A good start to the day with the first of this year's Reith Lectures on Radio 4 after breakfast. Recently retired Supreme Court member and historian, Lord Jonathan Sumption is examining the changing relationship between Law and Politics, with clarity and thoroughness. He argues that the tendency to over legislate and then to litigate on all sorts matters of concern is a symptom of a growing weakness in the political sphere, reflected in an inability to reach consensus, exercise discretion or debate in an open manner in which people on all sides may indeed learn from each other and alter their positions. It's very relevant indeed given the current parliamentary crisis over brexit.
It was interesting to hear what he had to say about the Supreme Court being castigated by the editor of the Daily Mail as 'Enemies of the People', declaring war on democracy, in ruling on the necessity of a Parliamentary vote to trigger Article 50 to initiate the EU departure process legally, in November 2016. Historic precedent for dealing with such attacks on the country's highest legislating body is the responsibility of the government's Attorney General, issuing a public rebuke in defence of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary. The Attorney General at the time was silent in the face of media aggression and pretension to speak for the whole electorate.
It's an example of the way broadcast media and the press are far too influential on political processes in Britain. This narrative has been familiar to me since I read John Simpson's history of journalists and the news media from the Boer War onward a few years back. Freedom of speech is one thing, but without moderating criticism and discussion it risks becoming a a license to control affairs, and this invariably benefits the few and not the many. I look forward to hearing how Lord Sumption thinks it's possible to redress this critical public concern, now that Britain and Europe faced a worrying return of extremist and populist politics. Democracy is under critical scrutiny and it can all to easily be undermined. It cannot be taken for granted.
Another issue which caught my attention yesterday and got me thinking was listening to a discussion about gender bias in medical research. A lot has been said in recent years about the disproportionately large number of men over women in science, and the scandalous gender pay gap running through most employment sectors, but these weren't the issues being considered. Look at a standard anatomy textbook - the archetypal human image is that of the male body, possibly accompanied by a vignette of a female pelvis and reproductive organs. Why not male and female archetypes show side by side?
There's a hidden assumption that for the most part male and female bodies are similar. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the field of drug testing. Women and men can react differently to different medications, due to variations in body chemistry. Yet the majority of testing is done, and has been done on male subjects, not on an equal number of males and females. Treating them as if they can be presumed equivalent is deeply flawed methodology with a long history.
I daresay in practice there is a body of knowledge and experience relied upon by those who prescribe and dispense medicine, but this hidden bias calls into question the quality of scientific evidence taken for granted. Thalidomide was thought safe to use as a sleeping pill. The genetic damage inflicted on unborn children wasn't foreseen. Drug testing has become much more rigorous and licensing new products is done with much greater precaution today. No doubt scientific methods have gone through many an overhaul in decades past, but questioning and evaluating procedures used forever remains an unfinished business, much like all good things in life we value and rely on. This too, we cannot take for granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment