5-6 June "The fiendlike skill we display in the invention of all manner of death-dealing engines, the vindictiveness with which we carry on wars, and the misery and desolation that follow in their train, are enough in themselves to distinguish the white civilized man as the most ferocious animal on the face of the earth". A century and a half after Herman Melville wrote these words in Typee, further instruments of doom are being added to the white civilized man’s burden, many of which are commonly related to scientific and technological breakthroughs. Misfortune tellers are having a field day predicting the worst-ever millennium and exploiting the threats posed by the swift change we now experience. There are, however, rational ways of apprehending the future and its dangers, of mapping the patterns elicited from past history and today’s trends, as well as the emergence of new opportunities. Rationality alone is not enough to allay fin de millénaire gloom, but it helps. The ten Nobel Laureates and the international experts invited in Milan are asked to act as "mankind’s civil servants" - as Husserl, who was one of them, said - and to reflect upon what lies ahead.

Science, Environment and News Media Friday 5 December 1997 Scientists have a responsibility to educate and to inform the public on a variety of complex scientific issues. Public policy decisions made in response to environmental problems need to be based on sound science. The dilemma scientists often faced is how to excite the public about the challenges posed by such problems - and hence, how to attract the attention of policy makers - without making exaggerated claims about the environmental consequences of human activities. Undue alarmism is not only dishonest, but may also lead to a backlash, discrediting the credibility of the "experts". On some occasions, scientists might decide to become advocates for specific policy matters, but it is important to clarify if they are speaking as scientists or as individuals. It is not always an easy task to make a distinction between value judgments and "expert" judgments.