Skip to main content

On the road to Nottingham Science City

Yesterday I visited the future, sort of. I gave a talk at Nottingham Science City. When I first heard about this it brought to mind something out of a futuristic movie of the 20's or 30's - perhaps Metropolis or Things to Come (as in the picture). But the reality is rather different.

Apparently there are six cities in the UK that were designated 'science cities' in 2005 - Birmingham, Bristol, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham and York. It's a little difficult to pin down just what having the status of a science city implies. I assume it involves giving them some funding to perform the kind of roles the group engages in - nuturing the city's role in science, stimulating interest in science and converting scientific innovation into business.

They have been having a series of talks on the science of mitigating climate change, and I was there with my Ecologic hat on to impart some words of wisdom on greenwash and other potential problems in the way of dealing with climate change. Because there isn't actually a science city (shame), the location was the new and shiny No 1 Nottingham Science Park (pictured left). It was rather a surreal venue - a huge room that was clearly not-yet-used office or business space, partly carpeted in the section I gave the talk in, and then the carpet fading out to a shiny tiled or stone surface as the room receded into the distance, rather like a matte painting in one of those old movies.

We had an audience of about 70, who listened patiently through my talk (without slides, despite being advertised as 'illustrated'), then responded with one of the most enthusiastic Q&A sessions I can remember - getting on for an hour, with no sign of flagging when the organizer cut things short. The event finished up with a buffet and a chance to chat and for attendees to (groan) network. I know it's a painful term, but it seemed to be working well. All in all, an encouraging evening. It was videoed and is now up on YouTube - the first part is below, the rest you can find with a search of Brian Clegg on YouTube. In the meanwhile, here's a picture of me with a member of the audience, someone I knew electronically but had never met for real, the organist of Nottingham University and Nottingham Parish Church, John Keys. I don't think I was quite as red faced as that. The receding part of the room is just visible in the right hand background.

Labels:

Comments

  1. cromercrox22 April 2010 at 14:01

    Good on yer, Brian. I find illustrations in talks over-rated - but Q&A sessions very beneficial. When I'm out and about talking to scientists (mainly) about how to get their papers published in a Well-Known Journal, there are always lots and lots of questions and I allow as much time as possible for these.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp
117 comments
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor
25 comments
Read more

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense
6 comments
Read more