The most important thing in science is ...

If you could teach the world one thing about science, what would it be? If you're John Sulston, cowinner of the 2002 Nobel Prize in Medicine or Physiology, the answer is: "Evolution, as truth, insofar as we can comprehend it at the moment; as a realistic assessment of our position in the universe; and as a joyous celebration of our potential future."Sulston is one of more than 250 leading science practitioners, communicators, and educators who responded to the question posed by Alom Shaha, a former physics teacher. Shaha's project, funded by Britain's National Endowment for Science, Technology, and the Arts and assisted by the online magazine spiked http://www.spiked-online.com, came to him during 2003 at a job at which he was surrounded by producers madly trying to come up with ideas to celebrate the centenary of Einstein's annus mirabilis this year.It struck him that for all the focus on Einstein's most famous theory, "it isn't really important that people understand relativity." For Shaha, science communication is too dominated by people who do not understand science deeply, such as nonscientist newspaper editors and television producers. "I think the most successful science communicators are those people who really understand science, and are really passionate about it," he says. "And that's often scientists."In late April, the results of that survey were posted on the magazine's Web site. A couple of weeks later on May 10, an event at the Royal Institution of Great Britain launched it officially.Sulston's choice, evolution, was most popular, garnering 23 votes overall. Elsewhere there was less agreement. Some respondents, including molecular biologist Lee M Silver, make a firm distinction between science and faith, for example: "The discipline of science is as far removed from faith as anything can possibly be." On the other hand, some seem to feel this distinction is wrong. Neurophysiolgist Mark Lythgoe says, "From the moment you are born, and sometimes before, you place blind faith in the scientific method."Lythgoe is one of many respondents who talk about the scientific method. After the theory of evolution, it is the most popular survey response, with 20 of those who answered saying they would teach the world about the method itself, instead of a specific principle or discovery. Exactly what the scientific method entails is not exactly defined in the responses, however. (And respondents variously credit Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, and Karl Popper for developing it.)Politician Stephen Ladyman illustrates the scientific method by arguing, "It might not be possible to absolutely prove that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, but the evidence suggests that they do, and so wise governments act accordingly." But climatologist Timothy Ball says that contemporary thinking about global warming reflects the fact that "the scientific method is effectively being blocked."Overall, the results ended up being something of a jumble, ranging from physicist Deeph Chana's suggestion that "energy cannot be created or destroyed," to broadcaster (and former scientist) Vivienne Parry's idea that "you do not have to be bright to do science." But the jumble may not bother Shaha.The point of the survey, after all, was to show that "science is a human endeavor, not a magical method for finding the truth," says Shaha. "Scientists are as interesting as artists, writers, poets ... and I think people need to understand that."

The most important thing in science is ...

If you could teach the world one thing about science, what would it be?

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of