From Frank Fahy
Science is indeed dead if it cannot find a more logical and imaginative apologist than Michael Brooks (20/27 December 2008, p 16). Surely Brooks is aware that most scientific progress is made by means of small incremental steps involving long periods of systematic, undramatic and often tedious investigations, which by their nature cannot be made entertaining.
It is ludicrous to suggest that “the public” should have a greater say in “what science gets funded” because most members are completely unqualified to make a judgement. The public can already influence the resources available to medical science by funding selected charities; but only the stupid or arrogant would claim to be qualified to suggest specific areas 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.
From Chris Grollman
Advertisement
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
Stockbridge, Hampshire, UK
