Lecture 1: The Scientific Citizen

REITH LECTURES 2010: SCIENTIFIC HORIZONS Presenter: Martin Rees

I. Questions: The moot point: What does being the scientific citizen imply?

1. What do we come to know about the BBC Reith lecturer Martin Rees? What is the major subject of his interests that Mr. Rees will expand on in his lectures?

2. What important questions have rapid technological advances raised? Which questions does Martin Rees outline at the beginning of his lecture? Why didn’t such questions feature much in the recent election campaign in the UK?

3. What does Martin Rees say about the mismatch between public perception of very different risks and their actual seriousness?

4. What does Martin Rees mean saying that “science is generally 'self-correcting'”?

5. Comment on the extract from the lecture: “Traditionally, discoveries reach public attention only after surviving peer review. But this 'copybook' procedure is under increasing strain, due to competitive or commercial pressures, 24-hour media - and the greater scale and diversity of a scientific enterprise that’s now widely international”.

6. What is the role of the mass media and mass media representatives in purveying information to the public?

7. Outline the challenges for the humanity which Martin Rees mentions in his first lecture.

8. What questions are thrown in the ring for Mr. Rees to answer?

II. While listening to the lecture find equivalents for the following words and word combinations:

1. интерес, доставляющий кому-либо удовольствие
2. удовлетворять свое любопытство
3. показаться на повестке дня в качестве одной из первоочередных задач
4. (книжн.) высказывать мнение, полагать, считать, давать профессиональное заключение
5. спорный, дискуссионный
6. решиться (осмелиться) дать комментарии
7. поверхностно прочесть, просмотреть, поверхностно ознакомиться, проглядеть (что-л.)
8. уклониться от важных проблем (вызовов)
9. поддерживать, подкреплять (тезис, аргумент)
10. полномасштабно окупаться
11. разгром, полное поражение, фиаско, неудача
12. возложенный на кого-л. (об обязанности)
13. работать в исследовательском центре; работать в коллективе ученых
14. меряться силами, бороться, противостоять
15. уместный, подходящий, соответствующий

III. While listening fill in the gaps:

MARTIN REES: It was fifty years ago arduous, but I’d like to say the duties are so exiguous I could do them posthumously. I need never retire.

SUE LAWLEY: But (3) _____ and (4) _____ are what you do, and they’re whirling away, one likes to imagine, in your head the whole time. But puzzles and conundrums are what you do, and they’re whirling away, one likes to imagine, in your head the whole time. Science is indeed a global culture, and its universality is specially compelling in my own subject of astronomy. The dark night sky is an inheritance we've shared with all humanity, throughout history. All have gazed up in wonder at the same '(5) _____ ___ _____', but interpreted it in diverse ways.

Science is indeed a global culture, and its universality is specially compelling in my own subject of astronomy. The dark night sky is an inheritance we've shared with all humanity, throughout history. All have gazed up in wonder at the same 'vault of heaven', but interpreted it in diverse ways.

Today, I'm not going to speak further about the findings of science, nor will I (6) _____ it as the greatest collective achievement of humanity - though it surely is. I'll instead focus on how it (7) _____ on our lives - and how it will in future.

Some changes happen with (8) _____ speed. Everyday life has been transformed in less than two decades by mobile phones and the internet. Computers double their power every two years. (9) ______ from genetics could soon be as pervasive as those from the microchip have already been. Ten years ago, the first draft of the human genome was decoded. Now, (10) _____ _______- the 'read out' of our genetic inheritance - is a million times cheaper than 10 years ago.

Sometimes, though, the key science isn't known. An example was the outbreak of 'mad cow disease' in the 1980s. At first, experts (11) _____ that this disease posed no threat to humans because it resembled scrapie in sheep, which had been endemic for 200 years without crossing the species barrier. That was a reasonable (12) _____, and comforting to politicians and public. But it proved wrong. The (13) ______ then swung the other way. Banning 'beef on the bone', for instance, was in retrospect an over-reaction, but at the time seemed a prudent precaution against a potential tragedy that could have been far more widespread than it actually turned out to be.

Winston Churchill once said that scientists should be (14) “__ _____, not __ _____.” And it is indeed the elected politicians who should make decisions. But the role of scientific advice is not just to provide facts to support policies. Experts should be prepared to challenge decision-makers, and help them (15) _____ the uncertainties of science.

As regards the science, there is, in my (16) ______ view, one decisive measurement: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than it’s been for a million years, and is rising, mainly because of the burning of (17) ____ _____. This finding isn’t controversial. And straightforward chemistry tells us that carbon dioxide is a so-called 'greenhouse gas': it acts like a (18) _____, preventing some of the heat radiated by the Earth from escaping freely into space. So the measured carbon dioxide (19) ________ in the atmosphere will trigger a long-term warming, (20) _______ on all the other complicated effects that make climate (21) _____.

Suppose you seek medical guidance. Googling any (22) _____ reveals a bewildering range of (23) _____ remedies. But if your own health were at stake, you wouldn't (24) _____ _____ ______ __ everything in the (25) _____: you'd entrust your diagnosis to someone with manifest medical credentials. Likewise, we get a (26) _____ '____' on climate by (27) ______ ______ _______ __ those with a serious record in the subject. But - as I said earlier about science advice in general - it's crucial to (28) _____ '_____ _____' between the science on the one hand, and the policy response on the other.

But this fiasco holds an important lesson: what's crucial in (29) _____ error and (30) _____ scientific claims is open discussion. Suppose that Pons and Fleischmann had worked not in a university but in a lab whose mission was military, or commercially-confidential. What would have happened then? If those in charge were convinced that they had stumbled on something (31) _____, a massive programme might have got (32) _____ ____, shielded from open scrutiny and wasting huge resources.

The imperative for open-ness and debate is a common thread through all the examples I've discussed. It ensures that any scientific consensus that emerges is (33) _____ and firmly (34) _____. Even wider discussion is needed when what's in (35) _____ is not the science itself, but how new findings should be applied. Such discussions should engage all of us, as citizens - and of course our elected representations, not just the scientists.

When reporting a particular viewpoint, journalists should clarify whether it is widely supported, or whether it is (36) _____ by 99 percent of specialists. Noisy controversy need not signify (37) _____-_____ arguments. Of course the establishment is sometimes routed and a (38) _____ _____. We all enjoy seeing this happen - but such instances are rarer than is commonly supposed.

Scientists should expect (39) _____ _____. Their expertise is crucial in areas that fascinate us, and matter to us all. And they shouldn't be (40) _____ in proclaiming the overall promise that science offers.

These men - Joe Rotlat, Hans Bethe and the others - were an elite group. The (41) _____ of their time, possessors of secret knowledge. The dominant issues today, in contrast, span all the sciences. They are far more open, and often global. There's less (42) _____ between experts and laypersons. Campaigners and bloggers enrich the debate. But professionals have special obligations to engage - the atomic scientists were fine (43) _____. Scientists shouldn't be indifferent to the fruits of their ideas. They should try to (44) _____ ______ ______- commercial or otherwise. And they should resist, as far as they can, (45) ______ or threatening applications.

There's a (46) _____ gap between what science allows us to do and what it's (47) _____ or ethical actually to do - there are doors that science could open but which are best left closed. Everyone should engage with these choices but their efforts must be (48) by ‘scientific citizens’ - scientists from all fields of expertise - engaging, from all political perspectives, with the media, and with a public (49) _____ to the (50) _____ ___ _____ of science. Thank you very much.

Today, I'm not going to speak further about the findings of science, nor will I extol it as the greatest collective achievement of humanity - though it surely is. I'll instead focus on how it impinges on our lives - and how it will in future.

Some changes happen with staggering speed. Everyday life has been transformed in less than two decades by mobile phones and the internet. Computers double their power every two years. Spin-offs from genetics could soon be as pervasive as those from the microchip have already been. Ten years ago, the first draft of the human genome was decoded. Now, genome sequencing - the 'read out' of our genetic inheritance - is a million times cheaper than 10 years ago.

These rapid advances - and others across the whole of science - raise profound questions.

For instance:

Who should access the 'readout' of our personal genetic code?

How will our lengthening life-spans affect society?

Should we build nuclear power stations - or windmills - if we want to keep the lights on?

Should we use more insecticides or plant GM crops?

How much should computers invade our privacy?

Such questions didn't feature much in the recent election campaign here in the UK. That's partly because they transcend party politics. But it's more because they are long-term - and tend to be trumped by more urgent items on political agendas.

But often science does have an urgent impact on our lives. Governments and businesses, as well as individuals, then need advice - advice that fairly presents the level of confidence, and the degree of uncertainty.

Issues come up unexpectedly. For instance, back in April, the eruption in Iceland raised urgent questions about vulcanology; about wind patterns, and about how volcanic dust affects jet engines. In that instance, the knowledge was basically there: what was lacking was coordination, and an agreement on the acceptable level of risk.

Sometimes, though, the key science isn't known. An example was the outbreak of 'mad cow disease' in the 1980s. At first, experts conjectured that this disease posed no threat to humans because it resembled scrapie in sheep, which had been endemic for 200 years without crossing the species barrier. That was a reasonable conjecture, and comforting to politicians and public. But it proved wrong. The pendulum then swung the other way. Banning 'beef on the bone', for instance, was in retrospect an over-reaction, but at the time seemed a prudent precaution against a potential tragedy that could have been far more widespread than it actually turned out to be.

Likewise, the government could have been right to stock up vaccine against swine flu - even though, fortunately, this particular epidemic proved milder than feared.

Indeed, if we apply to pandemics the same prudent analysis whereby we calculate an insurance premium - multiplying probability by consequences - we'd surely conclude that measures to alleviate this kind of extreme event actually need scaling up.

Incidentally, there's a mismatch between public perception of very different risks and their actual seriousness. We fret unduly about carcinogens in food and low level radiation. But we are in denial about 'low-probability high-consequence' events which should concern us more. The recent financial crash was one such; but others that haven't yet happened - lethal pandemics are one example - should loom higher on the agenda.

The varied topics I’ve just mentioned show how pervasive science is, in our lives and in public policy.

President Obama certainly recognised this. He filled some key posts in his administration with a real 'dream team' of top-rate scientists. And he opined that their advice should be heeded, I quote, “even when it is inconvenient - indeed especially when it is inconvenient.”

The UK has 'chief science advisors' in most government departments. Not yet, however, in the Treasury (LAUGHTER) - though I can't help thinking this would be worthwhile, even at the sacrifice of one economist. (LAUGHTER)

Winston Churchill once said that scientists should be “on tap, not on top.” And it is indeed the elected politicians who should make decisions. But the role of scientific advice is not just to provide facts to support policies. Experts should be prepared to challenge decision-makers, and help them navigate the uncertainties of science. But there's one thing they mustn't forget. Whether the context be nuclear power, drug classification, or health risks, political decisions are seldom purely scientific. They involve ethics, economics and social policies as well. And in domains beyond their special expertise, scientists speak just as citizens.

There's no denying where science has recently had the most contentious policy impact, and where the stakes are highest: climate change.

It will feature, along with other global threats, in my second lecture, but I'll venture some comments today too. As regards the science, there is, in my inexpert view, one decisive measurement: the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is higher than it’s been for a million years, and is rising, mainly because of the burning of fossil fuels. This finding isn’t controversial. And straightforward chemistry tells us that carbon dioxide is a so-called 'greenhouse gas': it acts like a blanket, preventing some of the heat radiated by the Earth from escaping freely into space. So the measured carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere will trigger a long-term warming, superimposed on all the other complicated effects that make climate fluctuate.

The predicted rate of warming, however, is uncertain - depending on the poorly-understood 'feedback ' from water vapour and clouds, which themselves affect the blanketing. Nevertheless, even the existing uncertain science convinces me that the threat of disruptive climate change is serious enough to justify its priority on the agenda of this country and others.

This confidence may surprise anyone who has dipped into all that's been written on the subject. Any trawl of the internet reveals diverse and contradictory claims. So how do you make up your mind? I'd suggest the following analogy.

Suppose you seek medical guidance. Googling any ailment reveals a bewildering range of purported remedies. But if your own health were at stake, you wouldn't attach equal weight to everything in the blogosphere: you'd entrust your diagnosis to someone with manifest medical credentials. Likewise, we get a clearer 'steer' on climate by attaching more weight to those with a serious record in the subject.

But - as I said earlier about science advice in general - it's crucial to keep 'clear water' between the science on the one hand, and the policy response on the other. Risk assessment should be separate from risk management.

Climate projections still span a wide range, but even if there were minimal uncertainties in how the world's weather might change, there would still be divergent views on what governments should do about it.

For instance, what balance should be struck between mitigating climate change and adapting to it. How much should we sacrifice now to ensure that the world is no worse when our grandchildren grow old? How much should be incentivise clean energy?

On all these choices, there’s as yet minimal consensus, still less effective action. But policies, and investment priorities, are being influenced by climate change projections. So it's inevitable, and right, that climate science is under specially close scrutiny.

We are today far more questioning of authorities on every topic. We can all access far more information and want to weigh up evidence for ourselves. Such scrutiny should be welcome: just as there are instances of shoddy work, error or even malpractice in the medical and legal profession, so there occasionally are in science.

But science is generally 'self-correcting'. Scientists are their own severest critics. They have more incentive than anyone else to uncover errors. That’s because the greatest esteem goes to those who contribute something unexpected and original - like refuting a consensus. That's how in science initially-tentative ideas firm up - not only on climate change, but - to take earlier examples - regarding the link between smoking and lung cancer, and between HIV and AIDS. But that's also how seductive theories get destroyed by harsh facts. Science is 'organised scepticism'.

Our scientific knowledge and capability is actually surprisingly patchy. Odd though it may seem, some of the best-understood phenomena are far away in the cosmos. Right back in the 17th century, Isaac Newton could describe the 'clockwork of the heavens' and predict eclipses. But few other things are so predictable. For instance, it's still hard to forecast, even a day before, whether those who go to view an eclipse will encounter clouds or clear skies. And guidance on some everyday matters - aspects of diet and child care for instance - still changes from year to year.

If you ask scientists what they are working on, you will seldom get an inspirational reply like 'seeking to cure cancer' or 'understanding the universe'. They focus on a tiny piece of the puzzle; they tackle something that seems tractable. They're not ducking the 'grand challenges' - but they're judging that an oblique approach can pay off best.

A frontal attack may be premature. For instance, forty years ago President Richard Nixon declared a "war on cancer". He envisaged this as a national goal, modelled on the then-recent Apollo moon-landing programme. But there was a crucial difference. The science underpinning Apollo was already understood. So, when funds gushed at NASA, it became reality. But in the case of cancer, the scientists knew too little to be able to target their efforts effectively.

By the way, I'm using the word 'science' throughout, in a broad sense, to encompass technology and engineering - this is not just to save words, but because they're symbiotically linked. 'Problem solving' motivates us all - whether one is an astronomer probing the remote cosmos, or an engineer facing a down-to-earth design conundrum. There is at least as much challenge in the latter - a point neatly made by an old cartoon showing two beavers looking up at a hydroelectric dam. One beaver says 'I didn't actually build it, but it's based on my idea'. (LAUGHTER)

Nixon's cancer programme, incidentally, facilitated a lot of good research into genetics and the structure of cells. Indeed, the overall investment in scientific research in the 20th century paid off abundantly. But the pay-off happens unpredictably, and after a time-lag that can be decades long. And that of course is why much of science has to be funded as a 'public good'.

A fine 'case study' is the laser, invented in 1960. It applied basic ideas that Einstein had developed more than 40 years earlier. And its inventors in turn didn’t foresee that lasers would be used in eye surgery and in DVD players.

Traditionally, discoveries reach public attention only after surviving peer review. But this 'copybook' procedure is under increasing strain, due to competitive or commercial pressures, 24-hour media - and the greater scale and diversity of a scientific enterprise that’s now widely international.

A conspicuous departure from traditional norms happened back in 1989 when Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, then at the University of Utah, claimed at a press conference to have generated nuclear power using a table-top apparatus. If credible, it would have ranked as one of the most momentous breakthroughs since the discovery of fire.

But doubts set in. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and in this case the evidence proved far from robust. Others failed to reproduce what Pons and Fleischmann claimed they’d done. Within a year, there was a consensus that the results were misinterpreted, though even today a few believers remain.

'Cold fusion' bypassed the normal quality controls of the scientific profession, but it did no great harm in the long run. Indeed in any similar episode today, exchanges via the internet would have led to a consensus verdict even more quickly.

But this fiasco holds an important lesson: what's crucial in sifting error and validating scientific claims is open discussion. Suppose that Pons and Fleischmann had worked not in a university but in a lab whose mission was military, or commercially-confidential. What would have happened then? If those in charge were convinced that they had stumbled on something stupendous, a massive programme might have got under way, shielded from open scrutiny and wasting huge resources.

The imperative for open-ness and debate is a common thread through all the examples I've discussed. It ensures that any scientific consensus that emerges is robust and firmly grounded.

Even wider discussion is needed when what's in contention is not the science itself, but how new findings should be applied. Such discussions should engage all of us, as citizens - and of course our elected representations, not just the scientists.

Sometimes this has happened, and constructively too. In the UK, ongoing dialogue with parliamentarians led to a generally-admired legal framework on embryos and stem cells - a contrast to what happened in the US. But we've had failures too: the GM crop debate was left too late - to a time when opinion was already polarised between eco-campaigners on the one side and commercial interests on the other.

But what about ideas 'beyond the fringe' - the illusory comfort and assurance of the pseudosciences? Here there is less scope for debate - both sides don't share the same methods or play by the same evidence-based rules. I've not found it fruitful to have much dialogue with astrologers or with creationists.

A word now about communicating science. I mentioned Darwin earlier. Back in 1860, his book 'The Origin of Species' was a best seller: readily accessible - even fine literature - as well as an epochal contribution to science. But what scientists today call ‘the literature’ isn’t accessible in this way at all. But its essence can generally be conveyed, free of jargon and mathematics, by skilled communicators.

Misperceptions about Darwin or dinosaurs are an intellectual loss, but no more. In the medical arena, however, they could be a matter of life and death. Hope can be cruelly raised by claims of miracle cures; exaggerated scares can distort healthcare choices, as happened over the MMR vaccine.

When reporting a particular viewpoint, journalists should clarify whether it is widely supported, or whether it is contested by 99 percent of specialists. Noisy controversy need not signify evenly-balanced arguments. Of course the establishment is sometimes routed and a maverick vindicated. We all enjoy seeing this happen - but such instances are rarer than is commonly supposed.

Scientists should expect media scrutiny. Their expertise is crucial in areas that fascinate us, and matter to us all. And they shouldn't be bashful in proclaiming the overall promise that science offers.

I'll end, as I began, with a flashback - this time to the atomic scientists who developed the first nuclear weapons during World War II. Fate had assigned them a pivotal role in history. Many of them returned with relief to peacetime academic pursuits. But the ivory tower wasn't, for them, a sanctuary. They continued not just as scientists but as engaged citizens - promoting efforts to control the power they had helped unleash.

These men - Joe Rotlat, Hans Bethe and the others - were an elite group. The alchemists of their time, possessors of secret knowledge. The dominant issues today, in contrast, span all the sciences. They are far more open, and often global. There 's less demarcation between experts and laypersons. Campaigners and bloggers enrich the debate. But professionals have special obligations to engage - the atomic scientists were fine exemplars. Scientists shouldn't be indifferent to the fruits of their ideas. They should try to foster benign spin-offs - commercial or otherwise. And they should resist, as far as they can, dubious or threatening applications.

Unprecedented pressures confront the world, but there are unprecedented prospects too. The benefits of globalisation must be fairly shared. There's a widening gap between what science allows us to do and what it's prudent or ethical actually to do - there are doors that science could open but which are best left closed. Everyone should engage with these choices but their efforts must be leveraged by ‘scientific citizens’ - scientists from all fields of expertise - engaging, from all political perspectives, with the media, and with a public attuned to the scope and limit of science. Thank you very much.

Дата добавления: 2014-01-11