Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 14 May 2008 | Nature | doi:10.1038/453270c
Cosmologist quits Britain over poor physics funding
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I applaude Dr. Turok's eforts ro awaken governmemtal authorities to the current state of affairs in science. The challenge of limited funding is not isolated to the U.K. It seems most politicians & PTBs around the world have forgotten that funding for techno-engineering scientific research is not an expenditure but indeed is an investment. If civilization(okay civilisation) is to survive it is paramount that humanity thrive. Anything less is genocide via suicide. My statements are no less divisive that the governmental/industrial complex inability to accept the truth of their inaction. Pay now or be in a great debt later! Most often in the USA for every USD invested we see a return of 6:1. Challenge me on this for I welcome the debate! Dr. David Deal, PhDx2
There really is something to be said when a scientist comments on the state of affairs in a particular country in a dark and truthful manner. The people in power, the ones with money, only concern themselves these days with "how much more money can I make right now?". There is no money to be made right away in funding or investing in scientific research especially fundamental research. They quickly have forgotten how far we have come because of fundamental research even more so, how much further we could go. The general public is too busy with who the next R&B pop star will be rather than the latest breakthroughs in science and is quite comfortable with the way things are. Therefore science will be ignored and underfunded until there comes a time when the general public is made aware through the mass media.
It's all too easy - and I'm afraid too stupid - to put all "science" into the same basket and consider that it's unconditionally good to give it more funding, irrespective of results, current situation and tendency in particular fields and for particular research. Such attitude expressed in the first two comments and the News article is impossible in any other, practical human activity (as everybody understands that it would immediately kill it), but in science such ultimately totalitarian attitude and practice is considered to be not only "natural" but particularly "progressive". As a result, this dominating, inevitably positive self-estimate and unconditional self-praise does kill science, especially its most fundamental fields. After which those who just made major contributions to such sad result by their absolutely fruitless, esoteric "search" providing no real progress (problem solutions), on the background of catastrophically growing number of problems - just these "great scientists" cry out for yet more generous support of their evidently bankrupt enterprise. The story in question shows that despite practically absolute domination of such knowledge-killing practices in all major science institutions (using e.g. the evident "peer-review" trickery), some British authorities might have started understand something by trying to avoid at least most odious cases of using hard-earned tax-payer contributions for poisoning so indeed precious activity as (creative, problem-solving!) scientific research. But we see how the "problem" is "solved": that explicitly inefficient and knowledge-killing "research" is simply moved to another country (Canada in this case), while it also continues to flourish, of course, in Britain and elsewhere. Why not to accept finally a so evident, just common-sense driven attitude and provide (and increase) financial support only for problem-solving, explicitly creative and therefore naturally appreciated fundamental science and strongly limit fraudulent "research" with ever growing, unsolved problems and scandalously absent understanding by even highly educated, interested public? See http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4562 for more details. And then, looking at the actual results of those particularly "advanced" exercises at the Perimeter Institute, the only feeling that remains ... pity for Canada, it used to be such a beautiful and efficient country!