When science is cool & scientists are stars
Prime Minister Tony Blair says he's trying to revive science. He admits he was a "refusnik" at school, but now he's a "born-again" and "evangelical" (scientist). Although his choices got him to the position of Prime Minister, he now wishes when he was in school he hadn't eschewed laboratory and thought all scientists were boffins. "This is Britain's path to the future, lit by the brilliant light of science", he said recently. Many people in the UK have voiced concern about the drop of students in the hard sciences -- math, engineering and physics. Blair forever tries to entice students to study science, and now promises they will be rewarded with rainbows, bright lights and stardom. Blair spoke passionately on the subject earlier this month:
"We need our scientists today to be as celebrated and famous as our sportsmen and women, our actors, our business entrepreneurs. Scientists are stars too....Science today abounds both with noble causes and with glittering prizes: reach out for them."
Could stardom be arranged? Maybe instead of being abruptly awakened by a phone call at the ungodly hour of 4:00AM and told of their award in front of a tiny sleepy audience, a spouse or dog -- Nobel Laureate nominees could gather somewhere in Hollywood, at a reasonable time of day, for a grand awards ceremony that lasted hours and hours. Crowds worldwide would see bejeweled scientists with plunging necklines and scientists in tuxedos parading down the red carpet for photographers. Someone famous could emcee (who's funny, maybe British), and we'd listen to dramatic uplifting music. In between the numerous awards, pomp and circumstance, they'd screen retrospective films of the scientists' careers in the lab -- producers would edit the footage to highlight the exciting moments. Or maybe scientists could be like music stars, which would entail racier awards ceremonies where the scientists would slouch around and wear sunglasses. Of course some people, hearkening back to the events like the stem cell debacle, argue that science and fame are too combustible for prime time.
Nature makes a great point in their current issue, that Time International's recent "60 years of heroes" has nine musicians, but only one scientist.That scientist is Andrei Sakharov, a thermonuclear physicist listed under the "Rebels and Leaders". We do wonder why they left out Linus Torvalds, a computer scientist, who Time also included in "Rebels and Leaders". Computer scientists seem to have achieved the cool/nerdy thing, perhaps we should include them in our science mix to raise our stature. Notice that Linus was placed between Margaret Thatcher and King Juan Carlos on the Time's eclectic list, and I believe Linus managed to make them seem cooler. We might consider the strategy.
Describe "evidence based science"Despite his rhetoric about make scientists "stars", some people say that Blair is only interested in science that furthers industry, and that he complains too much about "campaigners" and the anti-science brigade" who protest that nuclear energy or genetically modified foods "threaten our future". Others say Blair sends mixed messages about science, for example by promoting homeopathy but scorning people who question the safety of the MMR vaccines. In general people welcome the sentiments but criticize Labour's actual science policies:
- In "UK Civil Servants Accused of Warping Science", Nature reports this week that in the Labour government "political interference in science policy is far greater in the United States".
- The Guardian said that members of Parliament reported earlier this month that government used the words "evidence based science" and "hides behind a figleaf of scientific respectability when spinning unpalatable or controversial policies to make them acceptable to voters"
- A Science and Technology report by the House of Lords earlier this month criticized science teaching. The report suggested that science curriculum is too test-oriented and narrow. Students avoid science for easier subjects. There is a shortage of chemistry, physics and math teachers, and teachers should be incentivized for the long-term instead of with golden hellos.
Britain seems to have the same issues with science as Australia, the U.S., and many Western countries. Blair forever champions science, but it's unclear what the outcome of all the talk will be. In a speech to the Labour Party Conference last month he covered a gamut of science topics -- curing cancer, "lab-on-a-chip technologies", early diagnoses for Alzheimer's and glaucoma and cataracts, "DNA vaccines for AIDS and malaria and Hepatitis B and some cancers", information technology for reduced technology fraud, nanotechnologies, in fact everything from climate change to cars that would keep drivers in the correct lane.
However, the audience reacted listlessly to the myriad of science topics and action items, according to the The Guardian's "clapometer" readings. Only two science topics elicited much excitement from the Labour audience. The first was Blair's call for nuclear power: "without it we are going to face an energy crisis" (6.01 seconds of clapping). The other was his mention of stem cell research: "we welcome it here" (12.2 seconds). The other 27 clap-worthy topics ranged from nationalistic: "Identity cards ... are an essential part of responding to the reality of modern migration" (10.74 seconds), to personal: "At least she's [Cherie] not going to run off with the bloke next door" (17.30 seconds), hyperbolic war cries: "Withdrawal from Iraq: "A craven act of surrender" (11.44 seconds), to FDR-ish polyptotons: "They will lose faith in us only if first we lose faith in ourselves" (13.93 seconds).
We know that a clapometer is a cheap surrogate for predicting future policy and assume/hope it fails to measure Labour's true level of commitment to all the science issues on the table. However the level of politicians' enthusiasm for science, including basic science, will no doubt register with budding scientists and perhaps influence their choice to believe the hype that as scientists they will lauded as stars, or even paid sufficiently.
