Julie Barratt
What is research for? That may seem like a strange question for the Associate Editor of a research journal to be asking, but it is a question that does merit some consideration. Marston Bates suggested that research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind, and certainly there are some pieces of research that can be filed in the ‘so what’ category and some that establish as fact what most people regard as staringly obvious, but there is no denying that research has advanced human civilisation to the point at which we find ourselves today. Research takes many forms, from the deeply theoretical to the quick and dirty pragmatic, but it is the application, not the research, that is ultimately valuable.
Research is important for what it tells us we can do; what it may not tell us is whether or not we should do it. This is graphically demonstrated by government’s recent volte face regarding the growing of crops for the generation of biofuels. Ruth Kelly has acknowledged that while biofuels have the potential to cut carbon emissions and combat climate change there are “increasing questions” about them. A panel of government experts, chaired by Professor Ed Gallagher, head of the Renewable Fuels Agency, has looked at the impact of energy policy on land use, and has concluded that biofuels should be introduced more slowly than planned until controls are in place that will prevent higher food prices and land being switched from forests or agriculture. His review predicts that current policy could see grain prices in the EU rise by 15%, sugar by 7% and oil seed by 50%, and that an extra 10.7 million people in India could find themselves in poverty, with countries such as Kenya, Malawi and Bangladesh seeing hundreds of thousands of their populations affected. There is acknowledgement that the rush to grow palm oil in Malaysia has caused the loss of ancient rain forest and habitat for the endangered orang-utan. Hilary Benn, Environment Secretary, said: “To tackle climate change we will need to develop newer, cleaner fuels – but that does not mean pushing forward indiscriminately on biofuels that do more harm than good.”
All of which takes me back to my point: research has shown that we can derive energy from some types of biofuels, but that of itself is not enough. The bigger question is should we, or will we be doing more harm that good? We need to consider fully the impact of what we do before we do it, rather than be taught by hindsight that something possible was not actually something desirable. Integrated Impact Assessment tools, such as that used by the Welsh Assembly Government to test all policies it advances for consultation, should be the norm. To attempt to identify all of the potential consequences of actions or the lack of them before they manifest themselves is preferable to stopping mid programme or having to hastily instigate a remediation programme. Luc Montagnier, himself a scientist, noted: “Top class research is good. Knowing what to do with the results is better.” Research tells us what we can do; impact assessment tells us what will happen if we do. One should not be advanced without the other.