Juliana Pinto is assisted onto the field in an exoskeleton to kick off the Opening Ceremony of the 2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil. Photo: Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images
It’s been a wacky week in science. First there was that computer that supposedly passed the Turing test, a 50-year old benchmark in artificial intelligence research. Then, yesterday, a 29-year-old paralyzed man in a robotic exoskeleton took the opening kick in the World Cup in Brazil.
Read More:
In both cases, the researchers behind the demonstrations have made grand claims about their importance as scientific breakthroughs. And in both cases critics have complained that they’re little more than publicity stunts. The Turing test chatbot didn’t look so great under closer scrutiny, and the long-awaited exoskeleton demo turned out to be a lot less dramatic than what was initially promised, at least judging by what was shown on TV.
All of which raises the question: Are spectacles like this bad for science? Or can taking science out of the lab and into the limelight serve a greater purpose?
For some thoughts on this we turned to Hank Greely, a law professor at Stanford who specializes in bioethics. Greely himself has been a supporter (with caveats) of another highly publicized and controversial scientific endeavor: the Revive and Restore project, which aims to use genetic engineering and synthetic biology to bring the passenger pigeon and other species back from extinction.
WIRED: What did you think of the World Cup demo?
Hank Greely: If you’re going to have a spectacle it really should be spectacular. If you’re going to build it up, you don’t want to fall flat, both for your own purposes and the good of science. In this case, I could see some people saying, that’s it? I could see others saying, it’s not much but it’s an exciting start.
WIRED: So, overall, do you think it was good or bad for science?
Greely: I don’t think it was a big deal either way.
WIRED: Are there times when spectacles are good for science?
Greely: I think they can be. When they attract public attention in a positive way, they can help build support for science in two ways. They can build political support among the masses, and they might spark some people to learn more or even go into science. The space program made me want to be a scientist… then the third quarter of calculus made me decide to be a lawyer.
WIRED: Can you think of another positive example?
Greely: My personal favorite is the rovers on Mars. They’re so cute and we’re getting such good pictures from them and of them. They could do a lot of the science without the pictures, but if they did I bet NASA’s budget would be lower. I think the sweet spot is good science for which there can be a spectacular demonstration.
In general I wish scientists paid more intention to communicating with the rest of world. Some of that is talking to journalists or serving as expert witnesses, and some of it is thinking up ways to publicize and dramatize the cool stuff you’re working on. Science needs to toot its own horn because it’s under threat. Our country seems to be splitting more and more into pro-science people and really substantially anti-science people. Spectacles are just one tool for attracting positive attention, and it’s not always appropriate, but when it is I’d like to see it used.
WIRED: What are the downsides?
Greely: The first is, it could flop and make people think scientists don’t know what they’re doing. Second, it gives people the wrong idea of how science works and what’s important in science. It’s not the Frankenstein moment when the doctor flips the switch and says “It’s alive! It’s alive!” It’s all the work that goes up to that, and that’s not very dramatic and not very spectacular most of the time.
There’s also a sort of justice issue. Some fields are going to appeal more to public imagination than others. Some of the most exciting science going on today doesn’t lend itself to spectacles. Take the protein folding problem. The folded shapes of proteins are crucial to their function. If someone came up with a good general algorithm to predict how proteins would fold based on the DNA sequence, that could be really, really important. But it’s hard to imagine building a spectacle around it.
WIRED: Let’s talk about Revive and Restore. Some conservation biologists have argued that bringing back extinct species isn’t a good use of resources, but you’ve been fairly positive about it—why?
Greely: Part of it does come back to what we’ve been talking about. I think it has the potential to instill a sense of wonder or awe in people. Seeing an actual living woolly mammoth or a woolly mammoth 2.0 would have a strong positive effect on a lot of people. But I wouldn’t support federal spending on this stuff. It should be done with new money so it doesn’t reduce the amount of money spent on classic conservation. It could be the woolly mammoth brought to you by CitiBank. Or Larry Ellison. In the long run, if it works, it should increase the excitement, support, and funding for conservation biology, as well as creating and perfecting tools that can be used to protect existing endangered species.
No comments:
Post a Comment