Sir, – Joe Humphreys (Opinion, July 17th) writes that “simply knowing more than the next man doesn’t give you the higher moral ground”. Knowing less doesn’t either. I found myself wondering if Mr Humphreys could be entirely serious: without, by his own account, having attended any part of the ESOF2012 conference except a reading of the play Copenhagen, he comments on what he describes as “the overarching narrative” of the conference, and dismisses it, saying “good riddance to ESOF2012”.
According to Joe Humphreys, “the overarching narrative of ESOF2012 was that science is a marginalised and underappreciated activity”. There were indeed references from speakers to the need to support fundamental research, reports of which which may be what prompted Humphreys’s remark, but as someone who attended a number of sessions of the conference as well as listening to parts of its live-stream, I would have said that the overarching narrative was the communication of the scope and detail of the work being undertaken in various branches of science, as well as a concern and consideration for the implications of the work for people’s lives.
Humphreys says he “longs for a week-long conference on the meaning of life”; he might have found it interesting to attend, for instance, the 8am session on July 12th last entitled “I Human: are new scientific discoveries challenging our identity as a species?”, and might have had worthwhile points to contribute from what he describes as the humanities camp when the chairperson opened the session by asking attendees to discuss how the sentence “Humans are the only creatures who . . .” might be completed.
From his article, I would suggest that Mr. Humphreys dismisses too easily the vision, dedication and sheer hard work needed to advance knowledge in science, and gives too little consideration to the biological stratum of life. For example, of a BBC documentary that showed a miniature camera being swallowed to stream images of the digestive system, he remarks “It was interesting, but it didn’t make me a better person”; maybe not, but it may have facilitated the elucidation of mechanisms within the digestive system, and led to ways of alleviating health problems due to malfunctioning of this region, thus giving people suffering from such problems a better quality of life – that is, if Mr. Humphreys would agree that this matters – in his first paragraph, he remarks that his first thought was “So what . ..” on hearing of the possibility of finding a cure for cancer.
I write this letter as someone who found the ESOF2012 conference informative and inspiring. I would like to express appreciation and congratulations to the speakers and to all who contributed to its taking place, and add that it will be memorable for the spectacular venue as well as the presentations. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – I think Joe Humphreys would find much sympathy among scientists for his views (“Scientists not giving human life its meaning”Opinion, July 17). As the anthropologist Matt Cartmill wonderfully put it: “As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty, and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life – so I became a scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.” – Yours, etc,
Sir, – It seems odd that The Irish Times would give space to someone to write on a topic on which they admit to knowing “absolutely f***-all”. The article by Joe Humphreys (Opinion, July 17th) offers a vague critique of science as somehow generally undermining societal and human values, while, tellingly, offering no evidence that that is actually the case.
How exactly science threatens his values, Mr Humphreys does not make clear – his rambling stream of . . . let’s call it consciousness, leaps incoherently from feeling overwhelmed by his four e-mail accounts to being generally frightened by scientific progress.
If he is feeling overwhelmed by Higgs bosons, synthetic biology and the search for life on Mars, he is not alone – it can be hard to keep up. All the more reason for conferences like the European Science Open Forum. ESOF2012 offered an exciting and diverse program of world-leading scientific endeavour, driven by curiosity and a desire to understand the universe and, in many cases, to improve the human condition. Those are values I can get behind.
It is a pity that Mr Humphreys did not take Wittgenstein’s suggestion, which he quotes: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Since we lost Nuala O’Faolain I gave up hope of ever replacing her unique, insightful and impeccable thoughts on your pages, but after reading Joe Humphreys’s “Scientists not giving human life its meaning” (Opinion, July 17th) I think I may have been wrong. – Yours, etc,