What is the purpose of science in society? Let me start with three data points.
1. The UK Parliament has asked the British public what science issues it should investigate (via Bad Science).
2. The media are constantly packed with celebrity scientists, who pontificate on a wide variety of subjects, often way outside their narrow specialism, unconstrained even by the feeble discipline of "peer review". For example, Baroness Professor Susan Greenfield, who appeared on BBC Newsnight on Tuesday, debating the perils of Facebook with Dr Aric Sigman and Dr Ben Goldacre. [The Perils of Facebook, “Facebook causes cancer”, There is a Greenfield far away, Susan Greenfield Profile]
3. The UK Prime Minister has set targets to increase the number of pupils in secondary school in England taking science subjects, in particular the "triple science" GCSE exam. [BBC News, 27 February 2009]
As it happens, my son is currently doing a triple science course at his high school. I find myself particularly puzzled by the chemistry syllabus, which doesn't seem to have very much to do with the chemistry I did at school. My hunch is that they have taken out much of the real science in an attempt to make the subject more "relevant". Sadly, the more they vainly try to make these subjects "interesting", the fewer students appear able and willing to study these subjects seriously at university.
What these three data points have in common is the idea that foolish and shallow notions of relevance, and ill-considered pseudo-scientific pronouncements by people who should know better, may create a barriers to the development of a genuine interest and deep understanding of science, as well as to properly informed debate on public policy based on good and authoritative science.
The Prime Minister obviously thinks that science education is a Good Thing. He has doubtless been briefed by his officials that British Industry needs so many scientists a year, whatever it is that scientists do, contributing (in Harold Wilson's phrase) to the White Heat of Technology. (As it happens, Britain has only had one prime minister with a science degree, and I think I may have read somewhere that she thought being a scientist-PM was an even more unlikely achievement than being a woman-PM.)
But I question the educational value of undifferentiated science. Are schools supposed to teach children lots of random and incoherent bits of science, so that they may grow up to be white-coated experts on a wide range of policy issues? Or is there some macroeconomic formula that depends on a fixed percentage of science graduates? Surely this isn't what science is about.
When an expert witness is called in a court case, there is the possibility of challenging not only the expertise itself, but also its relevance to this particular case. Perhaps similar challenges should be institutionalized whenever contributions to public debate rest on some claim of scientific authority.
My suggestion to the Parliament Select Committee will therefore be to investigate the nature and source of scientific authority in a democratic society, and to ask how society should assess and evaluate the available scientific expertise.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Not yet quite back into the fold after all ...
What exactly is the purpose of an apology?
The Vatican has rejected an apology by Bishop Richard Williamson, who had denied the full extent of the Holocaust, and said the bishop needed to "unequivocally and publicly" withdraw his comments. [BBC News, 27 Feb 2009]. This follows Bishop Williamson's earlier excommunication (which was for reasons unconnected with his opinions about the Holocaust) being controversially cancelled, as I discussed here a few weeks ago [Back into the Fold].
The Catholic Church now feels that Bishop Williamson's apology is ambiguous and grossly inadequate.
In September 2006, the Pope himself was forced to apologize after making some comments about mediaeval Islam. Some Moslems were dissatisfied with the Pope's apology; they felt that his Holiness appeared to be apologizing for the response rather than for the words themselves.
As I said at the time, an apology - especially a forced apology - often reveals a disconnect between intention and outcome. [Papa Ratzi 4]
The Vatican has rejected an apology by Bishop Richard Williamson, who had denied the full extent of the Holocaust, and said the bishop needed to "unequivocally and publicly" withdraw his comments. [BBC News, 27 Feb 2009]. This follows Bishop Williamson's earlier excommunication (which was for reasons unconnected with his opinions about the Holocaust) being controversially cancelled, as I discussed here a few weeks ago [Back into the Fold].
The Catholic Church now feels that Bishop Williamson's apology is ambiguous and grossly inadequate.
In September 2006, the Pope himself was forced to apologize after making some comments about mediaeval Islam. Some Moslems were dissatisfied with the Pope's apology; they felt that his Holiness appeared to be apologizing for the response rather than for the words themselves.
As I said at the time, an apology - especially a forced apology - often reveals a disconnect between intention and outcome. [Papa Ratzi 4]
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Test of Character
Here's an interesting juxtaposition: two stories from the BBC News, 15th February 2009.
Is this an unlucky coincidence - a classic example of two branches of government working at cross-purposes? Or is it a very clever piece of joined-up government? Thus sensitive and risk-averse Mexicans should remain south of the border, and only the most courageous and determined Mexicans are welcome for military posts.
- US uses songs to deter immigrants The US Border Patrol is turning to traditional style Mexican songs, known as corridos, to dissuade illegal immigrants from trying to cross the US-Mexican border.
- US army 'wants more immigrants' The US army is to accept immigrants with temporary US visas for the first time since the Vietnam war, a report says.
Is this an unlucky coincidence - a classic example of two branches of government working at cross-purposes? Or is it a very clever piece of joined-up government? Thus sensitive and risk-averse Mexicans should remain south of the border, and only the most courageous and determined Mexicans are welcome for military posts.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Bank Bonuses
Why is it a good idea for banks to pay bonuses to their employees, when there seems to be a severe shortage of funds needed by real businesses to survive?
For many years, the banking industry has attracted many of the cleverest young people from the top schools and universities, and assigned them to playing transiently profitable number games. We are now told that the banks must continue to pay large bonuses to these people, so that their talents are retained within banking.
The apparent purpose of these bonuses is to perpetuate a discredited system, in which a significant pool of intelligence is still being denied to the industries that might actually create real wealth. Where would they go instead? Fields, factories and workshops perhaps?
Some cynics suggest that the current bank employees are so damaged by their experience, that letting their talents loose on wealth-creating industries would cause further economic and social catastrophe.
However, it would be a disgrace if new generations of bright students continued to be lured into gambling with other people's money by the prospect of high bonuses and zero accountability.
Perhaps we should get the bankers to do some real banking - along with hedging and ditching. See Somerset Guide to Restoring Hedgerows (pdf).
For many years, the banking industry has attracted many of the cleverest young people from the top schools and universities, and assigned them to playing transiently profitable number games. We are now told that the banks must continue to pay large bonuses to these people, so that their talents are retained within banking.
The apparent purpose of these bonuses is to perpetuate a discredited system, in which a significant pool of intelligence is still being denied to the industries that might actually create real wealth. Where would they go instead? Fields, factories and workshops perhaps?
Some cynics suggest that the current bank employees are so damaged by their experience, that letting their talents loose on wealth-creating industries would cause further economic and social catastrophe.
However, it would be a disgrace if new generations of bright students continued to be lured into gambling with other people's money by the prospect of high bonuses and zero accountability.
Perhaps we should get the bankers to do some real banking - along with hedging and ditching. See Somerset Guide to Restoring Hedgerows (pdf).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)