Science as a Revolution (6.9.21)

When we think of revolutions we usually think of major transformations in the spheres of politics, economics, social organisation, or religion. But to these we should add revolutions brought about by science, through improved knowledge of the natural world and of ourselves, and through the impact that improved knowledge has had on society as a whole. Science is the most long-lasting revolutionary activity known to humankind because it generates systematic knowledge that stands the test of time. As a result, science acts as a major driver of the ways we live, and if used well brings great benefit to humanity. 

So why is it that science is a reliable way of generating long-lasting knowledge of the natural world and of ourselves?  It is because of the way that it is done. There is no single scientific method, rather science is based on a range of attributes and ways of working, not unique to science, but which are combined together in science in a very effective way. Science depends on evidence generated by reliable and reproducible observations and experiments; such evidence forms the bedrock of scientific working. This in turn leads to ideas and hypotheses which explain the workings of the world.

Imagination and intuition are important in generating ideas and hypotheses as argued by the philosopher Karl Popper. He proposed that scientists consider the data relevant to a natural phenomenon of interest, and then, through leaps of the imagination and intuition, generate a hypothesis to explain that phenomenon.  This hypothesis is used to make new predictions, which are investigated by further experiments and observations.  If the data do not support the hypothesis then it is either rejected, or modified, and the new hypothesis further tested by new observations and experiments.  So, science proceeds by trial and error, with unsatisfactory hypotheses being rejected.  An important implication of this view of how science works, is that scientific knowledge evolves, and is often tentative, especially when investigating a new phenomenon such as Covid-19. It is only after repeated testing of hypotheses that the science becomes more secure.  

Science is also influenced by the way scientists behave and acts as a community. Scientists should be open, honest, and rigorous in their thinking. They should be sceptical, especially of their own ideas, and be aware of any preconceived opinions they may have derived from their political, ideological or religious beliefs. 

As Francis Bacon famously said at the birth of modern science: “If a man (by the way there were no women in the early seventeenth century), if a man will begin with certainties he shall end in doubts, but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties.”

 An effective science community should be interactive and collaborative, and encourage the challenge of data, ideas and hypotheses, preferably courteously but of course scientists are generally no better in their behaviour than anyone else. It is the overall strength of evidence and argument that matters, not the hierarchical authority of leadership, whether scientific or political.  

The combination of these attributes and ways of working underpins science and is very effective at generating reliable knowledge.

This knowledge has led to revolutionary shifts in our understanding of the world and humanity’s place in that world. Consider three outstanding examples. Copernicus and Galileo moved the earth from being the centre of the universe to a planet circling the sun, beginning a process whereby our terrestrial globe has become just a speck in the Universe. Newton showed that the motion of these celestial objects and of apples falling from a tree were both subject to the same universally applicable mathematical laws. And Charles Darwin with his theory of Evolution by Natural Selection demonstrated that the life sciences could also be understood in terms of universal laws. His ideas moved humanity from being specially created to being related to the rest of the living world. Just as Copernicus and Galileo had moved the earth from being the centre of the universe, so Darwin had moved humankind from a unique position separate from the rest of life. There are many other examples of how science has brought about revolutionary changes in our understanding of the world.

This impact science has had on ideas and culture has been accompanied by an equal impact of science on applications for society, applications that have truly been profound.

In prehistory the inventions of agriculture and metallurgy changed human society forever. The Enlightenment, to which Scotland contributed so much, emphasised the use of reason to improve the human condition, one consequence being the Industrial Revolution, a revolution which continues today.

Consider what that Revolution has achieved: the development of new energy sources with steam, electric and internal combustion engines, nuclear and novel renewable sources of power; the use of new materials, iron and steel, ceramics, plastics; the invention of machines of manufacture such as the power loom, the spinning jenny, the robotised modern factory; the development of new means of transport, the rail locomotive, the steamship, the automobile, the aeroplane, the space ship; advances in communication and the management of information with the telegraph, the radio, the television, the computer, the world-wide web, Artificial Intelligence.

These advances were mostly based on the physical sciences, but the life sciences contributed as well.  Crop yields today for each acre of land under cultivation are nearly ten times higher today than in the early eighteenth century, modern medicine has led to improvements in human health. Just over one hundred years ago, life expectancy in the UK was 50 years, probably an increase of only 15 years since the agricultural revolution 10,000 years previously.  Now life expectancy is over 80 years. These changes based on science are truly revolutionary.

Advances in science are also global in their impact, and the knowledge obtained is universal in character, applicable and transformative throughout the world.  Science thrives on the permeability and fluidity of ideas and people. Because the processes of science are common across the globe, and shares common values across nations it provides a diplomatic tool to break down barriers between people and nations, a tool that is perhaps insufficiently used.  

So, the question for us all today is how can we make sure that science thrives in the UK and continues to bring benefits for our society? The first requirement is a high-quality science base. Here the UK starts with an advantage. Science is one of Britain’s greatest resources, and we desperately need it to compete successfully on the world stage. We cannot rely on low labour costs or cheap mineral resources for economic success, we have to compete with our brains and with our science.

Many features important for good science are well embedded in the UK.  We have a tradition of respect for empiricism, emphasising reliable observation and experiment. Science in the UK is carried out in a culture that encourages free thought.  This should never be under-estimated. The scientific endeavour is at its most successful when there is freedom of thought.  Scientists need to be able to freely express doubts, to be sceptical about established orthodoxy, and must not be too strongly directed from the top, which stifles creativity.

We need a spirit of adventure in science, to be bold and prepared to fail, as research at the cutting edge is not always successful.  The ability to be bold and tolerant of risk is a lesson that UK industry also needs to learn.  

For science to flourish a broad portfolio of research investment is required.  There is a continuum of research, ranging from discovery science, onto subsequent inventions.  The temptation to invest too heavily in a particular part of this spectrum should be resisted.  Sometimes it is argued that we should concentrate only applications, and not discovery, but that is a mistake.  As Sir George Porter, Nobel Laureate said

“To feed applied science by starving basic science is like economizing on the foundations of a building so that it may be built higher.  It is only a matter of time before the whole edifice crumbles”

Research often needs a longer time scale than the more short-term priorities of private business or politicians. Extending these short-term pressures to the longer times required to develop discovery research into effective applications, is crucial.  Greater collaboration between publicly funded research and private companies, can help move science to application. A potential example is the NHS. The UK has a great advantage with a very strong life sciences research base, a unified health service, and an active pharmaceutical industry.  If all three work together, we can carry out research which will not only bring better health services but also help our economy. It is time to use science to turn the NHS into a healthcare producer as well as a healthcare provider.   

The UK is good at science but we cannot rest on our laurels.  Excellent scientific research requires excellent talent.  Exceptionally accomplished scientists need to be trained here and attracted here. The UK is known to be excellent in research, and scientists of the highest quality from around the world want to come and work here, which can only be to the country’s good.  

Our science education requires attention.  People need an education that allows them to fully participate in a democracy that will increasingly require engagement with scientific matters. Pupils should be inspired by the wonder of science, and need to understand why science generates reliable knowledge.  At the very least, everyone leaving school should realise that sometimes scientific knowledge is only tentative in nature. It would also be good if they knew there are differences between astronomy and astrology.  

There are risks and dangers of course. As well as bringing about benefits for humankind, applications of science have had negative consequences, particularly in warfare, starting with the Bronze Age sword onto today’s increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons. There are also those that challenge science not on rationality and evidence, but based on their preconceived ideologies and political beliefs. Anti-vaxers are a current case in point, as are climate change denialists, who cherry pick data to support their pre-determined opinions. Sometimes these movements are well funded and are led by respectable political leaders who have become blinded by their own ideology, and mis-use their influence.

The solution to these risks is to have a society at ease with science and a democracy that can cope with the complex decisions involving science. We need to engage the public early when scientific advances or applications of science arise with potential concerns, and to have societies with the right values, underpinned by healthy democracies. Science thrives best in countries which are free, democratic, and not governed by irrational populists.

The UK should awaken the spirit of the Enlightenment, its respect for science and rationality, a free sharing of ideas and thinking, reviving the energy of the Industrial Revolution, to have the courage to take risks. 

We can learn from the Lunar Society, where scientists, intellectuals and entrepreneurs like Erasmus Darwin, Boulton and Wedgewood met together in and around Birmingham. But the world is more complex now.  We have become more focused on specialist areas that are cut off from each other.  Scientists are insufficiently exposed to other scientific disciplines.  There are barriers between scientists and technologists and engineers, blocking the exchanges needed for innovation.  There are further blocks between these communities, and those who lead the public services and industry who need the applications of science.  

It is essential to break down these barriers, through increasing the permeability of both ideas and people between different sectors.  With permeability comes more innovative ideas and mutual respect, leading to better progress in translating science into useful applications. Scientists should not stay in their labs all the time. They should mix with the best minds from industry, the city, the public services, politics, the media, to spark off new ideas to help science benefit us all. The evidence-based way of scientific working will also be beneficial in these other areas. Scientists need to be free to pursue creative ideas keeping bureaucracy at a minimum. If this all sounds a bit anarchic, that is because it is a bit anarchic. It is often in mixed up and chaotic circumstances that the most creative work is done.  Remember Harry Lime in the Third Man who said…

“In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love – they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.” 

Good science needs good long-term support, and the UK must look at the scale and the scope of the funding it provides for science, both from public and private sources. The Government has to properly support its stated aspiration of harnessing science and engineering to rebalance the economy towards innovation-based sustainable growth. This is the present Government’s Big Idea, and it is a good Idea.

I am passionate about science because it has shaped the world and made it a better place, and I want to see science placed more centre stage in our culture and economy.  We need an Enlightenment for the 21st century, and Britain is the place to do it with its history of freedom, rationality, and scientific achievement.  We need more science in Government, the boardroom, and public services, we need more funding for science, we need greater engagement with the public and a society comfortable with science, we need to convey the wonder of science, and what it contributes to our culture and our civilization.  

Science is, and always has been, one of Britain’s greatest assets. I am optimistic that the time has come for a new deal between science and society to achieve all of these things. If we are to hold our own on the world stage, then it is time for us to encourage, cherish and promote our science. 

To quote Secretary of State, Kwasi Kwarteng, now is the time not just to talk the talk but to walk the walk. UK science needs a plan and it needs money to fund that plan.