On Tuesday, I attended a lecture at Oxford University organised by the James Martin 21st Century School. The question asked of Professors Sir John Sulston, John Harries and Richard Dawkins was 'what is science for?'
Having spent much of my career explaining sceince to non -scientists (of which I am one), I guessed that a Nobel Laureate like Sulston and Dawkins, recently called Darwin's Rottweiler for his controversial views, might have thought-provoking views. Whether science is to explore and to produce good (as Harries put it) or to create new forms of life to leap-frog the end of humankind certainly gave a wide enough landscape to produce some further deep philosophical questions. There was much talk of synthetic biology and the doubling of computer power every eighteen months. That was familiar enough from my time working on agricultural biotechnology where laboratories house as many computer terminals as petrie dishes. But if science is to make man immortal, as some suggested, does this deal with the current range of religious and ethical issues that surround current scientific research?
As ever, the old distinction between pure and applied science manifested itself in issues surrounding public and private funding of research - should science only pursue commercial outcomes? What is the role of patents and IP when scientists make those leaps forward in overall understanding?
As usual, when you get an Oxford debate going, the issues move quickly to complex philosophical areas and the seemingly simple question - 'what is science for?' - reminded me of those entry papers set for aspiring students at the University. If the intention of science in the 21st century is to create a new form of humankind, there were suitable challenges from the floor from Professor Colin Blakemore, formerly of the British Medical Research Council and Andrew Graham, the Master of Balliol College.
As I left thinking how lucky I am not to have to sit a three hour exam answering this simple enough question, I did ponder the range of issues that will face scientific PR people in the decades ahead. Will developments be stymied by ethical debates (just personal viewpoints according to Dawkins) or subjected to muddled thinking by the tabloid press? If nothing else, the debate highlighted again the urgent need for scientists to engage far more in communication to explain what they do.
John Harries did concede science would not allow everyone to avoid death and become immortal. There would be some selection (but by whom? who knows?). Call me a cynic, but what would you think of an immortal Gordon Brown or David Cameron?
Comments