Cronyism, Chemistry and All Quiet on the Election Front

For those of us who think science museums are dry and dusty places full of dry and dusty people, think again. An article in todays Independent (20 April 2005) by Guy Adams reads......

THE SCIENCE OF CRONYISM? STAFF ROW AT MUSEUM GETS PERSONAL

The arts have barely registered on the political agenda recently, but a nasty row is threatening to engulf Britain's biggest cultural institution, the National Museum of Science and Industry.

Staff at the NMSI - who went on strike in February over pay and conditions - have now launched a personal attack on their director, Dr Lindsay Sharp, one of the most highly-paid "quangocrats" in the UK.

They have written to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport outlining 14 complaints against Dr Sharp's regime. The letter, seen by Pandora, alleges cronyism, financial waste and misuse of expenses. Offices at the Science Museum, it claims, have been converted into a flat for Dr Sharp, forcing staff into temporary accommodation. It also complains that Sharp has appointed two friends, Clive Gordon and Matthew Pudney, to his staff.

The NMSI - which runs the Science Museum, the National Film, Photography and Television Museum in Bradford, and the National Railway Museum in York - denies any wrongdoing. An independent review of its funding arrangements is under way.

"The Trustees take any such allegations very seriously and as a public body we're under intense scrutiny," said a spokesman yesterday. "When people known to the director are appointed, it's always through the proper recruitment procedure. Dr Sharp pays rent on his flat that was set by an independent body; and travel expenses are covered only when he's on official business."

MEANWHILE......

The same column reports that Heston Blumenthal - this week voted 'best restauranteur on earth - has been asked by the Royal Society of Chemistry to help write a teaching aid for a new GCSE science course. We think it may be rather neat if they also teamed up with Jamie Oliver and his campaign to improve school dinners..... wouldn't it be great to turn school lunches into one big chemistry experiment......though would the kids really want to tuck into the likes of bacon and egg ice cream???

AND FINALLY.....

We're still kooking out for mentions of science and technology in the general election campaign. So far we haven't come across any of the main parties making any claims about science and technology - apart from policies on GM crops/food and the NHS. If you know different please let us know.

voxScience

Viral causes of hereditary disease

Hi,

About seven years ago I stumbled across a fairly startling link between homeopathy, viruses and hereditary disease. It is a fairly complex subject, but the crux of it is that 200 years ago Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, came remarkably close to discovering that viruses are the root cause of many chronic and hereditary diseases, something that, I gather, scientists have only recently started discovering themselves.

I was wondering if anyone out there was involved in researching this viral link to chronic diseases or knew of any such research that might help to shed further light on this topic. I have set up a website on my own findings and the link is provided above.

Regards
Nuno Bento

PSCI-COM Invites

voxScience yesterday featured on the psci-com discussion list. As a result we're pleased to report that we've been snowed under with requests to sign-up. To all those of you who are new to the blog a very big WELCOME!

As a result of the number of requests that we've received, there may be some delay in sending out e-invites, so please bear with us. Invites will be generated from the blog and will reach you via email. You will need to respond to the email and follow the instructions in order to sign up. In the meantime you can respond to postings that are already on the blog by clicking on the comments link at the bottom of each posting.

Please do let friends, relatives, colleagues, students, pets etc know about this blog. The more people that contribute the more successful will be the blog.

If you want to sign up for the blog, you can do so by sending an email to us at: voxscience@scientist.com.

Best wishes
The voxScience Team...

It's election time so let's hear from you

Hi everyone

Things have gone a little quiet recently so this is just a reminder to everyone to join us in contributing to the blog. We know from our webstats that lots of people are regularly viewing the blog but many folk seem a little reluctant to make a contribution. So come on everyone...don't be shy!

Now that the general election has (finally) got underway we'd be interested to hear what you think about the various parties promises on science and technology. We've just been looking at a table in the Independent which compares the party policies on a whole range of subjects - the economy, health, crime etc. Unfortunately (as usual) very little on science and technology. Main highlights at the moment seem to be that the Conservatives and Lib Dems would ban GM crops, some concern about stem cell research, plus the inevitable promises of more cash for research and for health. Has anyone heard any reference to how science and technology features in the various party manifestos?

The voxScience Team

Billions of pounds for science = millions of votes from science?

The government yesterday announced £10 billion will be spent on science over the next three years - the largest ever investment by any government in British science. With a general election looming, does this reflect a key philosophy of the government with regard to supporting science or is it just the opening salvo in the battle to woo the white-coat constituency buy pushing Britain's place at the cutting edge of research and technology? As The Guardian points out, there are an estimated 1.9 million people in Britain with science qualifications who are normally ignored by politicians. Tony Blair and Patricia Hewitt yesterday reinforced the point when they arrived at Imperial College to show unexpected interest in chemical engineering and the role of catalysis.

Meanwhile, echoing our Politics and Science postings from 13 January 2005, Save British Science have said that while it's great that there's new money coming into science, 'we are increasinly seeing politicians dictate the scientific questions that the research councils must ask, giving specific allocations for things like energy research and biotechnology. Those things are important, but so is blue-skies research with no obvious application. Without it we would never have had things like genetics and biotechnology in the first place.

So....is the funding to be welcomed? Or is it just a cynical election ploy? Should the government be dictating how the cash is spent or should the public or research councils have a bigger say? Is £10 billion over three years enough? Should more cash be going into grass-roots chemistry, maths and physics to stop universities closing science departments?

In the name of research

The creator of Dolly the sheep has been granted a licence to clone human embryos for medical research. Professor Ian Wilmut and Kings College London scientists will clone early stage embryos to study motor neurone disease (MND). Of course there have been the usual critics....some maintain that testing human embryos is immoral. Others question the potential benefits of the work. Others critisise the necessary destruction of embryos as part of the research. Professor Wilmut said it will mean MND can be studied in unprecedented detail.

Professor Wilmut is also quoted (on the BBC Website) as saying " Our aim will be to generate stem cells purely for research purposes". This statement seems like he's attempting some sort of special 'scientific/research' justification for doing this work. Is this the case? Is doing something for 'research purposes' so different from doing it for other reasons. Is doing something for 'research purposes' better than doing something for commercial/financial reasons or for social or political reasons.

It's intersting to consider if we could apply this 'research justification' to other areas related to this topic......In response to the news of Willmut being granted his 'cloning licence', a spokesperson for Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE) said: "'Human cloning remains dangerous, undesirable and unnecessary". But do we really know if this is actually the case? Nobody can be one-hundred percent certain whether it's even technically possible to clone an entire human (in the same way as Dolly the Sheep). And we don't know if such a clone would survive, be healthy, suffer any long-term genetic problems, or whether there would be specific economic and social benefits to cloning humans etc. So, in order to answer is there justification to start a project cloning humans.....purely for research purposes of course?

The voxScience Team.

How nigh is the end, really?

With the newspapers full of stories of global warming, it seems that - to coin a phrase - we're all doomed. If the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are right, a global rise in temperature of 1-4 centigrade is already in the post, with consequences of rising sea levels, rapidly changing ecosystems and mad weather. If their worst fears are realised, the change could be as much as 11 degrees, which would be apocalyptic on a geological scale.

But doesn't part of every generation believe itself to be living at the end of days? When I was a kid, it was nuclear war, or the return of the ice age (or both). St Paul believed the day of judgement was upon us, and that torch has been handed down for1900 years. Every civilisation has its prophets of doom. The irony is that sooner or later, the stormcrows are right.

So are we the final generation? The final desperate flowering on the ailing tree of humanity? Are we wasting our time educating our kids for the information economy, when they'd be better served learning the survival skills and bushcraft needed to start from scratch in a Wyndhamesque new Eden? Or should we all just stop worrying and learn to love the smog?

What's in a name?

We've been giving some thought to the names that are used by some of the societies promoting science to the public in the UK. Why do so few of them use the words 'science' or 'technology' in their titles. Are they ashamed of the science connection? Do they think that using the word science will be off-putting to the public?.....and is there any evidence for this?

The Royal Society- yes, we know it's steeped in history and has had this name since the begining of time, but to the average punter it probably sounds like an organisation that promotes the activities of the Royal family, the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh etc. Couldn't they change the name to reflect what it actually does...it's not as though it's that well an established a name outside of the scientific community.

The BA (The British Association) - to those not in the know (and there are lots of them out there), it probably sounds either like an organisation that promotes British tourism abroad or a far right organisation full of racist skinheads. The BA was originally known as the British Association for the Advancement of Science but they dropped the science epithet some time back......why? Again, the BA /BAAS brand isn't that well known (even amongst scientists)........can't they think of something a bit more descriptive - especially as they are supposed to be an interface between science and the public.

Most brand managers will tell you that the ideal names are either those that have no meanings whatsoever.......and as such are free of any sort of connotations (...such as Accenture) or those that accurately describe the product/service such as the University of Wherever, British Petroleum etc.

Well done to the Institute of Physics, Institute of Biology etc......at least they do exactly 'what they say on the tin'!