What Should the Priority be for Modern Science?

[teogr]

The BBC features a lead story today on Sir David King and his challenge to the scientific community to re-direct energy & resources towards solving the world's pressing problems. An excerpt from the article is included below. Read the entire article here or listen to an interview with Sir David King here.

"The most brilliant minds should be directed to solving Earth's greatest challenges, such as climate change, says Sir David King.

The former UK chief scientist will use his presidential address at the BA Science Festival to call for a gear-change among innovative thinkers.

He will suggest that less time and money is spent on endeavours such as space exploration and particle physics.

He says population growth and poverty in Africa also demand attention.

"The challenges of the 21st Century are qualitatively different from anything that we've had to face up to before," he told reporters before the opening of the festival, which is being held this year in Liverpool.

"This requires a re-think of priorities in science and technology and a redrawing of our society's inner attitudes towards science and technology."

Any thoughts? What are today's most pressing issues - and are our scientific research priorities responding to the needs of today's world?

[NaTasha Shastan Bertrand]

Hi Teo,
great discussion starter!

I think that this is a very complex issue, with many facets, challenges and solutions. I am in agreement with Sir David King.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is how the media currently works. Spin a story, sell a story. Misinformation rules. Short-term sales are what matters, new new new, now now now. How do we address that? Um. I don't think we can compete with it for a while, as in: you can't get there from here. I think we need to get into the pit and slug it out with their tools, AND convert them to "us," AND create what we want elsewhere, all at the same time. I think that this has already begun, and that it needs to get moving faster, especially on the creating what we want.

What do we want? This touches on what I think is another aspect of this issue. We need leaders with vision. Some politicians in some parts of the world are starting to to hear the slogans being hurled around. That's good, in that they have grown ears as well as mouths. We now need leaders with eyes for the long-term future, and how to get there, who will fund the exploration to find the route(s) to where we need to go, fund the creation of the tools and marketing for the route(s) there, and fund the march.

Part of the problem is who is *really* in power? It is a sad reality that most politicians in the Western world are in some Big Corporate pocket. In my books, that's called corruption. Politician will not make a tough decision that is good for Planet and People if it is "bad" for Big Corporation. This is a mess. How do we break this? Um. Nicely? I doubt it can be done.

Unfortunately, to me it looks like the way to break it is a way I have a lot of problems with, don't feel good about, and really cannot condone. However, it is something that I have been wondering about for YEARS. It can be summed up in: The president of the USA is just a puppet, so why are there occasional people aiming guns at him instead of the puppet masters? I don't get it. I don't like the thought of it, I certainly can't see condoning it, nor doing it. But I don't get why it hasn't happened yet.

Science is funded by Big Corporations looking for increased profits (sometimes through deals with governments . . . who are in their pockets). Scientists who get in the way of those profits, real or perceived potential, are actively hushed by Big Corporation lawyers and spin-doctors. Look at how the term "whistle-blower" is commonly used. It is rarely good to be labeled this, career wise.

Those profits are curious things. Consider this, as an example. What would happen if someone found a plant that anyone could grow as a houseplant, that prevented cancer if you ate one leaf a day? What would all the pharmaceutical corporations, who depend on all the medications and supplements selling, do? What disinformation would be circulated? How would the average consumer (corporate milch-cow?) be able to tell what was valid info and what was lies? Doctors depend on the pharmaceutical companies for information as to what medicines to prescribe for what conditions, and fewer and fewer read journals. Those journals are funded by what? What doctors would hear anything positive about this plant? This is how science is being abused, every day.

So much boils down to politics. In a culture where mud-slinging and smear campaigns and disinformation distribution campaigns are acceptable and considered normal, is there hope?

I hope so,
I'm depending on it.
NSB
(who is married to a nuclear physicist who turned to computers because he couldn't stomach the politics involved in getting grants - even after helping to design and build the Sudbury Nutrino Observatory)

[Gingeroo]

My thoughts are that it isn't going to take brilliant minds to change our planet, it's going to take humble changes from everyone with regard to resource consumption. I get asked all the time what the "best" alternative energy solution is...and I usually reply with a quick "shut off your lights, hang your clothes outside, and walk some more please".

I was just talking about the politics of this the other day, NSB, with some people in Santa Fe. How the technology and intelligence has been there (our specific example was the electro-magnetic engine) But there are lots of examples of intelligence disappearing in the name of politics and the interests of existing power and industry.

As far as population growth and poverty in Africa, I hope that the british understand more than the US (not hopeful or likely...but a girl can dream) that our "systems" won't work in other climates and cultures. Our methods and attempts at aid have done more harm than good in many cases.

I hope that simplicity comes from this discussion, and that wasteful scientific research (such as discovering better asphalt that reduces friction and improves gas mileage) is disregarded and real progress can be made in the interests of the greater good.

[NaTasha Shastan Bertrand]

Yes, there are lots of examples, aren't there Gingeroo.

Yes, individuals need to do a lot of change, but the way I see the world working, not enough will until laws are passed and enforced regarding those necessary changes. Look at history - yet again, it is full of examples. This time more positive, though! US wilderness Conservation is one area with quite a number of successes through this. Hunting regulations, protected land areas, wilderness parks. It is working, if a little late for such animals as beavers and the habitats they created: Las Vegas means "the meadows," and refers to the once common beaver meadows there. Compare US beaver trapping history with that of Canada - which is full of beavers - and you will see that From the get-go, the Hudson Bay Trading Corporation _regulated_ the beaver pelt trade in most of what is now Canada (it wanted to ensure that the trade continued, as Europe and Siberia had both been stripped of beavers).

Have you read Alice Outwater's WATER: A Natural History? This is full of regulation success stories, and warnings regarding the problems caused by the lack of them.

Look at seatbelts and lifejackets, too: They just make sense, but few people will wear them if they don't "have to." Industries need regulations, even the banking industry, as if Reganomics didn't already prove that, just look at the current crisis in the US due entirely to deregulating it.

Regarding Africa, I doubt if anyone outside of Africa can create a solution. I think African countries need to be respected and supported in their own efforts to address their problems, and those of us outside can help but not lead.

How do you think we can convince governments and corporations to fund scientific research in what will save the planet, rather than what will make a fast buck?

Pondering,
NSB

[Afriendof B]

On population and aid - Our systems don't even work here. We are lucky to have a large part of our country that not environmentally brittle, allowing us to abuse it for a longer period of time, and to have the financial and military strength to take the resources we need from other places around the globe. That is why we are still "successful" as a country. Exporting those methods to environmentally brittle places like much of Africa, or even applying them in most of the places in our country west of the Mississippi River results in environmental collapse, desertification, and failure. Science, immersed in the model that produced our system, can't formulate answers without someone stepping out of the box. The peer review, publish or die, special interest funded grant program we call science will never allow such a thing.

[Afriendof B]

My thought is that you can't seek an answer to a question generated by the system that created the problem and expect it to solve the problem. The system is the problem, and the only way forward is to step out of the system and work with the facts as they are in the world as it is. Population, for example, is completely understandable and addressable, but some how we are exempt from the rules that govern population growth. The challenge for scientists as they go forward is to step outside the cultural box we have been living in for the last 10000 years and accept the fact that we are part of nature and subject to the same laws that govern all other living things on this planet. If they can start formulating solutions based on that reality then they may find a way forward.

[NaTasha Shastan Bertrand]

Reality always wins. Yes. Always a pleasure to discuss topics with you, Afriendof B.

Scientific research is a job. Scientists will gladly work for money, and many would love to work in *real* advancement areas of research. So how do we fund this? All granting bodies with realistic amounts of money/ respected backgrounds of science comprehension hold potential profits higher than much of anything else.

NSB

[J.T. Hessert]

I think it is a mistake to draw distinctions between physics and solutions to climate change etc., and suggest that such things are mutually exclusive...

An interesting book to check out is = "The Quantum Nietszche" by William Plank: there is a link to a preface here; ( http://www.meta-religion.com/Philosophy/Biography/Friedrich_Nietszc... )

In physics there is "Supersymmetry" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersymmetry), which relates to string theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory) / M theory etc.: which directly relates to the particle physics experiment mentioned in the article...

super symmmetry basically suggests ; " Some physicists attempting to unify gravity with the other fundamental forces have come to a startling prediction: every fundamental matter particle should have a massive "shadow" force carrier particle, and every force carrier should have a massive "shadow" matter particle. This relationship between matter particles and force carriers is called supersymmetry. For example, for every type of quark there may be a type of particle called a "squark." (qouted from following link: http://particleadventure.org/frameless/supersymmetry.html)

I am sure most people on this network can agree that our mainstream 'western' culture has to be changed / has to move in the direction of sustainability for us to overcome the climate change challenges: the best way to change and influence culture is = art/ music etc....

so my thought is... theoretically ... you could argue that weather over the earth... is analogous to culture moving over global society etc. if that makes sense?... by applying the concept/ idea of supersymmetry...

Thus the best way to influence our global societies "impact" on global climate... is to influence our global culture. And the best way to influence culture is thru arts activism/ music etc. : those minds are the ones that shape our future...

I was just doing a bunch of presentations @ rural schools in Alaska and when I talk about Katrina and mention the rapper Kayne West's comment "George Bush doesn't care about Black people" and tie it to the civil rights movement, the green for all campaign (www.greenforall.com)/ green jobs day (www.greenjobsnow.com) etc. I would get every single kids undivided attention with a snap of the fingers... some of these schools have only 1 or 2 people in the senior class and are very remote... so young people are exposed to mainstream/ hip hop culture thru media; mtv / internet / movies etc. and dress and act accordingly... but they really engage when you mention rap / hip hop and tie it to activism... NO ONE had a clue about 1 sky, green for all, or knew who Van Jones (www.vanjones.net) or Majora Carter (http://www.ted.com/index.php/speakers/majora_carter.html) are.
-------
So... my thought is if you look at it from a phsychological angle a lot of the most influential leaders / cultural change-makers thru history dealt with some depression etc./ had similarities to a possesing the "creative genius" of great artistic minds; I am thinking like Martin Luther King, Churchill, Kennedy, lincoln... maybe even Obama??? On some level this enabled them to creatively overcome great political/ economic challenges, deliver inspirational / powerful speeches, successfully communicate with the masses and motivate people to believe in the impossible etc., and work together to reweave the cultural landscape into something unprecedented.
It will be interesting to ch

[J.T. Hessert]

To continue the above post:
It could be argued that you could make a link between those influential minds (like some of the names I mentioned above) interaction with society with the interaction of a black hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole) / vortex in space and its subsequent description in physics....
------
For what it is worth I disagree with the common argument that individual actions -- ride a bike to work and shop local -- is the solution for anything more than peace of mind at this point. I believe at the grassroots level we need to focus our efforts to support / elect the political and cultural leaders on every scale who are willing to embrace the need for an energy independent / sustainable mainstream america... a country that interacts with the global community in a healthy way.

It will be interesting to read this Green Collar Economy when it comes out shortly:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061650757/harpercollinspub/

[J.T. Hessert]

some of that may be a little bit of a stretch and not that clear: but hopefully the general idea / suggestions was communicated: best way to influence our climate (and impact on our climate) is thru the utilization of current mainstream cultural influencers... example= music as tool for social change. and my thought is that it is all connected; just look at the stock market mess...

[NaTasha Shastan Bertrand]

Unfortunately, most physicists agree that string theory was a nice idea, but doesn't stand up to reality. There are a lot of New Scientist articles, from a wide variety of sources, that reflect this. It also shows up occasionally in their Short Sharp Science Blog.

This magazine also has an Environment News site, that has a special report on Climate Change.

I highly recommend these.

String Theory had it's day. Anything that claims it is attached to String Theory is more philosophy than science. It may have some basis in reality, but if it is marketed as being tied to String Theory, it is not well researched.

Unfortunate,
NSB

[J.T. Hessert]

NSB,
I am not sure what your post is implying? beyond a personal opinion? I do agree with some of your earlier comments about politicians often being in the pockets of corporations etc., and my comment was focused on Supersymmetry (an idea which was around before string theory), and -- yes --a creative theoretical / philosophical application of that principle to human induced climate change... with the point established being that 'culture' acts like weather in our minds influencing are actions, consumer choices, beliefs to some extent etc.... and that the minds that influence the cultural weather pattern are usually very strong and talented; gifted): example unusually charismatic politican (Obama), lyrically brilliant rapper (Nas).

You wrote; "most physicists agree string theory was a nice idea, but doesn't stand up to reality".

Than you choose one magazine and claimed "there are a lot of New Scientist articles, from a wide variety of sources, that reflect this".

I got on New Scientist and searched "string theory" and "supersymmetry" and did not really get the impression that the majority of articles from that specific website support your claim... perhaps I am not looking carefully enough?

In terms of funding (you mentioned your husband left the field of physics due to the politics tied to grants?) ... I think there are politics everywhere and I can't imagine any of us can reasonably argue that funding 'climate change' / global warming solutions etc. -- hydrogen car, cutting edge clean energy technology etc. -- doesnt come with its own politics...? Any different than that in physics? Or grants for ecological / conservation research? Or grants given to talented artists?
---
Physics is in the computers we are using to participate in this disscussion... and pretty much everything else right? Including the technology we use to measure the effects of climate change over time, and the technology we use to try to reduce our impact as a species on our global climate.
---
The biggest thing that strikes me from the original article is: the 'solutions' to climate change / lessening our impact on the planet / moving mainstream (and lets all take a step back and remember that the majority of our perspectives as posters on this website are unfortunately -currently- not 'mainstream') western culture in the direction of sustainability already exist; yet the support and implementation is slow in coming... due to politics/ influence of corporations which subsist on profit from non-renewable resource development etc.

Soooo... I am pretty comftorable with my research, thoughts etc., hopefully they are more clear now..?

[NaTasha Shastan Bertrand]

Peace, J.T.Hessert,

My comment does not go into the theory you have posted, but the abandoned-by-contemporary-science theory that you tied it to: String Theory. I advise you to avoid tying it to this in your explanations of your theory, as anyone I know currently working in physics or mathematics would immediately discount any theory which ties itself to String Theory, and unfortunately also any individual who theorizes based upon String Theory.

Can you explain your theory without any reference to String Theory, nor what was thought to support it?

Yes, my husband stopped working in the recognized field of physics, however we have kept friends and contacts in the field, and the science magazines and journals keep being read in this house - including by me. My husband still uses his training, and could still easily get work in the field if he was willing to work for peanuts (friends have stopped offering him jobs and instead are asking him for work ;^).

Yes, I posted only one source - for simplicity's sake. New Scientist is an information hub, drawing from respected science journals, across the science board, which demand rigorous transparent methods of study and reporting of findings. Within two years of findings being reported in a journal, they typically are reported in New Scientist with full citations. Compare this with the typical six years for Scientific American, which is less choosy regarding its sources, and it does not always cite. New Scientist is the best up-to-date, respected science reporting and information resource that I know of.

In New Scientist, when theories are discussed, they are all based upon what is known. No it does not _attack_ String Theory, as it doesn't need to. String Theory is no longer used to prove anything in science. It was abandoned about two decades ago because it drastically conflicts with what is known. If you wish to investigate that process, I advise you to head to a university bookstore and seek an abandoned theories of physics in history that was published some time in the last 15 years.

It was a great theory, very tidy, and much loved. Most of what it was based upon were other theories of why certain phenomena were observed. Once the technology was developed enough to really measure and see each step of some of these supporting theories, many of them were found to be in direct conflict with what was actually happening.

The supporting theories of String Theory were found to not reflect reality. Reality always wins. String Theory was abandoned by science, because it does not fit with the reality of what we can now physically measure. Unfortunately, many philosophers didn't get the memo ;^D.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the theories the philosophers tie to String Theory are wrong. It means that the philosopher doing the tying has not kept up with contemporary physics, by about 20 years. Hence my "not well researched" comment, and my recommendation for New Scientist. :^)

If we want to have Bioneers respected, we need to stay current. Proven, measured and known reality completely disproves String Theory, so it is advisable to refrain from attempting to use it to explain how another theory might work. Reality always wins, so to be respected we need to use at least contemporary theories, if not known reality, to support our theorizing. To be respected, those of us who know about a theory being disproven need to politely point it out when it is used to support another theory.

Theorizing is good and important. It is how we begin to figure things out: develop as many theories as to how and why something is occurring, try to get funding for as much research into as many of these as you can, research them and try like mad to disprove them while developing technology that can somehow actually accurately measure each step of the observed process. Any of the theories which get disproven by measurable reality MUST be abandoned. String Theory was disproven, many times over, two decades ago.

I hang out with professional physicists, mathematicians, internet architects, philosophers, researchers, artists, writers and shamans. I proof-read books, essays and articles for many of them. (I wear four of those labels, though only two currently professionally.) I pointed out a problem with a supportive theory that you were using.

Blessings,
NSB