Science ; Future

Much of what IVe said would seem uncontroversial or as yet platitudinous to the scientifically-attuned audiences here in Newcastle this week. tho theres virtuoso thing that scientific advisors in any(prenominal) democratic system must(prenominal) not forget. When actually big and long-term policies be in contention whether almost nuclear weapons, nuclear power, drug classification, or health risks political decisions atomic number 18 rarely purely scientific they involve ethics, economics and social policies as well.Such discussions hould need all of us, as citizens and of course our elected representatives. Sometimes this has happened, and constructively besides. The parley with parliamentarians led, contempt divergent ethical stances, to a generally-admired legal framework on embryos and stem cells a contrast to what happened in the US. And Lisa Jardine has chaired the HFEA, another fine precedent. But weve had failures too the GM crop debate was left too deep to a time when opinion was already polarised between eco-campaigners on the one side and commercial interests on the other.Scientists substantiate a special righteousness to engage though they should accept that on the economic, social and ethical aspects of any policy they speak as citizens and not as experts. But despite many worthy efforts, there are habitual grumbles that such inputs dont have much traction with politicians. For them, the urgent trumps the important. The local trumps the global. And getting re-elected trumps almost everything. Anything that gets headlined in the media, or makes their postbag bulge, will get attention.Its volume not timberland that counts. So scientists might have more leverage on politicians indirectly by publicising their research and letting the media do the campaigning rather than by more official and direct channels. This is one reason over and above the general cultural value of our findings why outreach by scientists is important. A nd there are special things universities teachers can do. Were privileged to have influence over successive generations of students.We should try to sensitise them to the give aways that will confront them in their careers ndeed, polls show, unsurprisingly, that young people who expect to survive most of the century, are more employed and anxious about long-term issues. We fret too much about minor hazards of everyday life improbable air crashes, carcinogens in food, start radiation doses, and so forth. But the wide public is in defense force about two kinds of threats those that were causing collectively to the biosphere, and those that stem from the big(p)er pic of our interconnected domain of a function to error or terror induced by individuals or small groups.The issues impel us to plan internationally (for nstance, whether or not a pandemic gets global grip may hinge, for instance, on how quickly a Vietnamese poultry farmer can score any strange sickness). And many o f them energy and climate change, for instance, involve multi-decade timescales patently far outside the comfort zone of most politicians. One issue that should be addressed is whether nations need to give up more reign to new organisations along the lines of IAEA, WHO, etc.Final message Unlike our 17th century forebears who I cited at the beginning of this talk, we know a reat deal about our world and indeed about what lies beyond. Technologies that our ancestors couldnt nave conceived enrich our lives and our understanding. Many phenomena still make us fearful, but the advance of science spares us from irrational dread. We know that we are stewards of a precious pale blue dot in a vast cosmos a planet with a future metrical in billions of years, whose fate depends on humanitys collective actions. But all too often the focus is parochial and short term.We downplay whats happening tear down now in impoverished far-away countries. And we discount too heavily the problems well pull out for our grandchildren. We can truly be techno-optimists. But the intractable politics and sociology the fracture between potentialities and what actually happens engenders pessimism. We need a change in priorities and panorama and soon if we are to navigate the challenges of the twenty-first century to share the benefits of globalisation, to range clean energy, and sustainable agriculture and to handle the Promethian challenge posed by ever more powerful technology.To survive this century, well need the idealistic and in effect(p) efforts of natural scientists, environmentalists, social scientists and humanists. They must be guided by the insights that 21st century science will offer, but inspired by determine that science itself cant provide. And I give the last word to a great scientist who was himself once the president of the BA the biologist Peter Medawar The bells that toll for earthly concern are like the bells of Alpine cattle. They are attached to our o wn necks, and it must be our fault if they do not make a melodic and melodious sound.