The scientific community has retreated from an engagement with society, just as society at large has been excluded from the real world of scientific method,” he said.Whereas scientists are mystified by the idea that a moral dimension should direct their research, those who seek to make science more publicly accountable are equally baffled by its logic and methods. Sir Howard said: “The public now feels it is reduced to the role of a hapless bystander or, at best, the recipient of scientific advance and technological innovation which the scientific community believes it ought to want. If the public decides it does not want it, it is regarded as either ignorant or irrational. The scientific community therefore ends up frustrated by the public’s apparent disdain for the fruits of its labours and the public’s lack of sympathy for an endeavour which, as far as the scientific community is concerned, is for the public good.”Science had meant that our understanding and ability to make predictions about the world had never been greater but it has also inevitably led to knowledge becoming increasingly fragmented – a phenomenon that hindered not only the public understanding of science, but scientists’ understanding of the public.Sir Howard, chief executive of the Higher Funding Council for England, said this dichotomy questioned the idea that was central to the European Enlightenment of the 18th century: that the growth of knowledge led to social progress. “An increasing proportion of the population seems to distrust rational inquiry to establish both the facts and the uncertainties; rather, they prefer their instincts, or even to celebrate anti-intellectualism,” Sir Howard said.
“Contemporary knowledge is not only unprecedentedly voluminous but also astonishingly fragmented and the more we know collectively the less capable an individual seems to be of interpreting matters outside his or her expertise.”As a consequence, while many of the difficult and controversial decisions we must make in modern society are focused around scientific questions, we find ourselves on virtually every topic of importance dependent on advice from small, elite sub-groups of experts,” he said.”The scientific community is beginning to engage more with society at large, albeit hesitantly and tentatively, as it comes to recognise the potential consequences of failing to do so. Equally, the public understanding of what science can, but more importantly cannot deliver has a long way to go …The scientific community does not possess a collective magic wand.”. Imagine peering into the night sky and pointing to a cluster of stars in the knowledge that among them, invisible to the naked eye, is a planet much like Earth, with an atmosphere, running water and life. Within the next dozen or so years we might be able to do just that.
A revolutionary new space-telescope called Darwin, stationed 1.5 million kilometres from Earth, could by 2014 be scanning the star fields, and pinpointing alien worlds that are not just capable of supporting life, but already home to it. Its findings could change our perceptions of our place in the universe.Alan Penny of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire says that Darwin could push astronomy far beyond the limits of telescopes on Earth. A member of ESA’s Darwin science team, he has worked on designing the mission’s parameters, including how it might confirm the existence of “pre-biotic” worlds that are ripe for life.Nothing quite like Darwin has ever been launched into space. It will comprise a flotilla of six telescopes, each 1.5m in diameter, 100 metres apart, 1.5 million kilometres beyond the Moon.
