The other day on BBC's Breakfast TV there was an interview between a scientist and an ecologist.  Not surprisingly, there was little common ground, and some interesting ideas were ignored.  I hope the two individuals concerned will forgive me if I paraphrase their comments.

The ecologist accused scientists of colluding with politicians and big business in misleading the man in the street.  The scientist suggested the ecologist was unaware that science manifested itself in two ways: statements of known fact; and predictive statements when facts are not known.  Either way, science always assumed authority, the ecologist retorted, and when science clashed with common sense then science should be ignored.

From time immemorial common man has accepted the statements of experts without question.  Doctors, scientists, economists, lawyers, accountants, all study their chosen field of learning and make pronouncements which carry more weight than those of lesser mortals.  Accountants hedge their bets: they report that a balance sheet shows 'a true and fair view'.  In other words, they do not claim that theirs is the only true and fair view.  For the most part, however, we equate expert opinion with divine wisdom.

Whoever is responsible for spinning us a yarn, theories are rarely presented as theories.  "There is no link between smoking and lung cancer."  "Olive oil is better for you than sunflower oil."  "Man will never fly."  "Metal ships will never float."   We accept these opinions as facts, in full knowledge that almost all predictive statements prior to the beginning of the twentieth century were subsequently modified or rejected.  Common sense would suggest that most of today's current theories will also, eventually, be modified or rejected.

This is not just an academic exercise.  The point is that our lives are based on these theories.  "There is only one way to tackle an outbreak of foot and mouth disease: destroy every infected animal, and any other animal that might stop us maintaining our export capability ".  It must be so, because the government tells us so, and they have taken advice from experts.  If a tipster tells us that he thinks a certain horse is going to win the Grand National we might put money on it, but not a lot. Yet we are putting billions of pounds on a similar hunch from MAFF, although I cannot imagine how anyone thinks we can destroy every possible carrier.  Foxes, deer, geese, crows, seagulls, all ignore signs and fences.  And what about smaller creatures?  Do we bring in the army to round up all sheep ticks?

There is, of course, another option.  Accept the disease, as we humans accept the flu and cold virus, vaccinate selected animals, and stop the import and export of live animals and meat products.  The powers-that-be talk about re-thinking the entire concept of modern intensive farming 'when this crisis is over'.  Why not re-think it now?  Is it not time for some of the ecologist's common sense?