- Email: [email protected]
Science and fun
For more letters visit www.NewScientist.com/section/letters ■ Contagious mood ■ Livestock emissions ■ Multiverse/other ■ Science and fun ■ Overselling science ■ Why menopause?
of research to which the funds should be directed. Brooks’s comparison to a jury in court is flawed. The legal procedure is formally established and rigidly adhered to; speculation is discouraged; and the judge clearly specifies the possible range of verdicts. Most of the proceedings concern circumstances and actions that a jury understands and are conducted in plain English, not in the specialised terminology and mathematics that are essential for scientific clarity and rigour. Stockbridge, Hampshire, UK From Chris Grollman A fifth of European Union citizens already put scientific research in their top four areas for desired use of the EU’s budget, ahead of defence and security issues – that is 29 per cent of respondents in Germany and France, though just 7 per cent in the UK – according the Autumn 2008 Eurobarometer survey of EU public opinion (www.tinyurl.com/9ycq4c). While the tyranny of the
majority should inspire caution, science can be combined well with other public priorities such as public health. Ongoing events also suggest that the science of economic growth – EU citizens’ first spending priority – could do with an overhaul. London, UK From Jim Grozier, Café Scientifique Brighton There seems to be less public debate nowadays than in the
1960s, when people argued over whether it was justifiable to spend millions on space exploration while there was so much poverty in the world. That debate was flawed – posing a stark choice between research and people’s lives – and ignored far less justifiable public spending, such as that on arms. But at least it was a debate. Nevertheless, I’m not sure I agree that now is the time to “canvass public opinion… then act on the results”. Science has been marginalised and caricatured – often by the media – for so long that if there were a referendum tomorrow on the level of research funding, I doubt if any of us would be happy with the result. In any case, surely the idea of giving the public any say in government spending would be viewed as dangerously revolutionary by the current regime; consider, for example, the arms-spending issue again. Probably the most we can hope for is a greatly enhanced outreach programme to make people feel that they have more of a stake in science. Café Scientifique is an effort in that direction. Brighton, East Sussex, UK From Stephen Wilson For no better reason than the peace of mind of the bourgeoisie, Michael Brooks wants science subjugated to the court of public opinion. Tragically, it already is. In the US, evolutionary biologists self-censor, spooked by the superior PR of creationists. In Australia, it is impossible to garner support for stem cell research without talking up the prospects of a cure for Parkinson’s disease. Clinical – and other – breakthroughs tend to arise from the corpus of scientific knowledge. We do science purely because we need to know all we can about all the world. Biasing research according to populist ambitions will only imperil good science, because even the most obscure endeavours
eventually, if unpredictably, yield useful technologies. Five Dock, New South Wales, Australia
Wikipedians
From Robert Cailliau Wikipedians are disagreeable and closed to new ideas, according to one survey (3 January, p 19). Could this be because we have to resist continually the agreeableness and new ideas of creationists, revisionists, flatearthers and other quacks? Prévessin, Ain, France
Multiverse/other From Alex Kasman Amanda Gefter seeks reasonable explanations for the apparent “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics to support life, aside from the multiverse and the intelligent designer (6 December 2008, p 48). Three alternatives come to mind. The perception of “fine-tuning” is based on the idea that the parameters of physics – for example the relative strengths of various forces – can be individually tuned. But if some mathematical “theory of everything” were to provide a unified explanation for all of these forces, we might find that they are necessarily related. Their having values less amenable to life would then be as fanciful as having “more sound, but with less fluctuation of air pressure”. Secondly, it is argued that if these physical parameters were
different, the elementary particles that form matter in our universe would hardly interact and so could not form things like living beings. But it seems possible that there are particles in our universe that we have not noticed because they hardly interact, and that these would interact strongly under a different set of physical laws, and form some sort of matter (and living beings). Finally, we have been surprised to find life on Earth in places we did not predict it could exist, such as the deep-sea vents. If some sort of life that we cannot presently imagine could arise in many of those hypothetical universes then there is no mystery here at all. Human ignorance leaves room for simpler and less dramatic explanations than a creator, a multiverse or the power of consciousness… and is something I definitely believe in. Charleston, South Carolina, US
Wrong heretic From Robert Scopes Memo to Steve Jones: it was Copernicus who finally convinced the world of the real reason why the sun rises every morning, a century before Galileo (20/27 December 2008, p 71). Koroit, Victoria, Australia
For the record ■ Chris Anderson said that the Bluefin tuna “lays maybe 3 million eggs and three reach adulthood”, and not, as we reported, that “three hatch” (20/27 December 2008, p 52). Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
24 January 2009 | NewScientist | 29
of research to which the funds should be directed. Brooks’s comparison to a jury in court is flawed. The legal procedure is formally established and rigidly adhered to; speculation is discouraged; and the judge clearly specifies the possible range of verdicts. Most of the proceedings concern circumstances and actions that a jury understands and are conducted in plain English, not in the specialised terminology and mathematics that are essential for scientific clarity and rigour. Stockbridge, Hampshire, UK From Chris Grollman A fifth of European Union citizens already put scientific research in their top four areas for desired use of the EU’s budget, ahead of defence and security issues – that is 29 per cent of respondents in Germany and France, though just 7 per cent in the UK – according the Autumn 2008 Eurobarometer survey of EU public opinion (www.tinyurl.com/9ycq4c). While the tyranny of the
majority should inspire caution, science can be combined well with other public priorities such as public health. Ongoing events also suggest that the science of economic growth – EU citizens’ first spending priority – could do with an overhaul. London, UK From Jim Grozier, Café Scientifique Brighton There seems to be less public debate nowadays than in the
1960s, when people argued over whether it was justifiable to spend millions on space exploration while there was so much poverty in the world. That debate was flawed – posing a stark choice between research and people’s lives – and ignored far less justifiable public spending, such as that on arms. But at least it was a debate. Nevertheless, I’m not sure I agree that now is the time to “canvass public opinion… then act on the results”. Science has been marginalised and caricatured – often by the media – for so long that if there were a referendum tomorrow on the level of research funding, I doubt if any of us would be happy with the result. In any case, surely the idea of giving the public any say in government spending would be viewed as dangerously revolutionary by the current regime; consider, for example, the arms-spending issue again. Probably the most we can hope for is a greatly enhanced outreach programme to make people feel that they have more of a stake in science. Café Scientifique is an effort in that direction. Brighton, East Sussex, UK From Stephen Wilson For no better reason than the peace of mind of the bourgeoisie, Michael Brooks wants science subjugated to the court of public opinion. Tragically, it already is. In the US, evolutionary biologists self-censor, spooked by the superior PR of creationists. In Australia, it is impossible to garner support for stem cell research without talking up the prospects of a cure for Parkinson’s disease. Clinical – and other – breakthroughs tend to arise from the corpus of scientific knowledge. We do science purely because we need to know all we can about all the world. Biasing research according to populist ambitions will only imperil good science, because even the most obscure endeavours
eventually, if unpredictably, yield useful technologies. Five Dock, New South Wales, Australia
Wikipedians
From Robert Cailliau Wikipedians are disagreeable and closed to new ideas, according to one survey (3 January, p 19). Could this be because we have to resist continually the agreeableness and new ideas of creationists, revisionists, flatearthers and other quacks? Prévessin, Ain, France
Multiverse/other From Alex Kasman Amanda Gefter seeks reasonable explanations for the apparent “fine-tuning” of the laws of physics to support life, aside from the multiverse and the intelligent designer (6 December 2008, p 48). Three alternatives come to mind. The perception of “fine-tuning” is based on the idea that the parameters of physics – for example the relative strengths of various forces – can be individually tuned. But if some mathematical “theory of everything” were to provide a unified explanation for all of these forces, we might find that they are necessarily related. Their having values less amenable to life would then be as fanciful as having “more sound, but with less fluctuation of air pressure”. Secondly, it is argued that if these physical parameters were
different, the elementary particles that form matter in our universe would hardly interact and so could not form things like living beings. But it seems possible that there are particles in our universe that we have not noticed because they hardly interact, and that these would interact strongly under a different set of physical laws, and form some sort of matter (and living beings). Finally, we have been surprised to find life on Earth in places we did not predict it could exist, such as the deep-sea vents. If some sort of life that we cannot presently imagine could arise in many of those hypothetical universes then there is no mystery here at all. Human ignorance leaves room for simpler and less dramatic explanations than a creator, a multiverse or the power of consciousness… and is something I definitely believe in. Charleston, South Carolina, US
Wrong heretic From Robert Scopes Memo to Steve Jones: it was Copernicus who finally convinced the world of the real reason why the sun rises every morning, a century before Galileo (20/27 December 2008, p 71). Koroit, Victoria, Australia
For the record ■ Chris Anderson said that the Bluefin tuna “lays maybe 3 million eggs and three reach adulthood”, and not, as we reported, that “three hatch” (20/27 December 2008, p 52). Letters should be sent to: Letters to the Editor, New Scientist, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS Fax: +44 (0) 20 7611 1280 Email: [email protected] Include your full postal address and telephone number, and a reference (issue, page number, title) to articles. We reserve the right to edit letters. Reed Business Information reserves the right to use any submissions sent to the letters column of New Scientist magazine, in any other format.
24 January 2009 | NewScientist | 29