Bishop Hill No change at the Royal Society
May 3, 2010 Climate: Oxburgh Climate: other Royal Society Under the leadership of Lord Rees, the Royal Society's reputation has sunk dramatically, with this once august body now widely seen as a political body and a surrogate arm of the government, more interested in the next tranche of funding than truth. Their role in Lord Oxburgh's whitewashing may well hang over them for a long time to come.
Rees's term of office is due to come to an end this year, and so one might have hoped that his replacement might represent a change of tack. Last week, the replacement's name was announced:
Paul Nurse has been nominated as the next president of the Royal Society, considered Britain's most prestigious scientific organization. The 61-year-old microbiologist is currently president of the Rockefeller University in New York City. Prior to his appointment at Rockefeller he headed Cancer Research UK, one of the country's largest medical charities, and University of Oxford's microbiology department.
Which all sounds quite reasonable. Unfortunately a reader has picked up some comments on science and the media made by Professor Nurse at the launch of the Society of Biology back in March:
"This programming is vital to keep everyone informed and aware of what is going on in science. It is also important to develop less confrontational approaches of ‘two sides’ especially when one side may simply be a non-starter. This lawyer-inspired confrontational approach so beloved by the Anglo Saxon media has really damaged both science and the use of science. Science cannot be reduced to sound bites and should not be subject to the forces of marketing. Look at the damage caused by the climate change skeptics playing right into the hands of certain elements desparate to avoid reductions in energy usage."
Fascinating to see such antipathy to the principle of arguments being settled by debate - all that yucky disagreement is so messy isn't it? One can imagine the kind of world Professor Nurse might favour, in which god-like scientists from the Royal Society handed down proclamations of the truth to the public, perhaps engraved on tablets of stone for theatrical effect. Dissenting opinions need not be heard.
Has this man been speaking to the BBC?
Professor Nurse's appointment is up for confirmation in July and one might hope that the fellows might take a dim view of someone who saw the world in such an old-fashioned way. Hope is, however, the operative word.
Reader Comments (21)
"the Royal Society, considered Britain's most prestigious scientific organization"
Shouldn't that be "..once considered.."? I'm not sure I'd spell "organization" that way, either.
Well, it's excellent except for that last sentence. There is only the slight problem that he is totally out of touch with the reality of the climate change debate.
"the Royal Society, considered Britain's most prestigious scientific organization"
Maybe we should now try "preposterous" as an alternative.
What always irks me is this" playing right into the hands of certain elements desparate to avoid reductions in energy usage". What is the problem with using energy? It is the use of energy that has in many ways been the most important contribution to human development over the centuries. It is why we are the healthiest, longest-lived, and (arguably) the most contented, confident, and generally happiest we have ever been.
Reducing energy usage has nothing at all to recommend it except to the extent that it could perhaps be used more effciently.
What is he actually trying to say? Anyone know?
Sam,
Translated it's 'Don't rock the boat', and 'Give me Money!!!"
If he headed up Cancer Res. UK, he's got previous. They are world experts on perpetual 'research', just another X years and a couple of million and we'll be there...
Right.
Don't be too hard on the poor fellow. Only a few weeks ago he was featured in, I think, The Sunday Times advocating that research funding should be targetted towards "elite scientists" a policy which, if adopted , would surely stop the flow of money to climate "scientists".
Sorta like the adverts in the US by Toyota that they spend $1 million an hour to safeguard their cars by thoroughly testing them, and that they only have our (their customer's) best interests in mind.
Right, sure. Me, I'm buying a Ford Focus.
I suspect the same is going to be true of the Royal Society of Teat Suckers. They can make all the pronouncements they want, but who will listen?
prestigious archaic: of, relating to, or marked by illusion, conjuring, or trickery
(Merriam-Webster's online dictionary)
I would be interested to know what damage the skeptics have done and whether he thinks it is the message or the science that has been damaged. I suspect that he is refering to the message.
In my opinion, the skeptics have damaged the science and that should be a cause for concern on his part. All the sound bites are from the pro agw camp and all the alternative science is from the skeptics. Add to that , the empirical evidence is all on the skeptical side . Sea levels (not rising)
antarctic ice (Recovered) Amazon rainforests (highly resiliant to draughts) African crops (likely to increase with more co2) etc etc etc.
Didn't Paul Nurse graduate from the UEA?
Paul Nurse graduated from Birmingham and won the Nobel Prize for Physiology/Medicine in 2001. I have every reason to believe he is an honest and distinguished scientist. Rubbishing people on the basis of a few conventional remarks is not sensible. See his autobiography here
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2001/nurse-autobio.html
[BH adds: I'm not sure I've rubbished him. I certainly haven't questioned his honesty or his distinction as a scientist. I've criticised what he has said about keeping dissenting views out of the media, and I believe rightly so.]
'Amazon rainforests (highly resiliant to draughts)'
Actually, I imagine that they rather like a little gentle wind from time to time ! ; )
The full text of his inaugural speech for the Society of Biology is a downloadable pdf from
http://www.societyofbiology.org/newsandevents/launch
by clicking on the bold font 'Sir Paul Nurse's remarks'.
Apart from the curmudgeonly aggressive outburst concerning climate sceptics, the speech is praiseworthy. With a little self introspection, what he calls for and what we call for are actually one and the same.
yeah, apart from his closeted view of debate and disregard for sceptics, he's quite open, especially when he's calling for more funding!
Whatever his flaws of character, it may well be that he's got a better grasp of this earthly sphere than Rees has.
Splice "Didn't Paul Nurse graduate from the UEA?"
No, but he got his PhD from the School of Biological Sciences at UEA in 1973. As he says "The University of East Anglia was very important to me at a crucial time in my research life. I received a brilliant training as a research student which has stood me in good stead for the rest of my career. And, of course, I really enjoyed myself.”
But sorry, folks, any hope that Nurse is open to the facts on climate science can be quickly dispelled. Nurse is a signatory to the St James's Palace Memorandum 'The fierce urgency of now...' (under the patronage of HRH Prince of Wales) along with Rajendra Pachauri. Rees gave the opening address and Ed Miliband and Rajendra Pachauri the closing addresses. My views on these men are well known - they are corrupt advocates. This Memorandum is a massively strong eco-fanatical CAGW document. Nurse has clealy nailed his colours to the mast as an open enemy of climate sceptics.
"The evidence is increasingly compelling for the range and scale of climate impacts that must be avoided, such as drought, sea level rise and flooding leading to mass migration and conflict. The robust scientific process by which this evidence has been gathered should be used as a clear mandate to accelerate the actions that need to be taken. Political leaders cannot possibly ask for a more robust, evidence-based call for action."
"All scientists should be urged to contribute to raising levels of public knowledge on these threats to civilisation, and to engage in a massive education effort to popularise the principles of this Memorandum."
The science is settled...get on with the propaganda.
See here
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/files/laureate_memorandum_en.pdf
and here
http://www.nobelcause.org/Pages/default.aspx
May 3, 2010 | ScientistForTruth
Ok I fold. How depressing.
"Professor Nurse's appointment is up for confirmation in July and one might hope that the fellows might take a dim view of someone who saw the world in such an old-fashioned way."
Bish,
These days that sounds like science of the warming persuasion to me.
Eminently qualified! I'd say.
Cancer Research UK spends over half of the donations it gets on fundraising (hence less than half on cancer research). [The Salvation Army, by contrast, spends less than 10% of donations on fundraising.] Nurse seems like an ideal fit for the modern RS.
Actually Paul Rose has called for science to become more elitest, that is funding for only a handful of supposedly the best scientists in each discipline.
As to who chooses the best of the best, well it seems that the ones that do the choosing are themselves are already the self-appointed best of the best.
Climategate has revealed how those who view themselves as being the best behave in the closed world of climate science. Do we really want to such errant behaviour become commonplace in the rest of science? I don't think so.
Sir Paul Nurse is a Nobel winner but so too were Al Gore and the IPCC. That in this sense says and explains it all.
Science is being damaged by those deemed to be best at doing and explaining science.
Correction: Actually Paul Nurse has called for science to become more elitest, that is funding for only a handful of supposedly the best scientists in each discipline.
As to who chooses the best of the best, well it seems that the ones that do the choosing are themselves are already the self-appointed best of the best.
Climategate has revealed how those who view themselves as being the best behave in the closed world of climate science. Do we really want to such errant behaviour become commonplace in the rest of science? I don't think so.
Sir Paul Nurse is a Nobel winner but so too were Al Gore and the IPCC. That in this sense says and explains it all.
Science is being damaged by those deemed to be best at doing and explaining science.
Professor Nurse's appointment - should read dis-apppointment.
Although i would hold judgement until he actually sticks his head up. Although waiting until he's appointed then realise he's a neoi-scientist (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) might not be a good idea.