Attenborough and that 'national treasure' title

Natural history presenter Sir David Attenborough has been named Britain's greatest living national treasure - and the physicist Prof. Stephen Hawking came fifth.

The public poll by the company that runs the national lottery in the UK found that Attenborough beat Stephen Fry (2nd) and Sean Connery (3rd) for first place.

Attenborough, aged 85, is a British broadcasting legend who has become the face and voice of natural history programmes throughout the English-speaking world. His most recent series The Frozen Planet is currently being shown, to high acclaim, on BBC1. His brother, Lord Richard Attenborough also made the list.

"People like animals, they care for the natural world...for those reasons, they are sympathetic towards me. It's no more than that."It's not the first time the presenter has been labelled a 'national treasure' and it's not something that sits well on his shoulders.

"You needn't bother with that" he told one reporter who mentioned the phrase back in 2009. "People like animals, they care for the natural world, they don't like industrial pollution. So, for those reasons, they are sympathetic towards me. It's no more than that."

Prof. Stephen Hawking made it to fifth place on the list. The theoretical physicist is known for his public appearances and scientific books as well as his major contributions to cosmology, quantum gravity and the study of black holes. The scientist has also played himself in episodes of The Simpsons and Futurama.

The full list of British 'national treasures' is:

Sir David Attenborough
Stephen Fry
Sir Sean Connery
Sir Paul McCartney
Prof. Stephen Hawking
Sir Bobby Charlton
JK Rowling
Dame Judi Dench
Sir Tom Jones
Lord Richard Attenborough

Public and Private Science: It's all about perception

The recently published results of the Public Attitudes to Science (PAS) survey in the UK suggest that industry needs to do more to promote science.

The PAS survey, conducted by IPSOS MORI in association with the British Science Association and the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, found that there was a major disparity between the trust that the public placed in scientists working in the public and NGO sector and that placed in private-sector scientists.

When asked whether they trusted scientists to "follow any rules and regulations" 83% said they trusted scientists working in a university. There was also a large amount of trust placed in scientists working for the Government (72%), environmental groups (72%) and charities (76%).

However, when asked about industry scientists, just over half (56%) had the same amount of confidence in scientists doing the right thing.

This trust in university-based scientists is, as the PAS survey notes, in spite of the involvement of academics in the recent "climategate" controversy. It also doesn’t necessarily recognise the fact that while researchers may be based in a university, they may be paid by funding from industry sources.

Interestingly, in workshops to tease out the detail from the survey, participants tended to express the opinion that industry scientists were more interested in making money than in making genuine scientific discoveries. When the general public had the opportunity to speak with scientists in industry though, many of them viewed those scientists more positively.

The cliché of the crazy, money-mad scientist working for big-business is clearly just that: a cliché. However, trust is all about perception and while some would reasonably argue that nobody should trust a person simply based on their profession, there is no doubt that professionals do sometimes get ‘lumped in’ together as a homogenous bunch.

The general trend of a decreased level of trust in private versus public science though is not new. In the last PAS survey in 2008, 78% of respondents agreed that it was important that some scientists were not "linked to business" and 72% agreed that the independence of scientists is often "put at risk by the interest of their funders".

Indeed, the PAS survey from 2005 shows that people trust university-based scientists 48% less if they are funded by industry sources.

On the positive side, when scientists are compared to other professionals in the IPSOS MORI 'Trust in Professions' tracker, consistently more than 60% of respondents trust scientists to tell the truth. The latest survey of this type (2009) showed that 70% of the adult population of the UK generally trusted scientists to tell the truth. This was behind Clergy (71%), Judges and Professors (both on 80%), Teachers (88%) and Doctors (92%). Incidentally, Government ministers (16%) and politicians generally (13%) come bottom of that list.

So there is convincing evidence for a lack of trust on the part of the general public in industry-based scientists which is not mirrored in scientists working and funded from the public purse. There is a significant need then for private enterprise working in the sciences to ramp-up their communication with the general public and how they promote the sciences through their outreach work.

That isn't to say that some parts of industry aren't making significant contributions to the communication of science and the promotion of science amongst the general public. L'Oreal's support of the Women in Science programme is worthy of mention and a huge list of industry names have supported the Big Bang science and engineering fair, including Shell, Siemens and BAE.

Nevertheless, these new results suggest that nearly half of the general public mistrust scientists in industry. A concerted effort to communicate the value of privately funded scientific research to society is needed if we are to increase the levels of trust in science as a whole.

Ireland and Oxford: The Science Connection

I hope you enjoyed St. Patrick's Day. Here's an Irish science connection that you may not have known about.

The wonderful Natural History Museum at Oxford University is a must visit for science fans everywhere. But did you know about the important Irish links to the building?

The museum building was completed in 1860 and was designed by the Irish architects Thomas Newenham Deane (who was born in Cork) and Benjamin Woodward (who was born in Co. Offaly). Deane and Woodward also designed the museum at Trinity College, Dublin.

Stone columns made from different British and Irish stone are a significant feature of the neo-gothic design.

Statues of some of the greatest scientists, stand around the ground floor but much of the planned stone carving around the interior remains incomplete.

O'Shea working on the Oxford museum

Although the university was happy to pay for the construction, the ornamentation was paid for by public subscription. Irish stone carvers O'Shea and Whelan (from Ballyhooly, Co. Cork) were employed to carve the interior but money ran out before they could finish the job.

Although they offered to do it for free, the university management accused them of "defacing" the building by doing some of this unauthorised work.

Some people suggested that the stone carvers responded by caricaturing the university management as parrots and owls in the carving over the main entrance. The carvers were forced to remove the heads and they remain headless to this day!

In search of the White Coat Vote

Is there such a thing as the science vote? We've heard of the green vote, the pink vote and so on, but do political parties take any notice of the White Coat Vote?

A recent survey of UK scientists by the science journal Nature, has shown that an overwhelming number of scientists surveyed think that the Liberal Democrats (31%) and Labour (33%) would give scientific research the best chance of thriving in the UK. Just 10% thought the Conservative Party would provide such a boost.

The survey of 262 scientists, the majority (64%) of whom worked in academia, also asked which party was most likely to use science or scientific advice to formulate their policies. The Lib Dem's were the clear winner on this point with 36% of scientists opting for them, 24% saying Labour and again, just 10% saying Conservative.

A massive 36% of respondents asserted that none of the main contenders for the PM job, Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have any grasp of science.

And, with spending cuts high on the agenda, 71% of scientists polled thought the Conservatives most likely to cut science funding. Just 18% suggested Labour and 2% suggested the Lib Dem's. Given the reality of the economic situation in the UK and elsewhere, it seems odd that there was no "all of the above" option for this particular question.

The full results of the poll are available here.

Some citizen-scientists felt so let down by conventional parties that Michael Brooks and Sumit Paul-Choudhury founded The Science Party in April of this year and Brooks himself will contend the parliamentary election in the constituency of Bosworth.

Brooks has made clear who's seat he is aiming for - that of the Conservative David Tredinnick. According to The Science Party, Tredinnick has  little grasp of science and claimed more than £700 on MP's expenses for astrology software and training.

Tredinnick has also recently stood by a comment he made recently that those who rubbish facets of eastern medicine (including homeopathy and astrology) are being racist.

“David Tredinnick is the thick end of the wedge, but there are plenty of MPs who dismiss scientific results,” Brooks says. “When you are making decisions about what kind of healthcare our country can offer its people, that is potentially disastrous.”

Brooks is a writer and broadcaster who is a consultant with the well-known science magazine New Scientist.

In June of 2009, it emerged that Tredinnick had sought to claim expenses for his attendance at a seminar on how to "honour the female and also the male essence and the importance of each". The course was designed to teach those attending about "polarity and neutrality" and the "deep passions of our intimate relationships".
An official in the Commons fees office wrote to Mr Tredinnick to explain that "costs relating to Intimate Relationships courses do not fall within the remit of this allowance" and the claim was turned down.

***Update Friday 7th May***

With the results now becoming clearer, it seems that the scientists' choice for government (if the Nature poll is to believed), the Liberal Democrats, will not make anything like the gains which Nigel Clegg's popularity throughout the campaign suggested. The Science Party also performed badly, if the result from Bosworth (see below, via The Guardian) are anything to go by. So much for the White Coat Vote!

Probiotic Advert Banned

Following up on my earlier post regarding European Commission findings on probiotic yoghurts and drinks, the BBC report that the Advertising Standards Agency in Britain have banned a TV advert for Actimel - a well known brand of probiotic drinks.

Read the report here from the BBC.