DURING the Sixties it was fashionable to associate the word science with many non-scientific subjects spanning religious and social activities. I'm not sure why these communities were motivated to identify strongly with science, and I can find no evidence to support any one view, but the reasons probably included the visibility of the space race, funding, publicity, perception and respectability. Unfortunately, this inappropriation has seen a gradual dilution of the trust built up in science over the previous 500 years.

Today people expect certainty, black and white, no doubts, everything bolted down and immutable. A pill for everything, a holiday on the other side of the planet, instant food, access to information, and never any risk. Well, they are set for a diet of disappointment and disillusionment. Our universe offers only uncertainty and change that accelerates with technological advance. What we hold true today will seem an approximation to the truth tomorrow.

Unlike other endeavours, science is fundamentally reliant upon independent repeatability and cross-checking of experiments and models. Science is not a "belief system", it is a model of the universe in which we live, a discipline, a way of thinking and verifying the linkage between cause and effect. It is automatically limited by the accuracy of our instrumentation and observation techniques, while also constrained by human imagination. Nevertheless, it is the only activity we have undertaken that has seen us advance significantly as a species.

It is also worth remembering that scientists are human and therefore subject to all the failings of the human mind and spirit. So it is not only necessary for each individual to exercise self-discipline, but essential that peer review is upheld. Cross-checks and challenges must remain a vital and fundamental element of the process.

There is no doubt that Leonardo, Galileo, Newton and Einstein would be amazed at our progress and breadth of understanding since their time. We can only speculate on the potential enhancement of their creative potential had today's information technology been available to them. Modern science is intellectually richer, and far more productive, than ever before as a result of the technology it created.

Science is no longer a world of the loner isolated in a back room, it is a world of teams, linked across the planet by information networks that allow them rapidly to communicate results and ideas. So, outside the pseudo-sciences, it is particularly disappointing when poorly researched results are presented and argued. But perhaps the reality is that true scientific quality is relatively constant, and it is the quantity that creates the impression of worsening standards and growing threat.

Unfortunately, we do not seem to have created an increased scientific comprehension among the general population. This is where the real threat to our society and progress lies: not in the proliferation of science and technology per se, but in growing ignorance of the process.

Peter Cochrane holds the Collier Chair for the Public Understanding of Science & Technology at the University of Bristol. His home page is:
http://cochrane.org.uk