I was just thinking about the Lorry driver I met yesterday who was so vehemently opposed to “Alex Salmond’s folly” even though he was making money transporting wind loads.
He wouldn’t care less what prof Jim Al-Khalili said about the effect of CO2 … because for many of the population, the views of these academics which has become the face of “science” is just a joke.
I am reminded of the saying that the money earned by one generation will spent by the grandchildren. During the industrial revolution, the vibrant engineering companies transferred their skills and understanding to academia to create a scientific establishment which was the envy of the world.
A few generations later (in the reign of Thatcher), the scientific establishment, the child of British industry and engineering, turned against its parents and stabbed us in the back. Now that thankless, ungrateful and ignorant child has found politics, gone off to some hippy commune, thrown their lot in with new-age paganist greens and despises their parents and is wasting away the gains of previous generations.
Let me put it this way. If my three kids ask about science … I cannot honestly praise British science and suggest they seek a career there. As a science graduate, I would like to be able to say “yes a science degree is a good thing”. But the reality is that academic science is so politically motivated and so appalling at delivering anything useful to those doing degrees or to society in general … that whilst I would prefer a scientifically literate society, I cannot in all honesty recommend British science to anyone.
At least as far as Britain goes, I think we have seen the end of the age of science. Science has become a novelty act, a quaint thing to gorp at, a clown-like guest for journalists to fill out the silly season.
ScottishSceptic 
I disagree. “Science” is a word that is being seized by ecofascists, just as it was by eugenists, creationists, Christian Scientists, homeopaths and so on (maybe Astrologers can get away with it because they were scientists before astronomy came along & displaced them). But the map is not the road. If it has been impossible to find one scientist out of millions who are not paid by the state and support CAGW it is clear that this fraud is not the fault of scientists though I will admit that they, particularly those running “professional” bodies do share blame for not speaking out against the pseudo-scientists.
Science will continue, under other names and on the internet
I agree with most of what you say and Richard Feynman is probably turning in his grave. However, calling this the end of science is a little too reactionary. It’s more about the misuse of science. When that ends, science will be fine.
As far as a youngster entering a scientific education, yes I’d be a little leery that they’d be sucked into something more dubious or become part of the current misuse regime. However, it’s easy for me to say that since my lad to the blue collar route and is working his way with hard work. If he wanted to take college science, I’m not sure how I would react.
Michael,
you only have to look to the MMR fiasco, bird flu, etc. to see how the public really don’t pay much attention to “science” any longer.
And, when you study the important innovations in “science” the answer is clear.
The (academic) view of innovation is that academia innovates. This is just bollocks. The reality I think is that most important innovations stem not from science but from innovations in engineering which were then studied by academia. E.g. the gas laws that govern steam engines were understood by engineers before they were formalised by scientists. The ideas of geological strata and time sequences were likewise understood and used by miners before some smart academic half-inched the idea, wrote it up and took the credit.
From my studies, this seems to be the predominant mode of development: science is stimulated and feeds of innovation in engineering. That science then improves industry, which allows it to innovate more … creating a virtuous cycle.
So, when the two work together both benefit … but unfortunately in recent decades that co-operation has died and now much of science is anti-industry (of which one symptom is the global warming = anti-CO2 = anti-industry paranoia). The result has been the loss of much of UK engineering and with it the vital stimulus for scientific research.
The result is that recently science has done aimless research – like global warming. It is research for the sake of research and of no economic benefit or like global warming less than helpful to our economy. So, we are in a sense in a death spiral. Academia is anti-industry. The result is to encourage the kind of government policy which destroys industries, which destroys the vital engineering companies which nurture useful productive research areas. Which means academia is even more detached from the real economy and even more hostile to industry.
That is not the case in places like China or India. So, my guess is that over the next few decades the focus of world research progress will move away from the UK and US in most areas except perhaps military and medical research (where they still have practitioners) and move to China and India where they have growing industrial sectors.
I am an electrical engineer by the way (computer network security) so I identify with a lot of what you are saying.
Your above reply is almost worthy of its own separate post although the subject matter is mixed up so you might have to pick a specific topic. I like your references to development and the implications on and of science and engineering. I can only guess what a “sustainable development” wrench would do to affect that.
And yes in my experiences as well, research and development can be circular between scientist and engineer. For example, in my early engineering days designing logic chips, engineers realized how much more could be done if we could fit more transistors on a chip. We asked (materials) scientists to reduce the width of the conduction pathways so process engineers could pack a chip with more.
In the big picture, I think one of the problems now is that (a lot of) science is not being done for the sake of science. It’s being done to meet an objective, and often a political one. I think there is a big difference between private sector science and public sector science. Maybe that’s another issue to tackle.
I remember when I first entered industry. Timex in Dundee had this massive manufacturing plant, but they saw the real money went to the equipment designers. So when I started I was put into their answer: an R&D department which was created to “think up good ideas” for products.
At the time, being a wet behind the ears physics/electronics graduate that seemed a very sensible idea. But very soon I began to realise that all we were doing was “inventing” products which the nerdy people in R&D thought we wanted … or worse stereotypical ideas of what other people wanted.
I even introduced the revolutionary idea of … asking shop workers what they thought about our products designed for them … and the reply was not very complementary … but by then it was too late to change much.
From this experience I learnt that successful companies need real customers … they need demanding customers who are willing and able to communicate with the design staff – because only that way does the company produce goods which will sell.
What has happened in UK science, is that the necessary customer in industry has been eliminated, and now we have nerds in academia trying to second guess what commerce and industry would want if there was any to take up and use their research.
And instead, now the politicians have become the customer … and so research is more and more pushing political viewpoints and has less and less economic benefit.
That post encourages my ever unflagging enthusiasm for X-Prizes. Specifically that prizes, if suggested by potential customers (which includes us all) would be not only a financial driver of innovation but would drive it in a useful direction.