Science is a human activity and, like others, it is subject to fashionable trends. At any given time certain areas of scientific research and certain scientists are singled out for special attention. This happens not only in the public domain but also within science itself.
A quick perusal of my bookshelves is as good a way as any to identify some of the currently fashionable areas in science. In physics, big bang cosmology, black holes, time-travel and "theories of everything" are popular current themes. In biology, cloning, genetic engineering, and debates about the mechanism of evolution are Top of The Pops.
The environment is a hugely popular area and we move from peak to peak of revelation about the latest calamitous threat aimed at our fragile natural environment by man-made technology. Ten to 15 years ago acid rain and pollution from nuclear power grabbed most attention. This was followed by global warming and a depleted ozone layer, still very popular topics. And recently there have been several popular books warning of the grave dangers of widespread chemical pollution in the environment.
On the medicine/disease front we so exhausted ourselves over recent years in charging way over the top on the question of AIDS that World AIDS Day now passes just about unnoticed. Incidentally, it seems to me that if the current frantic pace of opposition to genetically modified food keeps up, a similar exhaustion of public interest will set in soon enough.
Just as ideas from the scientific world become fashionable in the world at large, so too do certain scientists prominently associated with some of these ideas. By and large, the most popular scientists are theorists rather than experimentalists.
The classical example is Albert Einstein. Einstein's Theories of Relativity attracted massive public interest and by the age of 40 he had attained film-star status with the public media. Einstein's public popularity was greatly boosted by his striking appearance which, even to this day, is a popular stereotypical image of what a brilliant scientist should look like. Einstein revelled in the public adulation. He liked to play to the gallery and he composed many memorable comments and witticisms.
Today, Stephen Hawking is a very popular physicist, a fact which undoubtedly contributed handsomely to the massive sales of his book, A Brief History of Time. Hawking recently made a TV advertisement for spectacles which is now appearing on our screens. It is difficult to think of a more convincing demonstration of public popularity than being asked to endorse commercial products. On the biological side of the house, writers such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen J. Gould are very fashionable. Some readers will recall a public lecture by Dawkins a few years ago in Dublin which packed out the Concert Hall at the RDS.
Scientific fashions exist in professional scientific circles just as they do in the wider public world.
For example, at the moment in areas such as biochemistry, microbiology and genetics you are not seen to be working at the "cutting edge" unless you are working at the molecular level. Grant applications that are not replete with the jargon of molecular biology are at a serious disadvantage on average when it comes to securing significant research support.
Let me say at this stage that I am not equating fashion with frivolity. It is quite possible for something to be both fashionable and important, and this is certainly the case with molecular biology. However, it is equally true that unfashionable is not synonymous with unimportant. This is where the problem arises. In many instances funding agencies will tend to favour an inferior research approach in a fashionable area over a much more valuable approach in an unfashionable area.
One embarrassing example that comes to mind is the case of polywater. A Russian physicist, Nikolai Fedyakin, reported in the early 1960s that water held in narrow-bore glass tubes separated into two components, ordinary water and a denser form of water that had not been recognised before. It was postulated that this new form of water represented polymeric water (polywater), a form in which many water molecules join together to form large polymeric molecules.
Polywater attracted the attention of western scientists and many papers were published describing the unusual properties of the novel substance. Polywater represented a form of water that is biologically useless and a major furore broke out when a US expert called polywater "the most dangerous material on Earth" because the smallest drop might trigger the conversion of all water on earth into this useless variety.
Huge numbers of researchers turned their attention to polywater. Everyone wanted in on the act. But the whole thing turned out to be a mirage. In 1973 Fedyakin reported that he now found it impossible to make polywater from ordinary water, and that the unique properties of polywater reported earlier should be attributed to impurities rather than to the existence of polymeric water molecules. In other words, polywater was simply dirty water. The polywater episode illustrates two things. Number one, wrong results do not survive for long in science. But, number two, fashion in science can prolong the life of a wrong idea.
Fashion in science is something that will undoubtedly continue. While we should be wary not to be overly influenced by its excesses, it would be unwise to attempt to root it out altogether. It is a byproduct of human nature and, in moderation, helps to make life a little more interesting.
William Reville is a senior lecturer in biochemistry and director of microscopy at UCC.