A golden age of science?

by Matthew Cobb

The Guardian today has an interesting but rather light-weight piece about whether we are living through a golden age of science. In fact, the article is more about science on British TV, which makes it doubly parochial. Furthermore, the article seems too influenced the undoubted success of my Mancunian colleague Professor Brian Cox (cue arty photo of Cox looking moody in an Oasis-style parka).

However, there’s a more important point to be made here. Although TV is incredibly important, it is declining as a primary mode of communication/education, as compared to the rise of the Internet. And while the wave of science blogging, of which WEIT is a small part, marks a really interesting and important development, it would be naive to imagine that the tide of non-scientific nonsense has been turned. The number of irrational/paranoid/whacko sites is probably more than the number of atoms in the known universe, while the comments on YouTube and similar sites reveal a depth of ignorance – particularly amongst the young – that shows the work that remains to be done. And as for the growth of religion…

For non-UK readers, the backdrop to the article is the current British general election campaign, and the looming threat of massive – but absolutely massive – public spending cuts, which will occur whoever wins (but will be far worse under the Conservatives). And high up the list of sectors heading for cuts is the science budget. This article is partly an attempt to influence that debate.

Cox says:

“Did you know, for example, that Britain’s entire science budget was £3.3bn last year, out of a total government spend of £621bn? And that physics-based industry alone contributes 6.4% of our GDP – comparable to the much vaunted and rather more costly financial services sector – yet no party is committed to protecting it after the next election.”

Alice Roberts, a medic who has done programmes about human anatomy and anthropology, hits the nail on the head :

“We seem to have been getting very mixed messages from the government about the value of science to our society. On the one hand, it has launched a campaign to show us that science is important, yet it has also tried to manoeuvre scientists into rubber-stamping political decisions, and has got rid of them if they won’t – as we saw with the very public dismissal of its chief drug adviser, David Nutt. And of course, there has been the recent announcement of cuts in higher education. In the run-up to the election, it will be interesting to see what the various parties promise us when it comes to science funding and education. And I’ll make up my mind about whether it’s been a golden age for science in a few years’ time.”