The pandemic showed that science has a unique ability to save us, while the Ukraine war is a reminder that it can also — through nuclear weapons — quickly end us too.
The idea of science as a positive and destructive force is nothing new and has been around as long as science itself. But the author — 80-year-old Martin Rees, astronomer royal and pillar of the British scientific establishment — argues that the advance of science is such that the existential stakes are higher than ever before.
Science could potentially save us from existential threats of climate change, the collapse of ecosystems, or an asteroid that might slam into the planet, but it could just as easily end human life on Earth through the unregulated growth of artificial intelligence, release of a lab-made bioweapon, or by permitting the ongoing poisoning of our rivers and oceans with plastic and chemicals.
The author says that if science is to save us, scientists must be willing to step out of the lab and speak out against unethical applications of their area of science. They are also ethically obliged, he says, to do all they can to help the public understand science sufficiently to be able to formulate opinions on its application in society.
Forêt restaurant review: A masterclass in French classic cooking in Dublin 4
Charlene McKenna: ‘Within three weeks, I turned 40, had my first baby and lost my father’
Restaurateur Gráinne O’Keefe: I cut out sugar from my diet and here’s how it went
Ireland’s new dating scene: Finding love the old-fashioned way
The way science is funded is also regarded as critical by the author
It’s also key if science is to save us, Rees says, that global co-operation, of the kind seen during the coronavirus pandemic, is harnessed to tackle future existential threats that are international in nature. This means nations must be willing to cede some sovereignty to expert international bodies, such as the World Health Organisation, to regulate dangerous technologies and minimise catastrophic risks.
The role of charismatic science communicators like David Attenborough and Greta Thunburg is also vital if science is to save us, says Rees, as these people can inspire and motivate others in a way that scientists alone could not.
The way science is funded is also regarded as critical by the author. He says that the most talented scientists — those capable of saving us — must be identified and supported with funding and that funding bodies must not make their decisions on who to back, based on whether a researcher has won a big science prize or not.
Big science prizes distort funding and scientific progress, Rees argues. Fair point, yet it’s being made by a man who in 2011 won the prestigious Templeton Prize for “harnessing the power of sciences to explore the deepest quests of the universe and humankind’s place and purpose within it” — along with a cheque for £1 million.
