| Stephen Hawking and Brian Cox discuss mind over matter We paired up Britain's most celebrated scientists to chat about the big issues: the unity of life, ethics, energy, Handel – and the joy of riding a snowmobileProfessor Stephen Hawking, 68, is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He studied physics at Oxford, went on to do research at Cambridge and was the Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge for 30 years. His books include A Brief History Of Time (1988), The Universe In A Nutshell (2001) and The Grand Design, published this month. Professor Brian Cox, 42, is a physicist and broadcaster. While studying at Manchester University, where he is now a research fellow, he joined the pop group D:Ream, best known for the Labour 1997 election anthem Things Can Only Get Better. He is a researcher on the Large Hadron Collider and this March presented Wonders Of The Solar System on BBC2. The accompanying book is out next month. What is the one bit of science from your field that you think everyone should know?Stephen Hawking: Science can explain the universe without the need for a Creator.Brian Cox: That's a wonderfully provocative sentence, actually. A beautiful answer. It's interesting, because you have previously used the word God in a similar way, in my view, to Einstein. I am thinking of phrases like "knowing the mind of God", which you used in A Brief History Of Time. In my opinion, Einstein was using the word God as a shorthand to convey the majesty and beauty of the laws of physics, and did not intend this to be taken as a sign that he subscribed to a particular religious doctrine. Is this the sense in which you have used the term before, and are you trying to clear up any misunderstandings caused by your previous use of the word "God", or have I read too much into your answer?SH: In A Brief History Of Time I used the word "God" like Einstein did as a shorthand for the laws of physics. However, this is not what most people mean by God, so I have decided not to use the term. The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a God.BC: As for my answer, I think everyone should know a few basic facts about the universe. It began 13.7 billion years ago; our sun and solar system formed just under five billion years ago; there are 200 billion stars in our Milky Way galaxy, and 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. These are wonderful discoveries, and it's quite astonishing we've been able to find these things out from our vantage point on our tiny Earth.Where and when do you do your best thinking?SH: It can be anywhere I have time to think. I'm never any good in the morning. It is only after four in the afternoon that I get going.BC: I say that actually, and my wife thinks it's an affectation, I just don't want to get out of bed. I don't think at any particular time of day or night, or in any particular place. If I have the time and I'm not totally overwhelmed with things to do, then my mind constantly and gently chews over problems and often an answer or idea will pop into my head almost at random. Having the space to think is a genuine luxury, and vitally important if we want people to be creative in any job.What distracts you?SH: People asking me questions. I can concentrate and ignore everything else.BC: For me, it's TV. If I had more willpower, I would limit the amount I watch. When I was studying for my PhD in Hamburg, I only had German channels, and watched them very little. This was probably the most productive time of my life.What problem do you hope scientists will have solved by the end of the century?SH: Nuclear fusion. It would provide an inexhaustible supply of energy without pollution or global warming.BC: I share that view, that the provision of clean energy is of overwhelming importance. What frustrates me is that we know how to do it as physicists, how it works. It is an engineering solution that is within our grasp. I don't understand why we don't seem to want it enough at the moment. As a society, do you think we invest enough in scientific education and research?SH: I don't think we invest enough. They are why we are not still in the Middle Ages. Many badly needed goals, like fusion and cancer cure, would be achieved much sooner if we invested more.BC: I think the most important practical problem, which may be more of an engineering challenge than a scientific one, is to build economically viable nuclear fusion power stations. If we haven't dealt with our world's increasing appetite for energy by the end of this century, I think we will be in very deep trouble indeed. In physics, understanding why gravity is such an astonishingly weak force compared with the other three forces of nature is probably the great challenge. Also, understanding why the universe began in such a highly ordered state.Can you remember the moment you decided to become a scientist?SH: My father was a research scientist in tropical medicine so I always assumed I would be a scientist, too. I felt that medicine was too vague and inexact, so I chose physics.BC: I always wanted to be one – particularly an astronomer. I can't remember wanting to be anything else.What is the most common misconception about your work?SH: People think I'm a Simpsons character.BC: For me, the most common misconception is that particle physics, which is the quest to understand the forces of nature and the building blocks of matter, is a luxury and has no purpose other than to satisfy our curiosity. I understand why people think this about many areas of modern science, but it is a deeply flawed view of how progress happens. The great "useful" scientific discoveries – electricity, penicillin, the structure of atoms, the transistor – have rarely been a response to what governments or societies considered "useful" questions, whatever that meant at the time. History shows us that simply being curious about the universe and allowing ourselves to explore is by far the best way to make discoveries that eventually change everybody's lives.Which living scientist do you most admire, and why?SH: There are plenty of dead scientists I admire, but I can't think of any living ones. This is probably because it is only in retrospect that one can see who made the important contributions.BC: I think that's a very important point. It's like, because you're judged against whether your theories agree with nature, whether what you say measures up against experiment, that means there's a delay in the award of the accolade great. I'd ask whether you think someone like Richard Feynman achieved greatness in his lifetime?SH: Yes.BC: The scientist I most admire would be you. You have combined a world class scientific career with a world class career in science communication. This is very difficult to do, but it is vitally important that our great researchers can also be great teachers.What keeps you awake at night?SH: If I have questions about the universe on my mind when I go to bed, I can't turn off. I dream equations all night.BC: Do you remember them?SH: No, I don't.BC: I worry about the lack of funding for research in the UK. I think it stems from a misunderstanding about the value to society of our science base and our universities. The university system really is the foundation upon which our economy rests – not to mention an industry that is immensely successful and in which the UK is genuinely world class. While all research and development in our economy doesn't come from universities, all the researchers do. This is something the government would do very well to remember when it comes to the spending review next month.What has been the most exciting moment of your career?SH: When I visited Antarctica in 1997. The Chilean air force flew a group of theoretical physicists to their base on King George Island off the Antarctic peninsula. My wheelchair did have snow chains, but they took me round on a snowmobile.BC: I think my early research career, when I actually sat down for days and months and analysed data from the Hera particle accelerator in Hamburg, was the most exciting time for me. I spent three or four years working on data 24/7, and there is nothing quite like it. Becoming successful as a science communicator is a double-edged sword in that, necessarily, your time for research diminishes. This is why I admire people like you who get the balance right – I aspire to do the same!Who is your favourite fictional scientist?SH: My mother used to tell me and my sisters stories she made up about a Professor Henbrain, who had all sorts of weird inventions. I'm trying to persuade her to write down some of these and other stories.BC: I thought Jodie Foster's character Ellie Arroway in Contact was superbly written and wonderfully acted. But she was created by Carl Sagan after all.What is the most difficult ethical dilemma facing science today?SH: It is over genetic engineering. It should soon be possible dramatically to increase the intelligence and life span of a few individuals. They and their offspring could become a master race. Evolution pays no regard to social justice. It was not fair on the Neanderthals they were replaced by modern humans.BC: I think one of the great challenges for the scientific community is how to deal with arguments from people with genuinely held views that are demonstrably wrong and potentially damaging. I'm thinking of issues like the vaccination of children or the imperative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The science is very clear on these issues, and science really is the best guide we have to facing global challenges. The dilemma is how to convince quite vocal minorities that a rational and scientific approach is no threat to their political or religious beliefs – it's just the best approach. You see the problem immediately, of course, because this sounds rather arrogant and nobody thinks they are irrational! But we have to achieve the right outcomes in certain important areas.Another dilemma we face at the moment is how to lobby against possible dramatic funding cuts for science in the autumn. I strongly believe that a healthy science base is necessary for a healthy economy and vital for our society, but that can feel like special pleading in hard times. What do you think would be the consequences for the UK if we were forced to pull out of a major project like Cern because of science budget cuts?SH: It would discourage and damage the academic community whose task is to train the nation's next generation of scientists.BC: How can we make the case for an increase in spending in areas such as physics and cosmology?SH: Maintaining high standards in physics and mathematics is important for British industry. We don't have large natural resources. Our success depends on technical ability.. • The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking, is published by Bantam Press at £18.99. Wonders Of The Solar System, by Brian Cox, is published by Collins at £20. Both titles can be ordered from the Guardian Bookshop.Stephen HawkingPhysicsAstronomyguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
How Moses parted the Red Sea Computer simulation suggests a strong wind could push back water enough in Eastern Nile Delta to allow a crossingBlog: Science works out how sea was parted for IsraelitesAs the book of Exodus details, when Moses led the children of Israel out of slavery in Egypt, God obligingly clove the Red Sea in two, allowing his chosen ones to escape to freedom.New research suggests, however, that the famous parting could have been a natural occurrence, rather than divine intervention – and that it might not have been the Red Sea that was parted.A computer simulation model has shown that a persistent strong east wind, blowing at a certain point in the ancient Eastern Nile Delta, could push back a body of water, creating a land bridge for around four hours – ample time for an unhappy band of slaves to be liberated.Keen readers of Exodus will note that God drove back the sea at Moses behest by issuing a strong east wind, so the simulation does not dispute biblical events, but perhaps suggests the prophet could merely have been fortunate with the timing, and location, of his arrival at the water's edge.An American research team from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the University of Colorado at Boulder ruled out that the crossing could have occurred at the Red Sea, arguing that the basin would have to have been completely flat for the sea to be parted.They turned their attention to maps of the ancient topography of the Nile delta, and found that the crossing could have occurred at an ancient branch of the river, which flowed into a coastal lagoon then known as the lake of Tanis.The researchers used archaeological records, satellite images and current day maps to estimate the water flow and depth that may have existed 3,000 years ago, then used computer simulation to simulate the impact of wind at the site.They found that a wind of 63 miles an hour, lasting for 12 hours, would have pushed back waters estimated to be six-feet deep.This would have exposed mud flats for four hours, creating a dry passage about two to two and half miles long and three miles wide. The water would be pushed back into both the lake and the channel of the river, creating barriers of water on both sides of newly exposed mud flats."People have always been fascinated by this Exodus story, wondering if it comes from historical facts," said Carl Drews of NCAR, the lead author of the study."What this study shows is that the description of the waters parting indeed has a basis in physical laws."The biblical version of events tells of the chariots of the Egyptian army hastening after Moses across the sea bed, only for the walls of water to torrent down on them, drowning man and horse alike.This too can be explained by the computer simulation, Drews said."The simulations match fairly closely with the account in Exodus," he said."The parting of the waters can be understood through fluid dynamics. The wind moves the water in a way that's in accordance with physical laws, creating a safe passage with water on two sides and then abruptly allowing the water to rush back in."So perhaps Moses did lead the Israelites across the basin of a stretch of water. Just not, apparently, the Red Sea.EgyptIsraelJudaismChristianityIslamReligionArchaeologyAdam Gabbattguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Elevator Pitch: Utopia brings science research data to life Philip McDermott, a research associate, is working with two principal investigators and two other research associates on the project, which has been funded by the EU and UK Research Councils and by Portland Press , Pfizer and AstraZeneca in the private sector. Utopia's first incarnation was in 2002 as Utopia Tools, which was downloaded a modest 200 times each month. McDermott has more ambitious plans for Utopia Documents. • What's your pitch?"Modern science produces masses of data, but scientists usually only get to publish articles about the highlights, and once they are published articles are frozen in time. So a lot of important knowledge gets lost or hidden. "Utopia Documents links scientific research papers to the data and to the community. It enables publishers to enhance their publications with additional material, interactive graphs and models. It allow the reader to access a wealth of data resources directly from the paper they are viewing, makes private notes and start public conversations. It does all this on normal PDFs, and never alters the original file. We are targeting the PDF, since they still have around 80% readership over online viewing. "Semantics, loose-coupling, fingerprinting and linked-data are the key ingredients. All the data is described using ontologies, and a plug-in system allows third parties to integrate their database or tool within a few lines of script. We use fingerprinting to allow us to recognise what paper a user is reading, and to spot duplicates. All annotations are held remotely, so that wherever you view a paper, the result is the same." • How do you make money?"Our viewing software is free, and it's free to make public comments. Larger customers will want to annotate and discuss documents in private: we're able to provide bespoke back-end solutions so they can have complete control over their data." • How are you surviving the downturn?"As a research group, we're a not-for-profit setup, so we just need to bring in enough money to cover our costs. Even that is quite tricky though, and set to get harder as the cuts to the UK research budget bite. That said, we're getting a growing amount of interest from industry, so we're fairly optimistic about the future." • What's your background?"I'm originally a software engineer from the mobile devices world, before I returned to academia to do my doctorate. Since then I've been researching the application of modern data management techniques to scientific data. Our research group has a history of virtual reality and scientific data visualisation." • What makes your business unique?"We sit somewhere between academia and the business world. Our passion is research, but practical research that can actually be used by real working scientists." • What has been your biggest achievement so far?"At last year's Portland Press launch , David Thorne selected the word 'cleavage' accidentally in the demo paper; Utopia Documents dutifully brought back only images and descriptions of 'cleaved proteins'... much to our relief." • Who in the tech business inspires you?" Clay Shirky . He's very insightful and has a pragmatic attitude I admire. I like the approach of the 37Signals guys too, although we've actually chosen Python over Ruby for our scripting language. Sorry, guys." • What's your biggest challenge?"Funding. Since we fall between two worlds, we have to convince businesses to invest in academia and research councils to invest in an application, both of which can be difficult." • What's the most important web tool that you use each day? "I'm an OmniFocus convert, it leaves your mind free to do other things." • Name your closest competitors"Some applications allow you to annotate a PDF, but they change the underlying file which is no good for what we want. Mendeley are in a nearby ballpark, although they appear more focused on the scientific articles themselves, whereas we are more interested in their actual content." • Where do you want the company to be in five years?"The default reader for scientific articles." • Sell to Google, or be bigger than Google?"We'd like to choose the middle way: license to Google!" getutopia.comInternet startupsResearch and developmentDigital mediaguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
The government agrees: Science is vital The doomsayers predicted we'd fail, but with very little time and a massive effort we scientists have shown that united we really can get results, says Jenny RohnLast week, I helped deliver the Science Is Vital petition to Downing Street, attended a lobby of parliament, and was part of a delegation invited to speak with David Willetts about the importance of science funding for the economy. During the intervening period, in the calm before the spending review storm, I have been living in quiet fear of today's announcement. And last night I was genuinely astonished at the news leaked from the Treasury: that cuts to the scientific research budget were to be much less severe than initially indicated. Astonished and, yes, happy.Twitter was alive with jubilation. This morning I woke to a backlash: we wanted investments, not cuts, people were saying, even though what we lost was far less than the 15% that Julian Huppert MP told us last week would constitute a victory. We should be wary, not pleased. Although I do not dispute the wisdom of these sentiments, I think the tide of public opinion will inevitably continue to shift and resettle today as we struggle to know whether we should be toasting our efforts or sobbing into our pints.The answer, I suspect, lies somewhere in the middle. I speak now not as the founder or official spokesperson of Science is Vital, but as someone at the coal face of scientific research, as one of these young, not quite "excellent" scientists whose career is threatened by the tightening belt of funding. It is no surprise that our emotions are rollercoastering to such an extent: the campaign has been a long, exhausting trip. We packed into four weeks a number of great achievements that most campaign groups would have been happy to notch up after half a year's efforts.When I kicked this entire thing off a month ago, I truly was not sure we would have any effect on the government whatsoever. Within hours of tweeting my initial call to arms, someone replied that things like this never work, that it would probably just be a sad cluster of a dozen scientists demonstrating in the rain. Even just before the rally, when we had more than 2,000 people signed up to attend, another person helpfully pointed out that if no one showed up, we'd look ridiculous. And yes, that lonely, rainy scenario kept me awake for more than a few nights in the runup.To make some sort of difference, though, hefty inertia needs to be overcome. I think it is human nature to despair at turning oil tankers, and to think that ordinary people can't make a difference. It is far easier to criticise than to get off one's seat and at least try to do something. Fortunately, these sorts of inertial types were in the minority, and the vast majority of people who heard our call responded in an overwhelmingly positive way: 33,000 signatures; 2,000 demonstrators, 110 MPs signing our early day motion, hundreds of pieces of news coverage, a packed lobby in parliament. Somewhere in the thick of these successes, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a sly piece in the New Yorker saying that Twitter couldn't start a revolution. I think that most would agree that the Science Is Vital campaign proved him wrong.For me, the most important thing to remember today is this: by all indications, our message was indeed heard, and heeded far more than we had any reason to expect or hope. Yes, there is no controlled experiment where Science is Vital did not exist, but a number of credible sources have credited the science community's voice for the fact that the announced cuts are less than the 25-40% predicted.The government's own language suggests that our message became absorbed. David Cameron used the adjective "vital" when talking about science in prime minister's questions last week, and in today's announcement, Osborne said: "Britain is a world leader in scientific research and that is vital to our future economic success."For this achievement – and make no mistake that it is one – we scientists must allow ourselves a moment of quiet celebration: not that our research funding has not been cut in real terms, or that UK science is still not being funded optimally, but that we were able to come together and make some sort of tangible difference to the outcome.And perhaps more importantly, we now know, in the face of future threats to science funding, exactly how powerful we can be when we pull together to make our voices heard. In this respect, scientists will never be the same again: we've done the experiment.Science funding crisisScience policySpending review 2010Tax and spendingJenny Rohnguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds guardian.co.uk |
Langbroek promotes psychological testing of political candidates Queensland Opposition Leader John-Paul Langbroek says psychometric testing could weed out candidates who would not cope with the scrutiny of public life. abc.net.au |