King of the Jungle?

Professor Sir David King, is the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government who stood down at the start of 2008. This seems to me to be a very difficult job, as one would be exposed to a constant babble of conflicting advice from different scientists, technocrats and media folk before having to 'sell' your own 'take' on issues to a largely scientifically illiterate audience of politicians. On brief exposure, I found Professor King to be a good listener as well as an erudite and balanced scientist. It is of interest to note that he and science journalist Gabrielle Walker are publishing a book, The Hot Topic: How To Tackle Global Warming and Still Keep the Lights On, that draws on his recent experiences to look at some of the issues surrounding key policy decisions in this country (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jan/12/climatechange.carbonemissions). Sir David has managed to irritate a lot of people (probably because he has generally refused to go along with some overly simplistic ideas, exudes a belief that 'proper' science will come up with the answers and has not been much swayed by public opinion). A main thesis of the book is that being 'greener-than-thou' and attempting to make people feel guilty about their actions tends to make them less rather than more likely to act. In spite of this, the authors recommend that people should intelligently count food miles, calculate their carbon footprints, switch off appliances at the wall, buy energy efficient TVs etc, seal off draughts/turn down thermostats and switch to low-energy light bulbs. One of the groups he irritated is the Ferrari Owner's Club as he advised a young female who asked him what people like her could do to help counter global warming to "Stop admiring young men in Ferraris". Any dyed-in-the-wool Darwinist would tell you that merely by being in a Ferrari, the young man is very effectively communicating to a young female audience 'I have loads of resources and could keep you (and any resulting progeny) in very comfortable circumstances.' Not many females appear to say to themselves 'I'm not marrying him, his carbon footprint is too large.' Sir David is credited with getting the UK Government to take the topic of climate change ("a bigger threat than terrorism") seriously. King clearly feels that this has had the additional benefit of passing on an effective message to other nations. He has been attacked in some quarters, however, for encouraging the development of the next generation of nuclear power generators (some critics feel that at the very least, this 'vote of confidence' is likely to reduce the imperative to develop other alternatives). He has also irritated opponents of GM crops and of badger culls in attempts by farmers to curb bovine TB. He favours a relaxing of the ban on the first and published a contentious report favouring the second. Other groups that have apparently been incensed by Sir David include some journalists (such as those of the Daily Mail) and editors of academic journals (such as the Lancet) who he clearly feels have 'played fast and loose' with science in areas such as GM safety and the MMR vaccine panic. Although I certainly do not agree with Professor King on all issues, I have little doubt that his views are generally well considered and raise valid points. After all, Science should involve a free debate about the 'weight' that one applies to particular pieces of evidence and Science Policy adds to that 'mix' the politics of what can be 'sold' to the public. I would certainly rather have his approach than some of the unbalanced (often single issue) advocacy that one sees in other circles. In his 'retirement' Sir David is heading a new School for 'Enterprise and the Environment' at Oxford University. I suspect we have not heard the last of him.