I have just returned from an interesting few days at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, where my main message was that science needs to be far higher up the political and business agenda than it is today. This is only the second year I’ve participated, but I have the impression that this message is being heard: one of the things I raised this year is the importance of linking the scientific content of the meeting more closely with the political thread, and I’ll be taking that forward with the Forum before next year’s Davos meeting.
Science is complex. There’s no getting around that. But it’s essential that everyone engage constructively with it. That’s particularly true of the political and business leaders in Davos, whose decisions on science-based subjects can influence everything from the well being of our children to the future of the planet. It’s vital that those decisions are taken from an informed position and on rational grounds.
The challenge that science faces is that we live in a world where it’s de rigueur to know your Shakespeare, Molière or Goethe, but quite all right to be proudly ignorant of Faraday, Pasteur or Einstein. It hasn’t always been that way, and it doesn’t have to be that way. But right now, there’s a trend in society towards scientific apathy, and even antagonism. This is dangerous for us all and it’s incumbent on the scientific community to address the issue.
There was a time not so long ago when science was a fully integrated part of society, discussed in the same breath as football matches and front-page news. In the early part of the 20th century, news of Einstein’s advances were accompanied by cartoons in the press, and as recently as the 1960s science grabbed the popular imagination, thanks largely to NASA’s Apollo programme. But the moon shots bucked a trend of increasing distance between science and society, which is leaving society ill equipped to make the science-based decisions it needs to make.
Among the biggest challenges to society today are climate change and energy. Both are highly complex political and scientific issues. The climate is changing. There’s no doubt about that, and it is equally incontrovertible that human activity has something to do with it. Yet in the public sphere, the debate still rages on. Similarly, it’s a simple fact that renewable energy does not currently have the capacity to supply the increasing demands of the world. That’s not to say that renewables do not have a place. Of course they do, and that place will grow with time. But the current timescale for delivery is longer than that for demand. Is society equipped to make the difficult decisions that need to be made on issues of global importance such as this? In my opinion, we’re far from it.
On the personal level, there’s a range of issues that leave people confused and forced to take ill-informed decisions that can literally have life-or-death consequences. Take mad cow disease, scares over the MMR vaccine, and the safety of mobile phones, for example.
Of course, at CERN, we’ve had our own experience of this phenomenon. When starting up the LHC in 2008, the world was in the grip of black hole fever. According to a small handful of people, our flagship accelerator would create a black hole that would devour the Earth. The idea went viral on social media, and was also widely reported in the mainstream media, many of which conveniently left the normal journalistic code of ethics to one side as they explored the comic possibilities of the story. Unfortunately, science has left society alone for too long, and many people were unable to see the funny side. There were even stories of schools being closed for the day to allow children to be with their parents, just in case. And all this was based largely on the testimony of a man who, when asked about his concerns on television, explained that the LHC would either destroy the Universe or it would not, therefore the probability for disaster was one in two. If this were not so tragic, it would be laughable.
What can science do about it? In my opinion, a great deal. At the institutional level, things are changing. The recently created Blavatnik School of Government at Oxford University includes science as an obligatory part of its course on public policy, to cite just one example. We need to use exciting science projects like the LHC to engage people with science, not just through the science pages, but also in new ways such as the arts residency programme we recently launched at CERN. And scientists in positions of influence need to use that influence to shape political debate in the world’s Capitals and in places like Davos.
Broad engagement has been our approach at CERN for a number of years, seizing the opportunity offered by the visibility of the LHC to engage more fully with everyone from decision makers to our neighbours and the general public. As a result we’re seeing our science being covered responsibly, and once again we’re seeing people talking about it along with football and front-page news. Sometimes the stories are not exactly what we’d like to see, but what’s important is that people are talking about science.
When the LHC started up, and the world continued to exist, at least one newspaper boldly declared that the LHC would be the new Apollo, set to engage a whole generation with science. While I take such headlines with a healthy pinch of salt, they do make good reading. More recently, another newspaper declared that physics has the X-factor, that elusive quality that makes it part of the zeitgeist.
Science as a whole needs to capitalise on this, to ensure that the LHC is not science’s one-hit-wonder, and that engagement with society is sustained. As scientists, we owe the world this, helping people to master the complexity of their own science-based lives. Twelve months from now, I’ll be taking this message back to Davos.
Rolf Heuer
“The challenge that science faces is that we live in a world where it’s de rigueur to know your Shakespeare, Molière or Goethe, but quite all right to be proudly ignorant of Faraday, Pasteur or Einstein.”
Um… it’s de rigueur to know those? Perhaps in Europe. In the states, it’s generally more common to know your Cowell and your Kardashians. Shakespeare is what Star Trek quotes, and what we all had to read (and promptly forget about) in high school.
the challenge that mankind faces is to stop the obsolescence of human minds to techno-utopian scientists and return to the concept of science as knowledge, built with the languages of our mind, that is, the challenge is to evolve the mathematical and logic instruments we perceive the Universe with.
http://www.amazon.com/4Th-Paradigm-Science-Social-Networks/dp/1462045294
Bad idea to forget Shakespeare, Remy.
We need Carl Sagans.
(I Think the main problem is, that education didnt evole in the last 50 years, while science did. So the general population doesnt understand most of the new discoveries.)
As an engineer, I only see science still absorbed by those who have an interest. Paradoxically, my wife doesn’t like football, but she generally knows the players and rules through osmosis. There is a real opportunity to market science as interesting and cool, but no one has a good idea. The problem with science is that the mental barrier to entry is too high – someone not interested is quickly overwhelmed.
I think shows like ‘The Big Bang Theory” and “Mythbusters” are a step in the right direction, although they aren’t directly applicable. I’d like to see more live competition where people have to opportunity to become emotionally invested in the minds they see.
The problem is that we’re solving the problem of ‘scientific apathy’ like scientists. It’s a marketing problem and we need to treat it as such.
Rolf
Thank you for that thoughtful posting.
You focus on something which both fundamental and also common sense. If people generally are to relate positively to CERN’s endeavours, its quest must feel graspable, relevant and attractive.
I’m sure most people with enough free-time to consider CERN’s work, are eager to feel, at least in some way, part of that quest seeking connections between ‘scientific-complexity’ and the ‘deep-simplicity’ that underlies it.
This recent blog from Michio Kaku: – http://www.theaftermatter.com/2012/01/what-is-music.html
. . . makes the beautiful point that: –
“If String Theory is correct, then harmony is emanating all throughout our universe: the sub-atomic particles are the notes, the atoms and molecules are the melodies, and our entire universe combines into one glorious piece.”
This seems graspable, attractive and seems to me to be relevant to the quest at CERN.
Moreover, this deeply simple point is empirically observable, by anyone, here: – http://www.gci.org.uk/animations/vibrating-strings.swf
One might even suggest that the deep-truth of this ‘stringularity’: – http://www.gci.org.uk/music.html
. . . . is un-falsifiable on both sides of the Schwarzchild Radius.
Considering the fear of black-holes that CERN’s work apparently triggered, this is reassuring – no?
What do you think?
You’ve made a beautifully sad commentary on our plight.
May your call be an inspiration to all and not a swan song.
pop
“And all this was based largely on the testimony of a man who, when asked about his concerns on television, explained that the LHC would either destroy the Universe or it would not, therefore the probability for disaster was one in two. If this were not so tragic, it would be laughable.”
<- screaming with laughter, almost died…
very nice post, i totally support the scientific apathy stuff. also i think hookah's right. The complexity of the things we use in our daily lifes, for example smartphones or tablet pcs, raised to a very high level of complexity and people find it normal having no clue how something works. this is very dangerous.
thanks for the nice post, cheers kusi
““The challenge that science faces is that we live in a world where it’s de rigueur to know your Shakespeare, Molière or Goethe, but quite all right to be proudly ignorant of Faraday, Pasteur or Einstein.”
Um… it’s de rigueur to know those? Perhaps in Europe.”
In New Zealand we generally read one Shakespeare book each year for the last three years of compulsory English classes at High School, no one can quote it and most are bored out of their minds about it. I wish Einstein at least got the chance to inspire and interest students. Perhaps in America you guys focus more on Twain or Melville.
As for the topic at hand, I blame the media largely. If one reads the news and takes it seriously, you get the impression that there are about 15 scientists in each field; all disagreeing with each other, all suckling the remnants of the tax-payers teet, all making ridiculous claims and all seem to keep screwing up or trying to destroy the world “for the greater good of science”.
If the media didn’t so often misrepresent science and scientists, the general public would have a lot more trust in them and the work they do.
The real problem with science and its theories in the States is that the average citizen and sadly student believe that “the truth” is subjective and a matter of opinion. That the majority of scientist believe in evolution holds no water as long as the opposition can field a few scientist who cite other opinions (or facts as they interpret them).
As long as citizens of the States do not understand the methodology of science and get past their own prejudices science will hold the same position as politics in the USA.
As an American who does understand science and my fellow citizens IMHO science and its education is kaput for most Americans.
Thanks for the interesting post! Well CERN may not be discussed as a football match but what you do inspires a lot of people like me. I am not a scientist and I do not understand the details in complex formulas and data, but I follow up what you are doing for years and it is amazing! CERN is a unique organization because of the big science which I believe will practically “save the world” some day, at the same time CERN has made a huge practical contribution to the tiny lives of ordinary people (www, etc.), and also inspires artists, people to believe, dream and act…I started a project that is really meaningful, useful and fun for people and it is inspired to a great extend by CERN, so thank you. I believe I am not the only one – for sure there are many other people that would like to say thanks…
http://www.facebook.com/workshopforsuperheros
Please never stop “trying to open those black holes” because the world needs to follow rabbits through them, that will take us to a Wonderland, a Wonderworld:)
Very interesting comment,
As a mum of an 11 year old boy , we in Ireland have been following the LHC with great enthusiasm,and enjoying all your endevours-thank you for bringing us into your wourld of Science and Particle Physics.The Cern website is great for both children and adults alike. Ross (my son) and his 5th class in primary school did a research project based on the findings of the LHC-and invented a classroom experiment to represent the working of the LHC.This project was then submitted to our Young scientist-Primary Science Exhibition-where we were then asked to display our findings in the RDS Dublin Ireland Exhibition,we did this and the boys presintation was fantastic and enthusiastic!!! great fun was had by all.The boys found out about Particle Physics (mum’s Too ) !and they also got some experiance at presenting their ideas to the public.Science is alive and well in Ireland and who knows we might be sending one of our boys to work in Particle physics -Thanks to the LHC-
We’re learning about Farraday and Einstine too but keep up the good work at Cern and keep us posted
Regards a very interested mum in Ireland
In many respects the lament made by Mr Heuer, though justifiable, was made 50 years ago by C P Snow in his famous ‘Two Culture’ lecture. This is not to say there isn’t a lot of ignorance as to what science is or does among the general public. Sadly, it is all too true.
I think that what has changed over those 5 decades, at least in North America, is that there is an equal ignorance concerning the social sciences and humanities. Shakespeare is labelled boring and out of date. In Canada and the US 99% of the population don’t even know who Goethe was, let alone that he had a scientific as well as artistic side.
The problem, in my estimation, is not so much an anti-science attitude in the public sphere as an increasingly anti-intellectual attitude generally. This anti-intellectualism may or may not be caused by the kinds of people who show up at Davos. That is a matter of some (though in my opinion not enough) debate. What is less in dispute is that this wave of anti-intellectualism benefits the political and economic pundits at Davos more than the general public. Ignorance has always served those at the top of the social pyramid more than those at the bottom.
science and society: while many would no doubt agree on importance of science and future discoveries, it would be fair to point out at what cost to the society as a whole. CERN itself does not run on a thin air, when one takes into the consideration expenses relating to this research, including not only the hardware, LHC, experiments etc., but also salaries of staff, present and future pension liabilities and all other related costs as they occur. Since the research institute is not a profit making entity, the money comes from many countries, as their contributions. When we look at participating European countries in particular, the enormous indebtedness they already carry, the substantial unemployment, especially among the young people, pensions being cut for seniors, who worked all their lives in unrelated fields with respect to physics, people who live from paycheque to paycheque trying to make the ends meet and provide for well being of their children one could understand their frustration. As the cost of research continues to rise, it may require a fine balancing act to be performed by those countries contributing today as they are basically broke.
We need sitcoms to show scientist not as Sheldon Cooper’s but more like involved people trying to improve the world!