A recent article in the U.K.’s Sunday Times expressed the views of Vinod Khosla, a major investor in green technology and an adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama and former British prime minister Tony Blair, who said, “We don’t need to use less energy. We need to find new solutions.”
This optimism is shared by many Canadians and Americans, a steadfast belief in the technology bailout. It is a convenient belief. No need to commit to a new lifestyle, just wait for technology to fix it. But make no mistake, it is a dangerous belief.
The irony is that in societies most committed to this belief, there is waning commitment to science. Consider the gutting of basic research by the Bush administration and the frequent expressions of mistrust of science when Bush explained his stance on climate change. Even with a new administration, the systematic unravelling of the science infrastructure in the U.S. over eight years will knee-cap the innovative advantage that U.S. scientists have enjoyed for decades.
Actually, why look so far afield as the U.S.? Consider the Harper government’s stance on funding for applied versus fundamental science, a dismal understanding of science and the essential role of basic research in generating innovative ideas. Of course, this is a government that thinks so little of science that it appointed as science minister a man who does not understand or openly accept the central tenet of biology.
History is replete with examples of societies that embraced, then abandoned math and natural science. In the Ottoman Empire, scientists made tremendous contributions from the late 13th through the 17th century, particularly in physics, math, and astronomy.
But science and innovation later fizzled, and so went the empire.
We seem to be on the course of the Ottomans. We are simply losing interest. Apart from Bob McDonald of Quirks and Quarks, Bill Nye the Science Guy, and Val Kilmer in Weird Science, we’re not much interested in scientists. Frankly, we find them a little creepy. And scientists are not always good at explaining the relevance of their research, particularly when pressed on the “application.”
What are our points? First, faith in technology to save our environment is mislaid. We’re looking for the 11th-hour technological fix when we should focus on changing behaviour. Second, to the extent that technology could help, our withdrawal of interest and support from science makes this less likely. Like societies before, we are forfeiting leadership in innovation, an impediment to any creative solutions. Third, there should have been a Weird Science sequel. Finally, we need to engage better, scientists and society at large. It must be recognized that science is still relevant. Scientists have to be better at conveying that message.
Rendezvous
We invite our Toronto readers to visit some of the many events occurring this Saturday as part of Science Rendezvous. Check out the events and locations at www.sciencerendezvous.ca. We promise to keep our creepier brethren at bay.
– Sophia Dore is an environmental scientist with Conestoga-Rovers & Associates. Andrew Laursen is an assistant professor at Ryerson University; earthtones.metro@gmail.com.
