Queen's Jubilee; World Science Festival

Has it been 60 years since Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne of the United Kingdom? For many Britons who are celebrating her Diamond Jubilee this weekend, these sixty years have seen profound changes in their nation and its place in the world. The empire where the sun never sets is no more, as numerous former colonies sought and obtained independence one after another. The relic of the empire and vestiges of British power remain on the Security Council, where it maintains a stature above its actual weight. For an actual demonstration of British power, look at its operations in Libya and Afghanistan, where it plays mostly a supporting role to the US and NATO.

For many Britons, the tough problems remain at home. Two years of the Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition rule have brought austerity to the land and another recession. The Tories have sought to jettison Europe off Britain's shoulders but for better or for worse, Britain cannot live without Europe. Like their fellow citizens in other EU countries, Britons and their leaders must ask how much austerity is permissible at the expense of growth. Britons may direct their ire at the Queen and her address but it is government that must be held accountable. Even beyond the economic crisis, Britons continue to question their national character and sense as a people. What it means to be British is different today than in 1952, and clinging to nostalgia, and especially using the monarchy, will not do the country much good.

On aside, I stopped by the World Science Festival this weekend. If only my work wasn't as busy during the week, I would have regaled myself in the various presentations on topics such as neutrinos, quantum mechanics and biology, and Einstein's theory with atomic time. Science is fascinating, and I'm glad to see so many children exploring science at Washington Square Park today. It is also important, and something each of us as citizens should understand a bit. We may not all be the next Thomas Edison but let's make sure this country produces the next one.

Still disbelieving climate change?

I am no scientist, but I am reasonable enough to accept wholeheartedly that climate change exists and is serious. Recent events should convince anyone that global warming and its related effects are affecting our everyday lives. For instance, today's temperature in New York is not just hot; it is unusually so. Our office had to turn on the air conditioning, and I skipped going out for lunch because of the warm weather. Such temperatures in the upper 80s F should not happen in early April. Disbelievers point to the abnormally cold temperatures this past winter, but the truth is: it is not one exceedingly cold or hot period that matters, but the intensity of cold or hot weather. The fact that more extreme temperatures exist - the bitter cold in December 2009 and the excessive warmth in late March and early April - should be the telling evidence.

Furthermore, 2010 saw an increasing number of natural disasters, notably the Haiti earthquake and others in Chile, Baja California and Sumatra. One should not dismiss them as random events in disaster-prone regions. Earthquakes, like all natural processes, have underlying causes (here, mainly tectonic plate movements). But human influences - such as nitrification, global warming, and land misuse - have trickle effects that may affect the presence of earthquakes and other natural disasters. I am not versed enough in earth science to offer concrete examples, but knowing how the earth's processes influence one another and ecosystems large and remote, the human link is significant.

The public and politicians need to realize how serious climate change and environmental issues are. These phenomena have inimical effects for everyone, individuals and nation-states. Moreover, our posterity will be the ones to clean up the mess. By then, it might be too late. April's edition of the Scientific American lists global warming, biodiversity loss and nitrogen abuse as the three environmental issues that have exceeded viable capacities. Other problems such as freshwater use and land management are approaching perilous levels. We must act now to not only control the status quo, but also reverse many of the damaging effects of human economic activities. Sacrifices will need to be made, but better sacrifice some now rather than mortgage our future and that of later generations.

Perils of Climate Change science

The recent controversies over leaked climate change research underscore the precarious nature of science and politics. Climate change arguably generates more controversy - and widespread too - than any other scientific research endeavour. Scientists who engage in the research are by no means neutral: many of them act on agenda, whether personal, financial, or ideological. I am not versed in the intricacies of the discipline, but I can imagine that many scientists feel pressure from their peers and sponsors. Couple that with outside groups, be they for or against climate change reform - and the whole scientific enterprise becomes far from neutral.

The law isn't immune from fault. Many recent controversies stemmed from scientists who wanted to guard their climate change research from inquisitive outsiders who held agenda of their own. They, nonetheless, claim a right to know under various Freedom of Information acts in the UK and elsewhere. In this case, the very laws that sought to enable transparency in science serve to undermine it instead. The solution isn't irretrievable: scientists have an equally valid intellectual property of their own. In fact, freedom-of-information acts should apply to government and public ideas, and less so to scientific research or private information. Let's hope the current legal mechanisms are in place to protect the scientists' rights.

Climate change aside, it is irrefutable that science and politics are interlinked. It is often a good thing: the NIH, for example, funds a large portion of scientific research in the U.S., and science can in turn drive public policy. Nonetheless, the relationship becomes deleterious when political factors start to influence scientific research, and silence that which debunks certain political agenda or beliefs. Climate change and stem cells are some of the more controversial topics. It is imperative that we protect science and help maintain its neutrality (again legal reform and mechanisms play an important role). Although scientists aren't wholly innocent in the recent mishaps, society owes a duty to help foster environments for neutral and open scholarly pursuits.