Life of a Lab Rat

You may have seen the report that schools in the UK are 'producing too few scientists',a conclusion reached by the Confederation of British Industry (CBI). It is worth remembering that the CBI has an agenda, and that is to make money. Presumably they think that more scientists means more money for their member businesses country.

A little thought will show then that the CBI is not interested in science at all, rather technology; the appliance of science. The thing is that you do not get that technology unless you have first done basic research. And you need a hell of a lot of basic research to get a single money-spinning technology (if it were otherwise, research scientists would get richer a lot quicker).

Aside: There's a nice example of how politicians lie in that article. The CBI claims that the number of students taking 'A' Levels - the UK's 18+ exam/university entrance exam - in 'hard' sciences has decreased drastically in the last 20 years. One might think that this woould have an obvious knock-on effect on the number of hard science graduates. However, the Schools Minister says that school funding for physics and chemistry has increased, along with the number of science graduates, since 1997 - when the current mob got in. But if we take a look at the numbers it appears that most of that increase is accounted for by computer science and medical graduates, neither of which are famed for basic research (and computer science barely existed as a degree in 1994. No wonder there is such a large percentage increase.). The 110% increase for students taking 'biological sciences' seems hopeful, until you start to ask exactly what that means (I have no idea. I do know that there has not been a doubling in the number of biochemistry graduates). Lord Sainsbury keeps suspiciously quiet about social 'scientists', I note. I wonder if they are included in the statistics?

Maybe it is not obvious to anyone else, but surely the important metric is how many of those graduates then go on to actually do research? There's some interesting figures here. All those computer science graduates are not getting doctorates, which rather puts the lie to the claim that the current government is addressing the CBI's concerns.

But I did not come here to bash the government (any government) - that's too easy a target. No, really. What caught my eye was the quote from Richard Lambert,

We must smash the stereotypes that surround science and rebrand it as desirable and exciting; a gateway to some fantastic career opportunities.

This all ties in with the fuss about photography, what we really do, and indeed my reasons for writing this weblog. You see, maybe I was wrong and science does need a makeover. Maybe we should make it exciting and sexy. But then what happens when we get hundreds of thousands of fresh-faced graduates suddenly faced with the tedious banality of the day job (assuming that they have been funded in the first place)? You might tart up the image but the underlying reality will not change, and it takes quite an unusual personality to do this job.

Which leaves us with a conundrum. And I think the answer is two-fold. Science can be presented in an exciting yet truthful way. Check out Jonathan's weblog to see how one man is exploring televisual possibilities (I've been meaning to write about him running on custard for ages, now).

But possibly more importantly, real, practising scientists need to engage the public in education and communication. We need to encourage people to become competent in scientific thought so that they can make informed decisions on, to pick a random example, the stem cell debate. The government, like business, is only interested in technology and making money. The long-term investment in basic science that is required to get that technology is not currently a vote-winner. Science is too important to leave to politicians fixated on short-term outcomes; the government is not interested in making another rod for its own back. It's up to us.

Queensland is probably a good place to start; here is an email from a mate of mine who works in local government in Brisbane:

This weekend, [...] I had the pleasure of listening to a mouthbreather's take on MMR, and, in fact, vaccinations in general.

Apparently, vaccinations actually 'give' your child an infection (I
started explaining about attenuated viruses but it was hopeless), and
spread it throughout the population, which is why the hospitals are so
full.

And MMR give you Downs syndrome. Not directly, mind you, but they
alter your DNA so your children are more likely to have Downs. And
doctors don't really know what all these medicines are going to do to
you.

This was from an engineer. Not some poorly educated person, but an
engineer who builds (digs?) tunnels.

I have made a promise to myself to only use bridges from now on.

This is a tall order. But we're not calling ourselves Homo sapiens for nothing, you know.