UK News
Insights from the UK and beyond
from FaithWorld:
UK astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees wins 2011 Templeton Prize
((A supernova within the galaxy M100 that may contain the youngest known black hole in our cosmic neighborhood, in a composite image released to Reuters November 15, 2010/Chandra X-ray Observatory Center)
British astrophysicist Sir Martin Rees, whose research delves deep into the mysteries of the cosmos, has won the 2011 Templeton Prize for career achievements affirming life's spiritual dimension. The one million sterling ($1.6 million) award, the world's largest to an individual, was announced on Wednesday in London. Rees, master of Trinity College at Cambridge University, is former head of the Royal Society and a life peer.
Announcing the award, the United States-based Templeton Foundation said Rees's insights into the mysteries of the Big Bang and so-called black holes in space have "provoked vital questions that address mankind's deepest hopes and fears... Lord Rees has widened the boundaries of understanding about the physical processes that define the cosmos, including speculations on the concept of 'multiverses' or infinite universes... The 'big questions' Lord Rees raises -- such as 'how large is physical reality?' -- are reshaping the philosophical and theological considerations that strike at the core of life."
Rees, 68, says he has no religious beliefs but was brought up in the Church of England and values its culture and ethics. Theology cannot explain scientific mysteries, he told Reuters, but added: "I'm not allergic to religion or religious believers." Previous winners of the prize, which seeks to promote better understanding between science and religion, include Catholic nun Mother Teresa, U.S. preacher Billy Graham and Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn as well as many leading scientists.
from FaithWorld:
God did not create the universe, gravity did, says Stephen Hawking
God did not create the universe and the "Big Bang" was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics, the eminent British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking argues in a new book.
In "The Grand Design," co-authored with U.S. physicist Leonard Mlodinow, Hawking says a new series of theories made a creator of the universe redundant, according to the Times newspaper which published extracts on Thursday.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist," Hawking writes. "It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."
Hawking, 68, who won global recognition with his 1988 book "A Brief History of Time," an account of the origins of the universe, is renowned for his work on black holes, cosmology and quantum gravity. His latest comments suggest he has broken away from previous views he has expressed on religion. Previously, he wrote that the laws of physics meant it was simply not necessary to believe that God had intervened in the Big Bang.
For an initial sceptical reaction, see Mark Vernon's Philosophy and Life blog.
I couldn’t agree more with PedroB. for me all the countless stars above are there for a reason… i can’t imagine spending an eternal life without those countless (among oher things of course) stars that i hope we all would “discover” as we go along our eternal life
Do you believe homeopathic treatments work?
A panel of scientists and doctors has told MPs that treating patients with homeopathy on the NHS is unethical and a dubious use of public money, arguing that there is insufficient clinical evidence to support such treatments.
“If the NHS commitment to evidence-based medicine is more than a lip service, then money has to be spent on treatments that are evidence-based, and homeopathy isn’t,” said Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine at the Peninsula medical school in Exeter, quoted in the Guardian.
Homeopathy is based on the principle of “like cures like” – in other words, a substance taken in small amounts will cure the same symptoms it causes if it was taken in large amounts.
Homeopathic medicines are manufactured by repeatedly diluting and succussing (shaking) a preparation of the original substance, mainly plants and minerals, in water and alcohol. After dilution the medicine is added to lactose tablets or pillules, according to the Faculty of Homeopathy, a regulatory body established by parliament in 1950.
The NHS spends about 4 million pounds a year on homeopathy, the group says. There are four NHS homeopathic hospitals, which treat 55,000 patients a year, referred by GPs and NHS specialists.
More than 400 GPs treat 200,000 NHS patients a year with homeopathy.
While conventional drugs must undergo testing to prove their effectiveness, homeopathic remedies can be sold without being proven to work in clinical trials. They can be marketed for mild conditions if homeopathics agree on their effectiveness.
It’s hardly a question of belief. The BBC sponsored a pretty conclusive double-blind test for Horizon some years ago.On the other hand, spending vast sums of public money on the placebo effect would not be the dumbest thing society has ever done. Most of these patients would probably claim that conventional medicines weren’t doing them any good, so the placebo may in fact be the cheapest option.
Testing the limits of animal lab experiments
A mouse that can speak? A monkey with Down’s Syndrome? Dogs with human hands or feet? British scientists want to know if such experiments are acceptable, or if they go too far in the name of medical research.
The Academy of Medical Sciences has launched a study to look at the use of animals containing human material in scientific research.
Using human material in animals is not new. Scientists have already created rhesus macaque monkeys that have a human form of the Huntingdon’s gene so they can investigate how the disease develops; and mice with livers made from human cells are being used to study the effects of new drugs.
But scientists say the technology to put ever greater amounts of human genetic material into animals is spreading quickly around the world — raising the possibility that some scientists in some places may want to push boundaries.
Religious groups are among those that are uneasy about the trend. One Catholic cardinal, Keith O’Brien of Edinburgh, has branded such work “Frankenstein science.”
Martin Bobrow, a professor of medical genetics at Cambridge University is chairman of a 14-member group looking into the issue.
He says: “Do most of us care if we make a mouse whose blood cells or liver are human? Probably not. But if it can speak? If it can think? Or if it is conscious in a human way? Then we’re in a completely different ballpark.”
One way or another its going to be done if it hasn’t already secretly been done. While the idea does push some buttons wrongs in the intrest of science I say go for it
Was drugs scientist right to speak out?
The government’s attitude towards science is under the microscope this week over accusations that expert advice is being ignored if it fails to fit prevailing political agendas.
The row has been prompted by the sacking of the government’s chief drug adviser, Professor David Nutt, who has been making statements that do not fit in with the government’s hard line on drugs. Two of his colleagues resigned in protest over the weekend and more may follow.
Nutt has criticsed the Home Office decision to upgrade cannabis to a Class B drug, saying it is less harmful than alcohol and nicotine. He has previously said taking ecstasy is less dangerous than horse-riding and that consideration should be given to downgrading the classification of both ecstasy and LSD.
Liberal Democrat science spokesman Dr Evan Harris says: ”I fear there will be many more resignations unless the government acts to restore confidence among its independent scientific advisers.”
Home Secretary Alan Johnson says Nutt was sacked because he crossed the line between an advisor and a campaigner. ”You can do one or the other. You can’t do both,” he insisted.
Do you think Johnson has a point?
I think there is right and wrong on both sides in this argument. Scientists may be very clever people, but it doesn’t mean they necessarily have wisdom. Politicians may be very ignorant people, but even as such they may have a handle on what is the right “public” policy. The comments about ecstasy and horseriding were, frankly, just downright silly. You would tick off a sixth-former for coming out with such a jejune argument in a debating competition. Everyone should know perfectly well that relative harm is far from being the sole criterion upon which we devise the rules governing our society. If it were, active membership of Al Qaeda would be a less serious offence than owning a car, the sale of alcohol would be punishable by death, and reading The Sun or the Daily Mail would result in compulsory electric shock therapy and possible lobotomy.
The Mother of Inventions
London’s Science Museum is asking visitors what they think are the greatest ever scientific inventions.
Its own choices include the Model T Ford, Nazi Germany’s pioneering V2 rocket, penicillin and the electric telegraph. See the Museum’s full list here.
As part of the celebrations for its centenary this month, the museum is staging an exhibition featuring what it has chosen as the Top 10.
What inventions would you choose?
Does science teaching matter?
Should the brightest pupils be required to study extra science subjects?
The Confederation of British Industry wants the 250,000 pupils who get top marks in national science SAT exams at age 14 to be automatically opted in for a two-year “triple science” GCSE course covering physics, chemistry and biology.
The CBI says three-fifths of firms are having trouble recruiting science graduates and blame the problem on a long-term decline in science teaching at schools.
The number of specialist science teachers has halved over the past 20 years and only 7 percent of pupils currently take the triple science GCSE option — most take a double or single science course.
The CBI proposal would require a huge boost to science teaching — already promised by the government — but the industry body says its ambition could be reached by 2013.
Schools Minister Jim Knight maintains that increasing the number of science graduates is a top government priority but says opting-in the best pupils is not the answer.
What do you think should be done?
-
The Wall
