risk in the World of Science

R11.1 When asked the question, 'Is science any more dangerous than other areas of life?' many students spontaneously said 'yes'.

They argued that dealing with chemicals, heat, electricity, microbes, etc is bound to be more hazardous than sitting at a typewriter all day.

Impressions of things that could go wrong were usually restricted to almost clichéd visions of explosions, fire, chemical spillages and pollution. These derived mainly from the news but also from local and travel alerts and from, perhaps most importantly, TV dramas.

R11.2 However, these immediate responses were usually quickly superseded by the reasoned argument, normally initiated by the most intelligent children in the group, that in fact, in this country at least, most areas of science are so tightly controlled and have so many safety precautions in place that it actually carries very little risk.

R11.3 The general view was that as long as you know what you are doing and take the right precautions, there is no reason why science should be dangerous. It is when you are not prepared for potential problems that danger arises.

"It's not dangerous if you know what you are doing. If you work with poisons or mixing chemicals you need to protect yourself."
(M, 13-14)

"It depends on what you are doing. You've got to be careful... you need safety regulations. That way there's less chance, but there always is a chance."
(M, 15-16)

"It's dangerous. But there are such tight controls, especially in universities and industrial labs, that they become extremely safe environments because there are so many regulations... the building or motor industry may be more dangerous."
(Secondary Teacher)

"So many precautions are taken, it's so strictly controlled the risk is actually very little. Industrial work places are probably more risky than science."
(M, 17-18)

"It's OK if you've got the right equipment and stuff... it's more dangerous if it's something you don't know much about and are just experimenting."
(F, 10-11)

Interestingly, even many of the younger children (the more able) were able to reach this conclusion for themselves.

R11.4 The only dissenting group in the sample to this reasoning were the Primary School teachers who again showed their distrust of Big Business and Government by citing a variety of incidences where people have been put at risk through science. This ranged from the initial H-bomb tests, Bhopal to yellow clouds over Waltham Cross.

There was also a general feeling in this group that it is likely that many other accidents have occurred but have been successfully 'hushed up'.

"The risks are greater than elsewhere. But they are assessed and reduced... If they do make a mistake you have a major problem though."
(Primary Teachers)

"If they're testing things it's dangerous... there's a lot we don't know about."
(Primary Teachers)

R11.5 All respondents took the view, however, that science and science investigations must continue. That it is vital to modern living and essential if we are to continue to advance in the vital fields of food production, medicine and energy.

"The world would come to a halt without science. We need it."
(M, 13-14)

"You can't stop science. Everything we do or use is science."
(F, 12-13)

"You can't stop science. We need it for medicine, farming... if we are to survive we need science."
(Primary Teachers)

R11.6 Thus the general conclusion was that yes, science can be potentially dangerous. However, through tight controls these dangers can be reduced to an acceptable level; that effective risk management is key to progression through science with safety.