SET and petulance in Parliament

Dear Editor,

Probably few would question a desire for scientists to influence strategy in all areas of public life – and especially in Parliament.  So it is worrying that a biochemist of some renown (Ian Gibson), who quit a senior university post for Parliament, has quickly slipped into the political mould.

That he should use his regular page in the September issue of SPA to pour contempt on the workings of Parliament (workings that ended his Chairmanship of the Select Committee on Science and Technology) tells us more about Dr Gibson than about SET in Parliament.

For him publicly to vent his spleen at treatment which he regards as unjust (and which may indeed be unjust) is inappropriate and calls into question his judgement. Indeed, on the sole basis of this petulant and vainglorious article (admittedly an invalid basis) I begin to understand why a change in Chairmanship might have been sensible.

As Dr Gibson concedes, the government has done a lot for science.  So can he not concentrate on that (silently taking some of the credit) and continue to press the case for science, rather than publicise personal discontent?

We need more scientists in Parliament, but only if they retain a professional and scientific approach to debate, an approach that appears generally to be lacking and is perhaps in danger of extinction.

Maynard Case is Professor of Physiology at the University of Manchester

Ian Gibson replies…

Dear Editor,

Professor Case argues that I used up my allocated space in this fine publication as a platform to express my discontent at being removed from the Chairmanship of the Science and Technology Select Committee.

I agree with the Professor. But it was not because I am some vainglorious whinger as he implies, but rather simply because I was asked by the editor to write the piece, and more importantly I wanted to expose how suspect political bargaining can hinder the scientific agenda in this country.

Professor Case makes a strong point that we need more of a scientific presence in Parliament. Precisely. That is why I was very disturbed by the political machinery which seemed to disregard the work of the Committee for cheap political points. Mr Phil Willis will make an excellent Chair, he is an upstanding politician who has sterling credentials as a teacher and an advocate for children with special needs. But he has no strong background in science.

That puzzled many and infuriated some Labour MPs who were informed by the Chief Whip that her decision was based on the need to redistribute the chairmanships of the committees following the results of the election in May. Her reasoning seemed to suggest that Science and Technology was the least painful concession she could make (and it is an open secret that I am a trouble maker, so she killed two birds with one effective stone).

It goes to show how highly science is rated by some in power, and why we as scientists and interested public figures need to rally against this form neglect.

Dr Ian Gibson is MP for Norwich North

Technology and its uses

Dear Editor,

So, we are doomed to be populated by a generation who will not understand how a mobile phone works (“Self-limiting technology”, SPA September 2005). Frankly, so what. Explain to me why it is important to know and I’ll make it my duty to share that information with the population. Could it be that by understanding the minutiae of the device we become enlightened as to the beauty of science? Doubt it. What matters to people, especially young people, is what a device can do - how it benefits their life and enables them.

They all enjoy communicating and some even enjoy exploring their machines to find out what else they can do – Bluejacking, for example. Others still seek to exploit the potential of what a device such as a modern phone can do in classrooms, public spaces, museums, or nightclubs.

It doesn’t matter whether it’s phone, PDA, laptop, or Sony’s new PSP, there are three broad groups of people (at least): those who ignore a technology or use it minimally, those who seek to explore its functionality in any number of creative ways, and a minority who understand the device implicitly and push it beyond limits even the manufacturer could not have foreseen – the PSP homebrew community being an example.

What we do with technology will always be more important than how it works. But let’s not ignore the incredible power of exploring the limits of technological functionality – even in the absence of understanding how it works.

Dr Barry J Gibb is a UCL Honorary Fellow and a NESTA Crucible Alumni