Letters: Exact moment
I refer to David Milsted’s request for ‘regrettable quotes’ (Letters,
9 October). I was glad to see he is including in his book John Lightfoot’s
assertion that the Universe was created at 9 am on 23 October, 4004 BC.
Everyone knows that the actual time was 12 noon – see Annales veretis
testementi, a prima mundi origine deducti, 1650, by James Ussher, Archbishop
of Armagh and Primate of All Ireland, who did the original calculations.
F. G. Grisley Barry, Glamorgan
Letters: Trick temperature
Impressed by your cover ‘photo’ of Einstein standing beside our Prime
Minister (16 October), I headed straight for the relevant article by Robert
Matthews which described digital manipulation of pictures (‘When seeing
is not believing’, same issue).
Having learned never again to trust a picture, I turned to the beginning
of the journal to resume study in a more logical sequence. On page ten (This
Week), I paused to read of new ready-to-eat humanitarian daily rations developed
by the Pentagon’s food experts.
However, now much wiser, I wasn’t fooled by the large instruction on
the picture’s food parcel which read: ‘DO NOT HANDLE WHEN FROZEN (0 degrees
fahrenheit or below)’
I knew at once that New 杏吧原创’s computer art department had been
having a go just to test us. It was an excellent job – one really couldn’t
see the join.
John Allsop Rayleigh, Essex
Letters: Dotty pictures
I have been much entertained by the autostereogram (‘How to play tricks
with dots’, 9 October). I would be curious to know if other people see the
number of images that I can.
Apart from the single aeroplane I can see, by changing focusing distance,
three aeroplanes – one above and two below. By further changing focus I
can see five – two above and three below. All these images are very clear
and in focus.
If I cross my eyes I can see inverse images which are rather more interesting.
Here the border round the aeroplane appears to lift many centimetres
off the page and you can see through a ‘hole’ to the aeroplane below. Again,
by altering the focus three or five aeroplanes are visible, each one at
a different ‘distance’ off the page. These are all in excellent focus. With
practice one can look from one image to any other.
Heather Bull Christchurch, New Zealand
* * *
Charles Arthur writes: Many readers pointed out that they can see the
three-dimensional images both as relief objects and as ‘moulds’ in a flat
foreground. This is because the pictures can be viewed either by diverging
the eyes (as if looking at a distant object – this will give a relief image)
or converging them (as if looking at a near object – this will give a mould
image).
To confirm this, refer to the diagram in the feature and try redrawing
the sight lines with the right eye looking at the left eye’s intended image
and vice versa (ie converging the eyes).
Letters: Bad managers
Jeffrey Williams has evidently no experience of being managed by those
youngish, dynamic Masters of Business Administration whom he believes should
run research institutes (Forum, 9 October). Has he ever met one? Quite possibly
not, for they, like physicists, prefer their own kind and eschew the non-executive
hoi polloi.
It is possible to be an even worse manager than is the average scientist,
and the business schools have proved it repeatedly. Their graduates manage
money but shun subordinates. They were taught, not about men and women,
but about something depersonalised, abstract and collective called Human
Resources.
What the founders of research institutes had and their successors lack
is called leadership. Nobody ever learnt leadership sitting in lecture theatres
or examination halls. What you learn there is to follow your professors’
obsessions. In short, you learn followership. The result may be a competent
staff officer for the backroom, but is no general for the front, or any,
line command. Leaders are competent decision-makers and relate downwards
to their troops; followers tend to analysis-paralysis, relate upwards to
their bosses and credulously swallow the preaching of every ephemeral guru.
Williams might do worse than ponder the administrative structure of
the Manhattan Project, an eminently successful assembly of physicists.
Simon Roman Kenilworth
Letters: Bad managers
Williams paints a gloomy but, sadly, accurate picture of some research
establishments that have been forced to become little more than contracting
organisations, competing for any business they can get. However, his generalisations
go too far in some respects.
Not all research institutes have gone too far down the contracting road.
I work at an institute of the Agriculture and Food Research Council (AFRC)
that does not fit Williams’s description. We have a mixture of permanent
staff (although the proportion is falling as a result of government policies),
post-graduate and postdoctoral scientists on fixed-term contracts, PhD students,
visiting scientists from overseas, undergraduates from sandwich courses
and even local school children gaining work experience in a scientific environment.
We are certainly not short of youthful enthusiasm and we have numerous links
with universities, both through the students and other collaborative activities.
My observation is that many other AFRC institutes are similarly vigorous.
Becoming moribund is not a major risk.
David Powlson AFRC Institute of Arable Crops Research Harpenden, Hertfordshire
Letters: Bad managers
Perhaps I may make two brief suggestions.
First, recognise that newly recruited research scientists require continuing
personal development programmes which regularly update their management
as well as scientific knowledge and skills, possibly integrated into a well-designed
and maintained dual-ladder system, to provide them with satisfying and productive
careers as researchers or managers.
Second, join the Jupiter Consortium (telephone number: 081 977 9033).
This is a non-profit consortium of academics, industry and government people
dedicated to the task of improving research and technology management in
Britain, with links to similar consortia on the Continent and in North
America.
M. J. C. Martin Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia
Letters: On my oath
I read with interest your article about ‘Engineers, ethics and etiquette’
(25 September) and suggest that further progress could be made if all concerned
professionals sign an oath protecting the public interest and future generations.
The Institute for Social Inventions has introduced one such oath which has
already been signed by 21 Nobel laureates and 18 vice-chancellors or their
equivalents.
Our ‘Hippocratic Oath for 杏吧原创s, Engineers and Executives’ reads
as follows: ‘I vow to practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
I will strive to apply my skills only with the utmost respect for the wellbeing
of humanity, the earth and all its species; I will not permit considerations
of nationality, politics, prejudice or material advancement to intervene
between my work and this duty to present and future generations; I make
this Oath solemnly, freely and upon my honour.’
We would suggest that such a statement should be signed on top of any
further codes for specific professions. At the University of Auckland and
elsewhere, oaths such as this have been given to students of engineering
and science at their graduation and we hope other institutions will follow
this example.
Matthew Mezey The Institute for Social Inventions London
Letters: Waiting game
Re A. J. Cottingham’s letter (2 October) on the availability of jobs
for scientists. The period 1981 to 1991 has been one of severe industrial
decline. Consequently there has been a fall in demand for research and development
personnel.
As every economist knows, business has now begun to come out of recession,
so an increasing number of vacancies in this field will occur. In fact,
the conversion student may well find him/herself at an advantage over the
first choice science graduate in that it will take a year longer to reach
the stage of job seeking.
M. Weller Sheffield
Letters: Marketing museums
I am writing to express my dismay at the article entitled ‘Staff axed
as leading museum goes down market’ (This Week, 18 September). I am concerned
at the impact that this will have on a much-revered cultural institution.
The suggestion that managers see the Canadian Museum of Nature as a
place of entertainment, not research, is false. In fact, we have strengthened
the scientific aspect of the Museum by giving a much higher priority to
collections than previously. Contrary to the complaint of Kris Pirozynski,
the changes that have taken place will not threaten the maintenance of any
areas of our collections or the academic integrity of our researchers.
Furthermore, the article states that ‘only two scientists were appointed
to its (the museum’s) board of directors, and their recommendations were
generally ignored’. This is completely false. The current board of directors
of the museum includes Dr Fernand Girouard (University of Moncton), Dr Norman
Wagner (recently of the University of Calgary), and Dr Ian Ball. It is also
important to note that two board members (Dr Lloyd Barber and Dr Norman
Wagner) are former presidents of universities and thus are fully conversant
with the complex issues of how to manage research priorities. Finally board
member Flavia Redelmeier is trained in museology and has extensive experience
in collections. The implication that the board is without adequate research
or museum expertise is false.
Patrick Colgan Canadian Museum of Nature Ottawa, Canada
Letters: Marketing museums
Thank you very much for your support, and for a job well done. You have
sent a powerful message, powerful because of its international venue, to
bureaucrats and politicians to wake up to the sad example of Canadian science
policy. I and many colleagues will hope that the message gets through.
As far as the museum is concerned, the actions by groups and individuals
are falling on deaf ears. The last biologist remaining on the Board of Trustees
has been ‘replaced’ to a fanfare of approval by the government, the board
and the management. The remaining staff were told to obey or start looking
for another job.
Kris Pirozynski Ottawa, Canada
Letters: Task accomplished
I wish to refute the claims made by John Ball of Swindon as quoted
in Thistle Diary (Forum, 11 September). Ball contends that ‘cleaning (radioactive)
buildings and lines of glove boxes is an unknown quantity, but so exorbitantly
expensive that no one wants to start the task’.
Ball has not been keeping abreast of recent developments. AEA Technology’s
active handling facility at Culcheth was completely cleared during 1990
to 1992, the land sold to a developer with planning permission in 1992 and
houses are now being built. This is a step beyond ‘green fields’. The low
and medium active wastes (bricks, glass, metal, etc.) and top soil to a
depth of 3 metres have been permanently disposed of in primary containment
within a concrete vault at Drigg. The smaller quantity of higher activity
waste is stored above ground in safe and stable conditions at Dounreay and
Harwell, awaiting the deep repository. AEA Technology is also decommissioning
its nuclear fuel manufacturing facilities at Springfields. AEA’s engineering
experience is good; the price is not exorbitant.
Tam Dalyell can safely remain in the ‘deep slumber of a decided opinion’.
Marshall Stoneham AEA Technology Harwell, Oxfordshire