Twitteretter

Metaphors have their dangers. They require the same level of cognitive intelligence in those who hear them than in their proponents and, without it, they can lead to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. We’ve seen a good example this week. Humanity was challenged this year by a new virus which spread like wildfire, changed our way of life and reminded us of our ultimately frailty. Humanity, always resourceful, responded with a herculean effort to develop vaccines, diagnostics and treatments which would restore our freedom, conducted with such unprecedented speed, internationally, that the analogy of a race was used. Humanity against the virus. This is how most understood it. Except the UK government, it seems. Whilst the rest of the World cooperated to beat the virus, Hancock, Williamson et al were engaged in a different race. UK versus Europe, the eternal, imaginary enemy. Luckily for us, most governments and normal humans understood we were racing the virus, not our neighbours...

This article is prompted by confessions, in the context of climate change, of several so called scientists who sided with oil industry efforts to systematically deny, or rather cast doubt, on climate change. Apparently, some of them now understand their positions were based on an aversion to regulation, a fear that government and legislator intervention on climate change would set us off on the slippery slope to communism. Firstly, this denotes a complete misunderstanding of politics, the role of the state in society and the concept of communism, but these might be forgivable in a scientist. But, more seriously, it denotes a complete misunderstanding of what the scientific method and, by extension, being a scientist is. The scientific method demands observation of fact, and the issuing of conclusions strictly on the basis of those facts. Opinion, ideology and intentionality are barred. Facts are objective and measurable, objective logic the only permissible path from them to conclusion...

Our technological capacity is growing at unprecedented speed. One of science’s Ithacas is enhanced longevity. Futurists like Ray Kurzwell tell us that the first humans who will live to 150 years old are walking the Earth today. Many react to this idea with concern, particularly about overpopulation, but such a change in life expectancy would also bring a change in habits, conception age, etc., which would most likely mean total population numbers will be unaffected even if life extension becomes widely accessible. It is easy to dismiss enhanced longevity as a fool’s dream, but the fact is that a longer life could be put to excellent use in the pursuit of greater knowledge, understanding, the solving of more complex problems or the creation of more beautiful objects. But most of the population are not engaged in these activities. The question we must answer is: do we want to extend life as it is today, or to change it at the same time, to give true meaning to its extension?  Length:...

Remember normality? That time before the pandemic, when we used to be able to hang out in bars, visit our relatives and friends at will, go out as we pleased? Great times. They were also the times when, as a society, we ignored the funding needs of science. The media is full of stories of research groups who abandoned successful research lines in coronavirus vaccines and treatments due to lack of funding and no interest from pharmaceutical companies and institutions. The former is logical, commercial companies don’t invest in treatments for illnesses which are no longer a problem. But as a society, and through our institutions, the focus should be different. However, national cuts in research budgets are only vehemently opposed by scientists. The rest of citizens haven’t cared. We should remember this in future, as the groups working on antibiotic resistance, climate change reversal and diabetes control meet the same challenges as those working on coronavirus vaccines did in the past L...