Tuesday evening saw the final talk in the Science Challenge series of lectures. The speaker was Professor Lord Robert Winston and the lecture theatre was packed with people eager to hear such a well known scientist and broadcaster speak. His talk was based around his question for the science challenge competition, "Are we sowing the seeds of our own destruction?" In an entertaining and thought provoking talk he outlined how mankind is threatened by its own inventions.

Professor Lord Winston was one of five judges to speak at Imperial over the last month. The aims of the talks were to encourage more people to enter the competition and as a chance for the judges to explain how they think their questions should be answered. The prizes for this year's challenge are incredible and include £2500 and a trip to CERN. To find out more about the competition and how to enter visit the website at: www.rcsu.org.uk/sciencechallenge/

After his lecture Lord Winston spoke to stoic tv; his talk had covered a wide range of issues and we began by asking him how he came up with his question. During the interview he also covered a wide range of topics, from science and the media, through to creationism, Richard Dawkins and animal testing.

JL: What made you ask this particular question?

RW: Oh, I don't know. Literally, on the hoof. Actually, that's not strictly true. I'm trying to write a book at the moment that covers these areas of destructive technology and argues everything we do can be looked at from two sides of that coin, good or bad. We have to make choices about how we handle those technologies.

JL: It's quite a philosophical question. How technical do you think the answers should be?

RW: Well in my view, I tried to suggest that from this talk. I deliberately avoided science, because I could see a lot of people would try to answer the essays very scientifically. I'm trying to suggest to many people that you don't need to be a scientist to write a very good essay on scientific issues, because its more your thought processes. I would argue that actually you could easily look at this much more philosophically and do a better question. I hope people will do that. I deliberately brought in, for example, the caves in the Pyrenees, Jerusalem and a whole load of seemingly irrelevant .. to demonstrate that you can start an essay from all sorts of things that aren't immediately scientific, but which might strike a cord in an audience or a reader. And that was quiet a deliberate ploy, because it was a way of by demonstration suggesting to someone who might like to write an essay that actually a much more interesting essay would be one that might start apparently off the wall, thinking outside the box. I think that's really imoprtant, I think actually its important for scientists to that much more. Scientists have got increasingly narrow as we've learnt more and more, we focus on smaller and smaller areas of science and I think are disadvantages in doing that, I think it dehumanises what we do.

JL: One of the things you highlighted is the relationship between science and the media. Do you think that's the kind of thing that will be a good relationship?

RW: Well the relationship's a funny one, it's slightly uncomfortable, but I think its quite good in this country. It's not bad really, we've got very good science journalists. The Sun headlines are not typical of the media and I think increasingly the journalism approach to science is one of increasing responsibility. Part of the purpose of this essay, the Science Challenge, is really to suggest that we can all be journalists. Journalism is good, as well as bad. You know, journalism is educational, its provocative, it reflects on aspects of society, and there are many good journalists who handle scientific issues with huge success. They should be highly respected. I think the relationship with the media shouldn't be seen, as it often is, as being negative, it can be both ways.

JL: There's still a lot of mistrust of science internationally though. With the American elections you had a Republican presidential candidate who didn't believe in evolution. When there's abundant evidence for evolution existing, why are there still these beliefs?

RW: Well it is extraordinary isn't it. I mean, America's a peculiar basket case really. America is almost two societies really. Around the coast you've got the rational, scientific society, on the east and west coast, which is looking at issues from a largely rational point of view and the in the centre you've got middle America which is often portrayed as being deeply irrational with this extraordinary religious monster, the creationist view. I think you can have a rapprochement, I think our society does that. I think our society, it's interesting to ask why Dawkins has had such a massively successful launch of his book. And I don't quite know what that is. Richard is an extremely good writer, but I don't think that "The Science Delusion" [The God Delusion - Ed] is as well written as most of his other books. I think "The Selfish Gene" is much better written, I think "The Blind Watchmaker" is better written, I think "Climbing Mount Improbable" is better written. So, it struck a chord, there was something about the subject which struck a chord. And I think, in part, its a kind of response to the perceived threat to society from creationism and these movements. That is what's promoted it. It was a book which was absolutely timely, but it worries me that he is so .. rabid, I think that's the word. There's a sort of arrogance about the argument.

JL: He's almost sort of an atheist fundamentalist?

RW: Well, I'm about to debate with Richard Dawkins, and I want to say to him that he's the greatest religious leader of our age. Because what he's doing of course is leading the unbelievers in a religious campaign. Essentially, there's a completely religious nature to Dawkin's argument. This is a debate that Richard and I will have I'm sure, continuing. I don't suppose he'll access this website, but if he hears this or reads it, he'll know that's something we might want to discuss again in the future.

RW: He's a wonderful person, you know he's a great guy. First of all he's a lovely human being, I admire him, I think he's a fantastic writer. But I do think that his approach is unwise and I think that it does reflect poorly on science. If we're really to progress with science we need to have a much better rapprochement than he wants to demonstrate.

JL: One thing that's particularly .. in this country is using animals in research. How would you challenge people?

RW: Well, I feel very strongly about this issue. I almost feel like Richard does about religion. I feel we have a responsibility to use animals, but to use them humanely, and use them carefully and use them well and not to do things which are unnecessarily painful. It's forgotten that most animal research is completely painless. The sort of research I do on genetics - what is bizarre about the work I do on pigs is its completely painless, we just inject a tiny injection into the animal which may end up with offspring which are genetically modified. Nobody suffers, but the rules don't allow us to make the animals. So I mean, the whole purpose of the experiment is defeated by the Home Office. The most pleasurable experience of their lives - sex - is forbidden to them, because of the experiment we're doing! Which is a nonsense. So we are very irrational about animals in Britain. I suppose if I wanted to see one piece of legislation in Britain - maybe I'll introduce it as a private members bill in the House of Lords - it would be stamped on every drug packet sold over the counter or given by prescription: "This drug was made possible by animal research to prove its safety", which is required by law.

JL: Throughout human history there's always been conflict between people of different nationalities, religions, things like that. Do you think that is ever something that mankind will be able to overcome?

RW: Um, possibly not. But of course its used as an argument - I think erroneously - against religion. Because its argued that religion is actually a force for evil because its caused so much conflict. Actually that conflict would have existed without religion, it would occur because of racial differences or ethnic differences or differences between tribes and so on. And actually, religion historically has been quite cohesive in that respect. Often its been divisive, its often been cohesive, most of the time those disputes that are seen as religious are actually usually political or economic. That's a very interesting question, would mankind's divisive nature always, um, or could we see something along the lines of Isaiah that there'll be a time when the lion lies down with the lamb and man puts away his weapons and makes them into plough shares. Nice thought. Unlikely - humans and particularly the male part of the species is genetically programmed to be somewhat aggressive. We see that in the way we do our science: testosterone driven, too often.

Add your comment: