When science and politicians collide, a scientist finds herself out of a job

Plenty of politicians say they're not scientists. But when politics bumps up against science, there are consequences for all of us.

Anne Glover, a former chief scientific adviser to the president of the European Commission, and currently vice principal for external affairs at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, learned that first hand. Glover served in the role of chief scientific adviser until last November, when her position was abolished.

“The new president of the commission, President [Jean-Claude] Juncker, has decided that he probably doesn’t want a single identified figure offering scientific evidence,” says Glover. “He has said that, for the meantime anyway, he wants to dissolve the post.”

When Glover was initially appointed to the position of chief scientific adviser, many in Europe breathed a sigh of relief, feeling that objective scientific advice would finally reach the ears of some of the EU’s most powerful leaders.

“When you’re constructing or developing policy, you need to base it on something, and if you want it to be robust and long-lived, the best possible platform you can use is scientific evidence,” she says. “The evidence is never 100 percent certain, but it’s our best bet for having something robust and long-lasting. Without evidence, we go into the realms of opinion, philosophy or ideology.”

Though many were pleased with Glover’s appointment, that optimism didn’t last long. Glover, who took office in 2012, was out of the job just two years later — after she cited scientific evidence on genetically modified foods that ran contrary to popular consensus.

“Generally, I would say that European citizens are not in favor of growing and consuming genetically modified crops,” she says. “And I have had a number of conversations with politicians where, behind a closed door they’ll say, ‘Yes, we do understand that the evidence tells us that the technology itself is not harmful.’”

Glover says that while European politicians have acknowledged the validated scientific research around GM technology, their positions haven’t shifted.

“What those politicians would say is, ‘I know that my voters would not be keen if I turned around and said I vote in favor of using GM technology,’” she says. “Politicians are elected and they represent citizens. I, as a chief scientific adviser, wasn’t elected, so all I can do is offer advice and the evidence.”

Glover hopes that politicians will adopt “honest and truthful” stances by using the most accurate scientific research.

“They should use the evidence and talk about the evidence available, and where it disagrees with public opinion or ideology or philosophy, just be straightforward about that,” she says. “But in my mind, you must not say that the evidence is lacking when it isn’t.”

While the EU might be ahead of the United States in terms of scientific acceptance, Glover says that scientists on both sides of the Atlantic still need to stand together.

“We need to stand up and say let’s make a clear distinction between what the evidence is, which is something that is peer reviewed, argued about, and refined until it’s a very precious and powerful thing, that there’s a big difference between that and philosophy, ideology, or faith,” she says. “Those things are equally valid things, but they should not be confused with the evidence.”

This story first aired as an interview on The Takeaway, a public radio show that invites you to be part of the American conversation.