Is SPA on the right track?

Dear Editor,

I think that the journal is becoming too much of a talking shop for science issues with a barbed overtone. That is not what I think it should be. It should have more on actual scientific questions and go back to having more leading figures contributing articles and not attempt to be hard-questioning journalistic in ways that I do not think help. I never, for example, have appreciated Tom Wakeford's articles. They are too opinionated and not always based on sound scientific knowledge. At the very least they should be counterbalanced with alternative views.

Regards,

Sir Walter Bodmer FRS

Dear Editor,

(A warning to readers, this reply may slip into an hard-questioning opinion and the occasional practice of journalism. It will err on the side of good judgement rather than officially sanctioned facts).

Some may  be surprised that it has taken Sir Walter so long to object to the overhaul undertaken by the Editorial Board and Editor of SPA. In the years since I began as a columnist in 1998 they have transformed SPA from a glossy jolly-good-chaps journal to an innovative and highly readable magazine full of trans-disciplinary analysis from people with a diversity of perspectives.

May I respectfully suggest that Sir Walter's argument is based on an outdated concept of who are the leading figures at the interface of science and public affairs? Perhaps he would like to experiment with his own parallel publication based on the quaint old division between facts and opinions? However, I fear his venture would not attract as much support from practicing scientists or policymakers as he would have hoped.

Regards,

Tom Wakeford

Dear Editor,

We are constantly reminded that criticism and debate are the life-blood of science. They are all too rare in the teaching situation, and most debates in research fields are too technical for general readers.   Hence it is important to publicise the lively debates on science policy issues, at which SPA excels. 

Of course that means that some incorrect views will be promoted; but the advancement of science depends on the promotion of views which are generally considered incorrect at the time. Similarly for passion in debate; if scientists were all dispassionate calculators, no serious novelty would ever be achieved. 

It is a great skill to preserve a dynamic balance between opposing views argued with passion but courtesy. On this S&PA has built its reputation.  Long may it flourish, as a demonstration that science can indeed be an exciting pursuit for independent minds.

Regards,

Jerry Ravetz

Dear Editor

I should like, as an occasional contributor to Science and Public Affairs, to make a number of observations on the points recently raised by the recent letters from Sir Walter Bodmer and Tom Wakeford. Sir Walter opines that the journal should have more pieces from senior scientists rather than what he calls 'journalists', but why is this a good idea? Additionally what is the problem with a 'talking shop' - is not one of the major purposes of Science and Public Affairs to provide a window on how issues within science impact on public affairs and provide room for discussion?

We need more than ever to fully understanding the complex interfaces and meeting points between science, politics and our place in society. We hear in other professional journals what senior scientists want the public to know and more importantly accept in science and technology. Some of the questions which need articulation as they impact on public affairs are: What is the connection between funder and research? How open is science today? How does corporate interest impact on government and public affairs? Who decides what are suitable research areas for funding? Has there been a full discussion with input from all interested parties why corporate support should play such a significant part in funding the universities in the UK and USA? Why are large fractions of our taxes used to fund research into weapons systems rather than climate change amelioration or clean energy sources?Who asks these questions is far less important than how they are discussed and where the public (whoever they may be) voice is heard and what the outcome of such discussion is.

Science and Public Affairs plays an essential role in this process. Tom Wakeford's fiesty pieces often causes one to stop and reflect on science and technology in ways which would not necessary happen. Of course such questioning needs facts but in complex areas understanding is shaped as much by interpretations as by facts.

There have always been issues and controversies over how we relate to science, and how science reflects its human form and content, these processes are more pervasive and difficult to fully fathom now with the rapid rate of change in science and our society.  Economic globalisation is rapidly altering the nature of science and technology and in turn is being changed by them. Vested interest, including that of the military, influences knowledge flow, the form and impact of risk and uncertainty and the open nature of science and technology. Powerful corporate and political forces change our access to decision making and knowledge. We are disenfranchised if all of us, scientist or otherwise, do not participate in the governance of science. Significant sums are spent in the name of each one of us for the support of science, engineering and technology and a healthy democracy stimulates the kind of questioning that goes on in the pages of Science and Public Affairs - long may this continue.

Sincerely yours,

Chris Langley (Dr.)

BA members: not consulted?

Dear Editor,

While the article from Dr. Roland Jackson is most welcome (“Open, accessible, responsive science” SPA, March 2005,) I would suggest that it is served up with a large dollop of hypocrisy. The BA doesn't even consult with its own membership prior to offering advice on their behalf to government inquiries, which is both unrepresentative and also not very scientific.

I would suggest that when Dr. Jackson writes, 'It is time for a culture change that embeds dialogue as a natural and continuing process and that results in support for science and trust in its governance because it is seen to be open, accessible and responsive', that he actually applies that logic to the BA before he tries to foist it upon an unsuspecting world.

I've been a member of the BA for some considerable time now and I'm not aware of the BA ever surveying its members to assess their views on any topic whatsoever.

Bernard  J. Mulholland, Portadown

Roland Jackson replies:

Dear Editor,
The BA does stand for open discussion and welcomes views from members at any time. This magazine is of course a good place to express them, whether they are critical or supportive of the BA itself or of any other organisation.

As far as government enquiries themselves are concerned, which is Mr Mulholland's specific point, the most significant input to government by the BA in recent years is the advice given in November 2002 on Science in Society. There was a subsequent open public consultation by the government on its response, which is also published on the OST website, together with the subsequent action plan. In the very short timescale for this work (about 6 weeks) the BA consulted widely within the science communication community, many of course of whom are BA members. Time and resources did not permit a formal consultation of all members.

There is always going to be a real challenge here in terms of effort, cost and timing and I would certainly appreciate members' views on which sorts of enquiries they might welcome being consulted, if the BA has the resources to make a response.

Roland Jackson, Chief Executive of the BA

Self-limiting technology

Dear Editor,

Is technology too complicated to be interesting?

There’s a persistent paradox in social attitudes towards science and technology: the more technological our culture becomes, the harder it seems to be to interest people in science and technology. Numbers of students taking science A levels continue to fall, and while university admissions soar, physics and chemistry departments at leading institutions close for lack of good students to teach.  In the attempt to account for declining interest in science and technology, many point the finger at external factors. There is never any reference to the changing nature of science and technology itself.

This is a shame, because by focussing on external factors we miss what I believe is the heart of the problem, neatly summed up by Clark’s Law (Arthur C Clarke, the science fiction author): Any sufficiently developed technology is indistinguishable from magic. And the problem with magic is that it is not meant to be understood, except by a minority of initiates.

If you doubt Clarkes Law, look around you at your computer, your digital watch, and your mobile phone. Do you really understand how these things work?

Consider the digital clock and its mechanical predecessor: If you take the works out of a mechanical clock you can pretty much discover how the thing works from first principles without needing much prior knowledge - John Harrison, the inventor of the Marine Chronometer taught himself clockmaking in pretty much this way - but take the back off a digital clock and you can stare at its circuit boards and chips from now till Domesday and be none the wiser. Granted, the digital clock will keep better time, but how it does it is, and for most people always will be, a mystery.

This suggests that technology (and science) might actually be self-limiting, in that as they becomes more complex they become comprehensible by, and interesting to, an ever decreasing circle of people until a point is reached where the next technological leap is stalled for want of sufficient skilled people to carry it forwards.

Richard Ellam, L M Interactive