Lords debate (Haskel) on contribution of SET to the UK - really about the SET contribution?
Gillian Pepper
Monday, 08 June 2009 09:57 UTC
It was interesting to note in the recent House of Lords debate about the contribution of science, technology and engineering to the UK on 4 June, that much of the debate was not about the contribution of SET to the UK per se, but about the organisations that are highlighting and facilitating this contribution e.g. NESTA, the Technology Strategy Board, and the British Science Association. (http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2009-06-04a.342.0)
Does anyone have any thoughts on whether this is really about what SET can bring to the health and wealth of the UK? I wonder whether it would be more interesting to discuss specific emerging disciplines/technologies and what they might contribute and how this can be supported.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Integrative urban planning and poetry! I like it!
One of the reasons we push at UKRC for gender equality (and indeed other forms of diversity) is because it helps break up mono-cultures and so can introduce new perspectives and ideas – hopefully fertile ground for creative ideas.
I wonder about the ‘balanced economy’. I picture something like a wobbly bike on a spinning globe where we are ever seeking equilibrium. I remember a poem I read once about ‘fertile lack of balance’. But I take the point about bridging sectors, or bringing them together. I wonder if that might also make some careers (eg engineering) more appealing to people who see them perhaps as dry or highly technical?
-
Actually yes, bridges and interconnectedness often seem to be overlooked, in education for example. It seems to me that, talking for example about chemistry and biochemistry degrees, teachings focus on theoretical aspects, “highly technical and dry” to quote Ruth, but hardly ever on aspects that connect the discipline with the society that is, in some ways, shaping it: ethical, philosophical, economical, environmental,…neither are students encouraged to do so.
If only science teachings were less technically minded (and proudly so), less reductionists and open to aspects that are not primarily scientific but all the more important to draw the whole picture, then surely these “dry” and “hard” disciplines would seem more appealing. (and my guess is that we would see more scientist interested in science policies ;) )
Same applies to planning SET related policies and at the risk to repeat myself, i don’t think manufacturing industries’ interests should be the sole focus here.
By the way, i like the idea of a lack of balance being a fertile state a lot. The thing is, the world will never reach any sort of balance (despite what the proponents of wild market economy would like us to believe), and this is fine. The issue is that our leaders would never acknowledge that situation (or have missed it?) as it would equate to agreeing they have no real control on global economy.
Results
-
