Science

As VA knows there is no better way of having dialogue with the public than to talk with them directly. And some scientists from London Zoo were doing just this last week in impressive fashion.

Fifteen brave scientists from the Zoological Society of London went to Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park with a mission to talk about the scientific issues the public care about.

These “soapbox scientists” either gave mini-lectures, or asked controversial and stimulating questions to try and attract passers-by.

There was a diverse range of subjects:

”Life on Mars from life on Earth”, ”Where do species come from anyway?” and ”Pheromones: Smells at the heart of life”;”Bees in crisis: Well known fact or widely held belief?”, ”Global warming and a cold winter”.

Members of the Zoological society kicked off the questioning with questions sent via Twitter and then the public joined in. Questions included “Is global warming real? If it is, what can we do about it?” “Will humans evolve?” and “Are polar bears becoming cannibals?”

The scientists also had questions for the public – “Why fight to preserve the British green belt, but not the foreign rainforests?”; “Is development worth the price of diversity?”

The event was funded by the Research Councils UK for a modest £6000 (70 000 SEK) and so perhaps may become a more popular method in these difficult times. And hopefully it is something that will happen more often.

Commenting after event, one of the speakers professor Stephan Harrison from Exeter University , said he had come round to the view that engaging with the public was not just an important thing to do, it is a scientist’s obligation.

And Alun Anderson from New Scientist added that this kind of one-on-one connection could be positively ”life-changing”.

// Esther Crooks

Link to New Scientist article

Link to ZSL

Germany and Britain are heading for deep and severe cuts in public spending. The politicians have given sombre speeches about the “tough times” that lie ahead.

However there have been indications in both countries that “Space research” will escape.

Speaking at the Berlin Air Show this week, Professor Jan Woerner, chairman of the German Aerospace Centre (DLR), said “he does not expect space to be affected by the nation’s big austerity drive”.

In the UK, the new science minister David Willets has said in a BBC interview, ”I believe in the space industry. Britain has a comparative advantage and we will carry on backing space.”

It remains to be seen whether the two countries allow space research to escape the cuts. However it is interesting and heartening that the politicians do not want to be associated with cutting all investment in science. Money may be found to invest in our technological future in the most glamorous way possible – space exploration and rocket science. In these times where little is exempt from cuts this is perhaps some reason for optimism.

Some links:

German space escapes budget cuts – link to the BBC article

Coalition wants UK space lift-off – Link here

// Esther Crooks

It is not often that science is the headline news item but the creation of the first synthetic organism has dominated the worldwide news these past weeks.

These synthetic bacterium, created by American biologists Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, have already been dubbed “Frankenbugs” and have been greeted with some not unpredictable outrage from certain corners. There have been accusations of “playing God”, along with many terrifying predictions of the potential creation of artificial plants, animals and perhaps humans in the future.

This technology has great potential in the development of greener fuels, drought resistant crops and better drugs. There are also some very major ethical and technological concerns to be addressed.

So far the debate reminds me very much of the one surrounding GM crops over the last decade. I only hope that the science community rises to the challenge of giving the “Frankenbugs” a fairer hearing than “Frankenfoods” have since the 1990s.

Some reports of the breakthrough:

The Economist

The BBC

The Boston Globe

Le Monde

The Times (London)

Esther Crooks

The new UK science minister is known as David “Two Brains” Willets by the UK media. This nick-name is primarily because he is supposed to have an enormous intellect (and perhaps a little to do with his large forehead…).

In many ways this appointment is good for science. Mr Willets is a senior and well known politician with a lot of experience. Being very clever is obviously an asset. And the new Prime Minister has made the science minister a “Minister of State” which basically means he is quite high profile, and science has not been swept away to be ignored in a quiet corner.

Mr Willets is regrettably not a scientist. He studied Philosophy, Politics and Economics, although many people are reportedly “impressed” by his grasp of scientific subjects.

His appointment has been welcomed by many in the scientific establishment, including the President of the Royal Society, Lord Martin Rees, who said Mr Willets was someone who had ”strong links to universities and a clear appreciation of the value of research”.

Let’s hope so. The new government is planning cuts of £6 billion over the next year. There are many who think science is an easy target, and certainly easier than education or health care.

And there are not many scientifically literate MPs for Mr Willets to look to for support. Only 71 MPs out of 650 have a science background. This shameful total is even lower than before the election when there were 86.

There is an emergency budget on 22^nd June and there have been no pre-election promises regarding science funding. So fingers crossed that two brains is enough to save UK science from heavy funding cuts.

//Esther Crooks

Tomorrow there will be a general election in the UK. Science, perhaps not surprisingly, is not making the headlines in these turbulent economic times.
But nevertheless, in many ways there is much to be optimistic about. This election is the first time all the parties have included science funding in their manifesto. There have been debates between important scientists and politicians in prestigious places. I was pleased to find that all the science spokesmen for the three main parties were educated in science to at least degree level.
The media have covered science fairly extensively too, all things considered. Notably the Guardian newspaper has run an excellent series about science policy in the election featuring interviews with all the parties standing at the election.
I say all parties, but one is notably missing. For we are seeing for the first time a candidate from the latest political party, The Science Party.
Dr Michael Brooks leader of the science party is standing against local MP for Bosworth David Tredinnick after a series of outrageously anti-science incidents. Mr Tredinnick has recently been opposing the government’s report into the inefficacy of homeopathy; Mr Tredinnick was also found to have spent hundreds of pounds of MPs expenses on astrology software; and in a debate last week accused scientists of being “racially prejudiced” if they questioned the efficacy of Chinese and Indian healthcare systems that use homeopathy and astrology and take into account the phases of the moon.
This would be alarming enough from one MP but in addition, 70 MPs have signed Mr Tredinnick’s motion to have the report into homeopathy ignored.
To quote Dr Brooks,
It’s a sign that many MPs do not take science seriously enough”.
“David Tredinnick is the thick end of the wedge, but there are plenty of MPs who dismiss scientific results,” Brooks says. “When you are making decisions about what kind of healthcare our country can offer its people, that is potentially disastrous.”
Hooray for the science party! Today Bosworth. Tomorrow the world.
Esther Crooks

The InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), essentially a network of science academies around the world, met in January at the Royal Society in London to discuss how best to work with governments to tackle global problems. No small task, I am sure you agree,

New Scientists magazine also took advantage of all these scientific leaders being in one place at the same time to ask the 70 members from 62 academies a few questions. The results of this survey were published last week.

The survey short and asked the members to rate their confidence in world governments to tackle climate change through research, their view of the trust and understanding of people in their respective countries regarding science and scientists, and an open question asking them to list three issues that concern them most when looking ahead to 2020, both nationally and globally.

New Scientist gave the results (which themselves were not too surprising) an interesting perspective by comparing results from richer and poorer nations. There were a few interesting results – members from higher income nations were less optimistic about the chances of science solving the problem of climate change. They also had less confidence in how much the people in their countries trust scientists. Globally, climate change was named as the greatest challenge facing the world. There were some differences; a few more scientists from poorer nations cited water supply; a few more in richer countries the fight against terrorism.

It’s difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from this short survey and this small cross section of scientists. But it is a good way to focus on the global challenges we face, and to think about different perspectives around the world.

Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society has written an editorial on the survey, highlighting global challenges and potential priority differences. But he finsihes by saying that dialogue is the answer, writing  “…first of all we must enhance our dialogue with politicians and the wider world, and ensure that we sustain the public’s trust.”

Esther Crooks