Skip to main content

Science is good news

As an author of popular science books I'm inevitably a tad biased on the subject of science. I think scientific discoveries are thrilling. I still have that child-like sense of wonder that so many, so sadly seem to lose in their teens. Sometimes 'awe' is a good word for the feelings I get when I come across a new, good bit of science. But last night, watching the news, I was struck by another benefit of science that isn't often mentioned.

Channel Four News (the best TV news in the UK, as far as I'm concerned - certainly the most grown-up and the least dumbed down, unless they give their graphics person a bit of free reign) was full of the usual misery and despair. People killed. The US indulging in Brit bashing, suggesting somehow the British government was responsible for the release of the Lockerbie bomber (even though it was a totally independent decision by the Scottish Executive, but thanks to Braveheart, the Scots come next to the Irish in US romantic mythology, so it can't be their fault). The Ministry of Defence trying to weasel out of cost cuts. Conservative MP to be investigated for his election costs. Banks behaving badly. More financial misery...

And then we had a story about the discovery of the biggest star yet to be detected. And it lit the programme up. As we heard about R136a1, how it was 50 times the diameter and 300 times the mass of the Sun, as we watched the Very Large Telescope array in Chile do a little dance, suddenly there was some good news. A brief moment of happiness in an otherwise miserable bulletin. Even if you don't care that much about advancing knowledge, we need a regular burst of science to keep our chins up. We should demand at least one good science story in every news bulletin. Just so we know there really is something worth living for.

Image from Wikipedia


  1. love the video. love the sentiment. thanks!

  2. Alas the video no longer seems to be available. May be it will come back...

  3. It seems a bit variable, but as long as you go to it is usually there. If the address is subtly different (e.g. with "comments" in it) the video doesn't appear.

  4. I agree it's nice to have a good science stories, but I am irritated that they are so often relegated to gosh-wow stories at the ends of bulletins. The point of the star story wasn't that it was huge, but how it came to be like that, given that stars that big aren't meant to exist. You really had to dig around to find that out.


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 recent 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 ex

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

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope