Why Science Matters - Mark Henderson

Mark Henderson, one of Britain's leading science communicators, makes an agenda-setting argument that science matters to all aspects of public life, and issues a rallying call to all geeks to join together in a force our leaders cannot ignore.

Chair: Alice Bell, senior teaching fellow in science and public policy, Imperial College London

Our events are made possible with the support of our Fellowship. Support us by donating or applying to become a Fellow.

Find out more about:

[Alzorath]

I'm curious about this too... not for the train reason, but because I enjoy interesting architecture :) - I would say I would like to attend it once, but currently I couldn't afford fellowship, much less the travel/accommodation to visit anytime soon :(.

[EclecticSceptic]

The point of democracy is that everyone engages in the running of society, and have control to a degree which is proportional to amount the decision affects their lives. It's not 'weak' or 'badly thought out', it's the only chance for peace on Earth.

I'm talking about democracy by the way, not a system of aristocracy which calls itself inappropriate names.

[funkyddy]

Basically, we need more scientists in different fields to "fill the gap" between science and those fields.

[underdonkey]

a problem is that science degrees are very intensive (biology degree I did was 34 hours of lectures a week, compared to 9 hours of lectures on the business degree course). This leaves little time for them to get involved with politics in university. Even if you see government advisors, you can see that all 'science' in government is just really politics (technology has economic benefits, science is mostly ignored).

[alejo]

I agree with mat0310. It is not about blaming politicians for our current situation. It is about finding practical solutions for our problems. Politicians are just the product of society. And of course living in such politics-centered world (where almost every major change is bound to poltical action), we should support scientific direct participation. Of course throwing some scientist into a den of lions might

[bonesrodriguez]

OMG, I totally LOL'd you're so right!

[tugger]

economists are the only ones who directly address the issues of scarcity. They don't think anything is unlimited, growth or otherwise. They're the ones who calculate production possibility, after all. That's not limitless. I am at a loss of words for some of the random shit Cleese says, but then again Monty Python are anarcho-syndicalists. (trust artists to have faith in labor unions, as much as I love the lot of them).

[alejo]

I think that a strong 3rd party should exist out of people with a scientific background, instead of joining the ones that are already lobbied into office...sorry for the long post!

[colourmegone]

And put what in its place? Anarchy? "Libertarianism" where property rights trump all others, including human rights? It's all very well to sneer at what we have, which has taken us thousands of years to cobble together, without bothering to suggest alternatives.

[atthehops]

No, Mr Henderson assumes that the people, the ones that vote, want policies that are effective and efficient.

[stoneageman]

So whats your ideological solution? And whats with the negativity saying humanity lost, your alive, are you not?

[colourmegone]

Most of them don't, they want to be on the winning side or they want to vote just like dear old dad or ... However you frame the assumption about wanting effective and efficient policies it's unwarranted. If people really wanted them, they'd take steps to make sure they had them.

[EclecticSceptic]

I might as well add that I'm an anarchist.

[quantumfeet]

What are the differences between scientists and politicians:
- politician don't need so much graduated diploma, he (she) needs financial resource, good voice for public speech and well presentation on his show
- scientist hates about shallow mind, don't care about supengrficial image, what is concern is scientific result which he (she) 's trying his hypothesis
- politican don't need to explain in depth, he (she) usually uses manipulation advertising's words
- most people would understand politician, and few withd  high level of imagination (to not say education) could understand scientist explication

[mat]

your response is a bit naive in politicians is like yoga for the populace..it calms them..politicians are every bit a part of the society and i believe reflect the condition of a society..blame games achieve nothing...Henderson's talk is a proactive attempt to engage with a real problem in the society.The ideas are valid for most countries.

[EclecticSceptic]

Also, I doubt you've read Marx's works. To disregard all of his ideas so flippantly without even reading through all of Capital is crazy.

[colourmegone]

The naivete' displayed in this lecture is one reason that scientists don't make it into politics. The speaker seems to assume that politicians want policies that are effective and efficient instead of those that serve the interests of their backers and their perceived constituents. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[EyeLean]

I am so very tired of the RSA intro. I wish I could skip it like an ad.

[nastyevilbunny]

'Create two societies, one ran strictly on Marxism and one on Anarcho-Capitalism and the latter will out perform Marx at every turn.' This sentence shows you've at best misunderstood marxism because it was never about performance. The most efficient, market orientated society would be totalitarian. Marxism is about prioritising liberty and equality over economic and material gain. Marxism's primary use is as a critique of capitalism and in that capacity it's becoming increasingly relevent.