Vote for science
I am interested in Dan Hind’s proposal to distribute a portion of research funding according to a democratic public vote (11 December 2010, p 26), but it would be helpful if he would define the word “public”. Who would constitute this public? Individuals from all races, creeds and colours; political parties; all ranges of formal education; and all income levels? How would the people involved be chosen, and who would choose them?
A better definition of Hind’s terms would allow one to give rational consideration to what he is proposing.
Dan Hind writes:
鈥� When I say the public, I mean everyone. We would all have equal commissioning power, with each person free to review the proposals submitted and to vote for those they favour. Various non-state institutions could offer their opinions, but voting would be done by individuals, by virtue of their being citizens. The voting public would thus be self-selecting. Public institutions would hold the funds, tally the votes and disburse the grants.
From Sebastian Hayes
Dan Hind omits to take into account the self-interest of the complacent scientific elite.
Researchers take it for granted that the public should fund their particular hobby horse ad infinitum, and no one even pretends to be working for the benefit of humanity any more.
When did you last see a job in science advertised which mentions the potential benefits to ordinary people as the main attraction? Curiosity is all, and the message research scientists give to the general public is a simple one: pay up and shut up.
One of the most useful things public money could be spent on would be to set up free-to-attend science and mathematics caf茅s where ordinary people can challenge researchers to justify the apparent absurdities of quantum mechanics and the theory of transfinite ordinals. One suspects that eminent scientists and mathematicians don’t want to mix with the hoi polloi because someone might ask an awkward question. Oh, for the days when science and mathematics were the affair of disinterested and enthusiastic amateurs.
Shaftesbury, Dorset, UK
From Giuseppe Sollazzo
As much as it is true that public scrutiny is the base of every democratic system, I’m not sure that this concept can be easily applied to research anywhere but in an ideal world. Exclusion of people from the voting system based on their level of education would be considered anti-democratic, but what happens when the electorate is ignorant?
In the US, the incoming Republican House majority leader, Eric Cantor, has instigated a public vote that has already favoured cuts in science funding over other areas and is now being used to determine where these cuts should be made (11 December 2010, p 7).
Would Hind let people who voted for Cantor, Sarah Palin and the like decide how to allocate research funds? If not, the democracy is flawed. If he does, good luck to the rest of us.
London, UK
Play with my planet
Rather than arguing over their respective interests, delegates to last month’s climate conference at Canc煤n might have better spent their time playing the Fate of the World game reviewed by Clint Witchalls (4 December 2010, p 44) to see the consequences of their policies for life on Earth.
The delegates could run the talks as a Fate of the World tournament. Whoever managed to reach the game’s elusive goal of “hope still intact” by 2120 would win the policy debate.
Effective drug policy
While I broadly agree with Dick Taverne’s article calling for a rational drug policy (27 November 2010, p 26), it seems to miss the point that the social harm done by a drug is subjectively defined.
In the case of drugs that have a definable ill-effect on the user, and the user alone, it is a moral, political and social decision whether the user’s free choice to take the drug should be impeded by legislation.
Moderate consumption of alcohol has no significant effect on health, crime or the number of accidents caused by drink. Such problems are caused by people whose general behaviour is immoderate or uncontrolled, and that includes their drinking habits and actions under the influence. The problems arise from sociology, so perhaps we should deal with the social causes rather than the various symptoms. Tobacco is undoubtedly harmful to a smoker’s health, with related social costs, but it does less harm to anyone else. Perhaps the current approach of heavy taxation is correct. It could also be applied to cannabis.
In the case of drugs where individual harm is rare, the drug is taken voluntarily and social harm is slight, why not legalise the lot straight away?
What a shocker
Your Feedback article proposing a shoe defibrillator was truly a shocker (20 November 2010). It said: “In case of need, you take the shoes off, pop your hands inside, and apply the soles to your chest to administer the required electric shock.” Yikes!
The purpose of a defibrillator is to start a stopped heart. If you are awake, your heart is beating. Never, never, use a defibrillator on a conscious person: it can stop a beating heart. In short, you could kill yourself.
Trawl tales
Sujata Gupta paints a misleadingly positive picture of bottom trawling (27 November 2010, p 10). Her article suggests that marine life thrives on the effects of bottom trawling and that the practice creates additional habitats by etching grooves into the flat sea floor.
Such claims have been shown time and again to be incorrect.
Hundreds of studies on bottom trawl impacts, including those on soft sediment habitats, have shown that trawling can remove or damage structure-forming organisms, alter the composition of communities living in the sea bed (infauna) and reduce their productivity. Trawling disrupts the seabed; reduces microhabitats and the displacement and mixing of sediment particles (bioturbation); damages surface crusts that keep sediment in place; and can alter nutrient and gas exchange between the seabed and water column. In its 2002 report , the Ocean Studies Board, which is part of the US National Academies, concluded that trawling reduces the productivity, diversity, and complexity of sea-floor habitats.
The Nature Conservancy study reported in the article, which I support, is intended to get a better handle on the extent of some of these impacts. But this is the second year of a five-year programme, and speculating on conclusions as you did was premature. The presence of marine life after a trawl tow does not constitute a thriving ocean community any more than a group of deer grazing in a clear-cut area constitutes a healthy forest.
The article is now being used by advocates of trawling to support the notion that trawling is actually good for sea-floor habitat. Many conservation and fishing organisations have worked hard to bring the science to policy-makers. It remains unclear whether there are any cases in which bottom trawling has a place as part of a sustainable fishing portfolio.
Sujata Gupta writes:
鈥� Trawling has destroyed many marine ecosystems, and environmental agencies have long sought a complete ban on the practice. The Nature Conservancy’s researchers have taken a different stance, asking whether trawling could be zoned in more ecologically-friendly ways. They have seen early signs that muddy, sandy habitats might present a suitable zone for low-intensity trawls but, as we note in the article, it is too soon to draw definitive conclusions.
Music of the seers
Having taught piano and guitar for many years, I have seen the amazing educational benefits that playing an instrument can bring (30 October 2010, p 31).
I have seen students blossom under music tuition. The self-discipline and focus required to learn to play an instrument transfers over to other aspects of life, not to mention the most important aspect of musical playing: the confidence and sense of achievement it gives.
One child who was diagnosed with dyslexia was transformed as she learned to play the piano. Her success in piano examinations gave her the confidence to believe that she could achieve things in other subjects, and she transferred the way she learned music into other subjects more reliant on reading. In the end, she gave up the piano because she was so busy learning other things.
I have no doubt that music has the ability to enhance learning and also improve behaviour in children. Not everyone will be able to play an instrument to concert standard but, if given the chance, many children and adults, too, could have their lives enhanced by playing for pleasure.
Infinite imitation
While the nLab website should be congratulated on its error message, Feedback really ought to have pointed out how much it owed to Douglas Adams (4 December 2010).
Compare the end of the nLab website message 鈥� “normal service will be restored once we are sure what ‘normal’ is” 鈥� with an announcement made by the starship Heart of Gold, in Adams’s book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. As it comes out of its “infinite improbability drive” mode the ship intones: “We will be restoring normality as soon as we are sure what is normal anyway. Thank you.”
Animal confusion
Douglas Fox refers to half-human, half-animal figures in his article on anthropomorphism (27 November 2010, p 36). He did not say what the other half was.
The editor writes
鈥� The creature was half-man, half-lion and was part of a 32,000-year-old painting in the in Germany.
From Ian Gordon
I know what a “bull market” is: one in which share prices are tending to rise.
And I know what a “bear market” is: one where share prices in general are tending to fall.
But what is this “stork market” that Douglas Fox mentions? One in which lots of new companies are arriving?
Camberley, Surrey