Skip to main content

What are you doing for National Wind-up-a-scientist Day?

Whether you love scientists or loathe them (as a science writer, I admit to a certain fondness) - or even if you are a scientist - you have to admit that they have a tendency to take themselves too seriously.

On this first National Wind-up-a-scientist Day, I think we all have a duty to find some little way to tease a boffin. This isn't cruelty. No scientists will be hurt in the making of this day. The idea, rather, as we were always told at school, is that if someone takes themselves too seriously, the best thing to do is apply a little humour. It does the trick every time - and they'll thank you for it when they realize that this makes them seem more human to the rest of us.

So what can you do? The opportunities are vast. Consider for instance:
  • Telling a scientist their biggest rival has had a break through
  • Moan about what a waste of money the Large Hadron Collider is
  • Ask them if they've heard that the government is now requiring all biology courses at university to include intelligent design
  • Ask if they really think that geeks are more attractive to the opposite sex
  • If dealing with a biologist, tell them you had some time to spare and washed up all those little dishes and tubes in their lab. No need to thank you
  • Ask them how the world will be made a better place by their work
  • Do some sums on how many starving children could be fed using their departmental budget
  • Ask why Brian Cox is always on TV, but they aren't
  • Say 'Science is very useful, but it hasn't the same inherent interest as the arts, has it?'
And so on. I'm sure you can think of much better ideas. And remember, if you are a scientist, you clearly don't take yourself too seriously, but think of all those colleagues who do. Get to work!

I have been asked why today - why is 14 April National Wind-up-a-scientist Day? Well it is the birth date of Christian Huygens, he of the early wave theory of light, who was pretty good at winding up Isaac Newton. But, to be honest, it primarily commemorates the day on which I thought 'this should be National Wind-up-a-scientist Day.'

Image from Wikipedia

Comments

  1. Clare Dudman14 April 2010 at 17:03

    Have you read McEwan's Solar, Brian? Plenty of ideas in there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown14 April 2010 at 20:16

    Oops. Had no idea today was this National Wind-up Day, Brian, honestly. But, apart from those points you mention, how can you wind up a scientist? You can't - I think I learnt that at school.
    Sue

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sarah14 April 2010 at 21:32

    Q. How many quantum physicists does it take to change a lightbulb?

    A. None -- since the bulb has been directly observed, it has already changed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Brian Clegg15 April 2010 at 10:10

    Clare - I haven't, but obviously I must.

    Sue - you can, really. You might not be able to wind up a school science student, but in the wild they are quite timid and easily spooked.

    Sarah - arf.

    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