Richard Dawkins, his snazzy tie, and me!
On Wednesday, May 26, 2010, I was in the presence of greatness. And no, I’m not only referring to Anand, Claire, and Danica, my companions for the evening; I’m talking about being in attendance at the Science Museum Lates presentation of Genius of Britain, based on the Channel4 documentary series of the same name. Both the show and the event involved prominent scientists talking about their heroes, fathers of British science from yesteryear. And who were these scientists? Well, as you can probably guess by the title and photo above, the panel included Richard Dawkins and James Dyson, alongside Lord Robert Winston and Jim Al-Khalili. As for Stephen Hawking, he provided both the opening and closing remarks for the evening, and more importantly, he sat right in front of me!
The show was created in response to the lack of science being produced by Brits, which the producers and presenters seemed to chalk up to the lack of new students enrolling in the sciences. I think it was Dyson who blamed the media, and more specifically reality shows, for dangling the carrot of easy fame and fortune before impressionable youth; science just can’t compete with glamour (unless you’re talking about glamourising science in the way of the CSI series). The goal, or hope, of the program was to present science and science-based industries, like engineering and biomedicine, as engaging pursuits for young minds, full of excitement and surprises, and of course, fun!
Now, I may be biased in for forming this opinion, having been in a science museum after hours and all, but the presenters more than expressed their love for science. Dyson qualified engineering discoveries as “inspirational”, Winston described scientific inquiry as an “appetite”, and Dawkins defined science as “the poetry of reality”. As Al-Khalili described it, they each possessed a passion for the field, manifesting as a “geeky excitement” that was both endearing and infectious. It certainly rubbed off on me (though I was already obviously a supporter of science education and scientific research): when selected to direct the final question to the panel, I uttered the line “science is forever” as part of my query. If I was their target audience, then their campaign would be deemed successful.
Unfortunately, I do not fulfill the requirements of the target group, namely youth and apathy to science. Unfortunate still is my contention that the well-intentioned efforts of the Genius of Britain crew are misdirected. Firstly, who is going to watch a Channel4 program about famous mathematicians or physicians? People like Danica, Anand, and Claire, people who attended Science Museum Lates, people who are obtaining advanced degrees in public health, medicine, and nanotechnology respectively. Will anyone else watch the series? I can’t definitely say no, but in my experience, a very bright young lawyer requested a channel change to Wife Swap: USA after I chose Genius. So, can we really expect children to sit through an hour of Dawkins waxing poetic about the invention of the first computer when they could be watching American stereotypes clashing bitterly on their teevees? And even if the show inspires youngsters to ask for a chemistry set instead of a Wii, how will that hold up against some of the other problems that deter access to science, facts like lack of funding, materials, and lab space, and teachers who are not specialised to teach the science subjects?
Logistical considerations aside, I have a more abstract criticism, and this is in regards to the motivation behind the show. It was the “British” angle that I was most confused with, the notion that Britain is no longer the international powerhouse of innovation it once was, and that something must be done to restore the country to her former glory. Dyson claimed that the number of new engineers produced per year in Britain is significantly lower than that of countries like India, and he thought this was embarrassing. I think it’s irrelevant. As long as the pursuit of knowledge continues, what does it matter where the development of new ideas is taking place? Should we really be categorising the scientific community by country of origin? Shouldn’t we be looking at the total number of scientists in the world, or the number of new discoveries or patents this year, comparing it to previous tallies, and using the growth direction to measure scientific success? While there are British scientists, there is no such thing as “British science” or “Indian science” or “Canadian science”; if science is truth, then its verity must be universal.
Of course, there is a political and economic lean to innovation, and research is funded by the presence of an end goal. Despite the panelists’ lyrical descriptions of their field, science is utilitarian, and the pragmatic benefit is money or power, or both. And this, to me, is sad. What happened to learning just for the sake of learning? At the very least, when you’re a child, that should be your only motivation, to know a little bit more today than you did yesterday. Do we really need to endorse international competition and the separation of nations as an incentive to education? Students of all ages ought to feel that they can contribute fresh thinking or new concepts to the study of the natural world, no matter where in that world they reside. Science is forever, and science is for everyone.
And here I thought Dawkins would be at rockstor popularity with the ladies considering all his work about genes and evolution. Who knew!
But none the less, some interesting commentary anubha!
Drasko, I was such a fangirl at the event. I made a beeline for Dawkins after the talk and asked him to sign my copy of “The God Delusion” and hopped around when he said yes. And, I was actually called on to deliver the final question to the panel, and after my statement/query, Dawkins looked right at me and said, “That’s an excellent point” and I almost passed out. My friends may or may not have been embarrassed.
What’s Hawking’s theory of the quantum gravity generated by your massive wall of text?
Just kidding!
You must be a Dyson vacuum, because you suck and you will suck forever.