The Science of Misconceptions

Are scientists just a bunch of uncivilised nerds? Professor John Wood, Chief Executive of CCLRC, concedes there is an image problem but is passionate about the importance and excitement of science and maths.

One way to kill off dinner party conversation is to admit to being a scientist or professional engineer. Glazed looks, embarrassed fiddling with the cutlery is sometimes followed by a sympathetic sound indicating that your affliction is acknowledged. One can talk about sex and even death now, but not about the latest advances in science! If it is spoken about at all it is a fair chance that it will involve media stoked blind ignorant opinions on genetic foods, nuclear energy or stem cells. Yes, some of my team are working on growing cells on electronic and photonic devices. Do you understand why and what are the implications? What would be the effect on global warming if we genetically modified trees in the UK? Do you actually know the difference between nuclear fusion and fission? Regarding fusion, what are the merits of magnetically confined plasmas against laser induced inertial fusion? Now these are real issues worth discussing.

There are so many misconceptions about what a scientist is and what they do. In fact, do they have a future? I chair a European Forum looking at the future for large scale research infrastructures. We have recently issued a 20 year forward-looking roadmap (1). There is certainly no shortage of ideas and areas to uncover for the next 50 years at least. In trying to describe the future in science and technology, traditional discipline descriptions break down. The future is about solving complex problems involving a multi-disciplinary approach. My research team, when I was Dean of Engineering at Nottingham, consisted of physicists, chemists, materials’ scientists, mathematicians, cell and micro-biologists, an orthopaedic surgeon, a food scientist and an archaeologist! One of our projects is what the operating theatre of the future would look like. Remote operations using robots could significantly reduce infection problems and allow surgeons to operate from anywhere in the world. This problem becomes even more interesting if we consider the need for providing health care as astronauts potentially go to Mars. At the more basic end, looking for the Higgs Boson, the Large Hadron Collider will go live at CERN towards the end of this year. Several thousand scientists and engineers from all around the world are working together on this project. One fascinating feature is what to do with all the data that is created. If all the raw data is dumped on the world-wide web – it will crash in a few seconds. Since CERN scientists created the web in the first place, they have every right to do this. However, being responsible they are going to take out over 99.9% of the data in the first few micro-seconds. Despite this, my laboratory will have to store over 10 petabytes of data a year next year coming from all the experiments we are involved in. (Simplistically this is 10km high of CDs stacked on top of each other per year!). How long should I store it, what will the hardware and software look like in 10 years time, how do I make sure it is not corrupted?

Not only are the problems fascinating, there are good rewards too. I look out of my window at my laboratory today and see in the visitors’ car park three Mercs, an Aston Martin in addition to the normal motley collection of other faceless cars. They all belong to leading scientists who have come for one of the many meetings we hold to determine the future investments in UK science. These are highly successful people, who are using their scientific background in government, the city, industry or academia. The range and variety of their professional backgrounds is vast. They are just as at home discussing the attributes of negative time theories as they are in giving talks to city investors.

At the other extreme we have countless numbers of school students who come to our laboratories. I see them exiting from the coaches looking slightly glum. What is going through their minds? ‘Not another educational trip where a bore will tell us how exciting their job is’. When I introduce the lab I ask the students to let me know if they see a white coat on their visit (I have not been told of one yet!). I also tell them that they should not be phased by what they are told since it is unlikely they will understand the details. They will not be alone in this. I once invited a group of Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering to visit. These are the very few top engineers in the country who are elected to this premier academy. Beforehand I had told the head of the particle physics department to keep to engineering and not to go into the theory of the standard model or neutrino physics. Just before lunch I met one of the fellows, Sir Martin Wood (Founder of Oxford Instruments), who looked shell shocked. I immediately diagnosed the situation. ‘You’ve just come from the particle physics department?’ He nodded and said that he did not understand a word but was blown over by the enthusiasm and energy of the people he met. While other areas of science in my laboratory are perhaps easier to comprehend, such as mapping the chemistry of the far side of the moon, the use of lasers for surgery, the development of X-ray sources to study drug interactions, and the writing of new software codes to use on the UK’s supercomputer to model global warming, it is undoubtedly the dedication and enthusiasm of all staff that visitors remember. In the main this infects even the most begrudging student visitor. The wrap up session before they go inevitably ends with a gasp of ‘wow’ and ‘can we come again’. Teachers tell us that they had no idea that the scientific world is so exciting. Perhaps my greatest triumph has been to enthuse our local MEP, James Elles, with the potential of a neutrino factory which might be built in 2025 onwards, followed, of course by a muon collider in 2040-50 and then...

Yet there is an elephant in the room. A recent Royal Society report has highlighted once again the continuing decline in student numbers studying science and maths A Levels (2). This is reflected in the numbers graduating. Over the ten year period from 1994/5 to 2004/5 the number of chemistry graduates dropped from 4,000 to 2,500 per year. Civil engineering dropped from 2,700 to 1,700 and electrical/electronic dropped from a high in 1995/6 of 6,500 to 3,500 per year. Even biology has remained static. All this has to be seen against the fact that the percentage of school leavers entering university over this period has gone up dramatically. There have been countless analyses of the problem. Or is it a problem? Recently I wrote a paper for the DfES entitled ‘why teach science anyway?’ After all, if we are to be a largely service economy, who wants a bunch of uncivilised nerds in the population. However over 40% of maths and 30% of physics graduates go into the financial and related sectors each year. Where would the City be without them? The current way round the difficulty is for organisations like mine to recruit from overseas. This year 60% of the new graduates we employed came from outside the UK. This option will not last. Science Ministers from countries such as Poland, India and China are making it very clear that they will be making major investments to keep their best scientists in their own country rather than being attracted abroad. The deputy director of basic sciences at the Chinese Academy of Sciences told me that his salary had increased by 20 times in the past 5 years and was now comparable with US salaries.

Recently I was in India for a EU-India ministerial meeting on science and technology. On the second day the Indian hosts arranged for over a thousand school students to attend the meeting when the German Minister for Science spoke plus the EU Commissioner for Research. At the end the President of India came in and gave a one hour lecture on science and engineering. He took the examples of five Nobel prize winners who he believed had contributed to the Indian nation. During the talk he invited the audience to write down questions on paper and hand them in. Several hundred were submitted. He took a few at random and answered them. They ranged from the theory of the universe to structural biology. He gave fluent answers to each one and promised to answer all the questions on his website within 48 hours. At the end he pointed his finger at the audience asking who was going to commit themselves to studying science and engineering in the future ‘for the good of our nation?’

In last year’s Budget statement Science and Innovation Investment Framework 2004-2014: Next Steps it stated ‘The global economy is changing at an unprecedented rate... Science and Innovation are at the heart of these transformations, not only because technology is itself a key driver of globalisation, but also because countries will increasingly derive their competitive edge from the speed with which they are able to innovate.’ The Engineering and Technology Board have further analysed the impacts in their report SET and the City: Financing Wealth Creation from Science, Engineering and Technology (3).

We have a favourite phrase at work ‘the future is not what it used to be!’ That is undoubtedly true and is what will make careers in the SET sector both challenging and rewarding for a long time to come. Yet how do we make sure our young people know what these opportunities are? The Government recognises the need to train careers advisers to lift their sights. Organisations such as the Industrial Trust, the Science and Engineers Ambassadors Scheme among many are trying to communicate the message. Deadened by the national curriculum, target setting and a blind belief that there are only ‘right answers’ we need to realise that science and engineering are ‘creative’ subjects that allow interpretation and passion. The options for exciting careers are legion.

On a personal note, I asked my son and daughter, who both have taken up science at university, why they made this choice? They both said it was for three reasons: first the excitement of discussing new ideas, secondly the enthusiasm of the scientists they met, and thirdly (and the overriding reason) was the international dimension that brought people together from all nations and backgrounds with a common purpose. They had both studied the IB and worked at the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratories in their vacations. They had heard the mix of languages in the coffee room and their own opinions had been taken seriously.

(1) ‘European Roadmap for Research Infrastructures – Report 2006’: www.cordis.europa.eu/esfri/

(2) ‘A degree of concern? UK first degrees in science, technology and mathematics.’ Policy document 31/06, The Royal Society: www.royalsoc.ac.uk

(3) ‘SET and the City: Financing Wealth Creation from Science, Engineering and Technology,’ The Engineering and Technology Board (2006): www.etechb.co.uk

Professor John Wood is currently Chief Executive of the Council for the Central Laboratories of the Research Councils based at the Rutherford-Appleton Laboratories in Oxfordshire (www.cclrc.ac.uk). CCLRC is one of the 8 Research Councils that make up RCUK. He is also on the board of JISC and is on the Advisory Board of the British Library. He is on leave from Nottingham University but will shortly be taking up an appointment as Principal of the Faculty of Engineering at Imperial College, London. He is a materials’ scientist by background.
This article first appeared in the Summer 2007 issue of Attain.