A Nobel Laureates Says They Should Be Listened To. (July 26, 2007)

    Burton Richter (76) is a Nobel Prize-winning American physicist. He was director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) from 1984 to 1999.

In this week's issue of Nature the former director of SLAC takes issue with an editorial that the journal published in its May 24, 2007 issue, "Top scientists should campaign only where they can truly make a difference."

Part of that editorial opines:

[S]cientists need to take care not to overstep their expertise. It is reasonable to expect a Manhattan Project physicist to weigh in on the dangers of nuclear weapons, with which he or she is entirely familiar. It is less clear-cut to, say, support the candidacy of a politician.

 

In the United States, a group called Scientists and Engineers for America formed last year with the benevolent-sounding goals of good government, open debate, competent leadership and political participation. It sprang mainly, however, from years of frustration with the administration of President George W. Bush and its many instances of reportedly twisting science to its own ends. There is little doubt that US federal science has suffered under Bush, but it is unclear how this group will accomplish concrete goals to counter this.

 

Scientists who want to promote change in the world would be better off selecting their areas of activism carefully. Nobel laureates have a special responsibility, as they are regarded by the public with a level of awe.

 

In reply Professor Richter, a founder and member of the Board of Advisors of Scientists and Engineers for America, writes: "Your Editorial 'Nobels in dubious causes' (Nature 447, 354; 2007) urges scientists and Nobel laureates to "campaign only where they can truly make a difference". I think you mean that we should use our fleeting fame only in causes that we know something about. Or, as Pliny the Elder put it: "Shoemaker, stick to your last.

"A few laureates may sign too many things... However, I use my Nobel prize to discuss something I know a good deal about. Our aim is to make available to society at large the evidence-based science relating to critical issues facing us all. There is a lot of shouting out there and it is hard for the layperson to find reality. Political affiliation does not matter to us."

 

And to make his point Professor Richter writes: "Both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates endorse corn-based ethanol as an energy source. Both are wrong; it is our job to call it mainly a farm subsidy and explain why it is that rather than what it is claimed to be. It is up to the public to decide how much to support it."

And then goes on to give Nature's editorialist a stiff serve:

We are also educating scientists on how to run for school boards. We hope many of them will win, and in this way improve the poor state of science education in our schools and keep it focused on the real world.

 

We intend to inform the electorate of the science-based issues that their elected officials have to face, and of what actions these officials have taken. We also intend to summarize the science behind the issues, including what we know and what we don't know. We hope both to draw attention to under-appreciated science issues and provide the advocacy necessary to get things done — not along party-political lines, but scientifically.