Bishop Hill Political Paul
Sep 13, 2011 Royal Society Sir Paul Nurse appears to have decided that he hasn't been nearly political enough yet. Something must be done!
Nurse wants the society to have a stronger voice on the big policy questions of the day. "The Royal Society has a responsibility to provide advice on difficult issues, even if they are contentious," he says.
He hopes to boost the society's role in government decision-making by fostering greater involvement of its roughly 1,500 fellows and foreign members in preparing reports, potentially with the help of more policy staff. Nurse also wants to expand the number of authoritative and influential reports on key issues, such as nuclear power, climate change and the definition of life.
Interestingly, he also wants to extend the terms of officeholders. I wonder why? In my experience, this kind of step is rarely done for good reasons. I think I'm right in saying the officeholders currently have 5-year terms (certainly the president does). Why would they need more?
Bishop Hill
James Wilsdon, who heads (still, I think - he's leaving at some point) the Royal Society policy unit, tweets that the changes are as follows:
Council currently serve 1 or 2 yrs (President/VPs 5). Change would move Council to 3 yrs (like many charity trustees)
Reader Comments (37)
"..even if they are contentious"
That would make a change!
Must agree. I perceive this as a very large red flag. Possibly spot-lit, with flashing neon arrow-signs.
He needs to extend his employment by the RS until he can collect his pension, because his political advocacy work at the RS may have reduced his employability elsewhere.
Ghadaffi and Mubarak also thought they had a job for life
Nurse is hopeful that he can hold back the advance of Lavoisier's skeptical attack on the Royal Society's consensus phlogiston theory.
They fear their radical younger selfs.
scientists especially when they are ennobled do seem to become pompous and self-important and feel that society and government NEED their views.
re Parkinson's Law by C. Northcote Parkinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson%27s_Law): "...the total of those employed inside a bureaucracy rose by 5-7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done"."
The Marxist takeover is firmly under-way.
Soon we'll have a First Secretary instead of the Monarch. Perhaps it'll be Charles, giving up his title in return for a green equivalent for life?
these institutes should be examples of high churn.
We should relaunch the original concept of the French German model university/Research centre whereby professorship and lecturing is based on short term assignments. The unit of income guarantee should be the academic year, not 40y vegetating in some corner whereby the only skill is to rehash whatever the fashion is out of a keen self interest to become vice chancellor.
In fact the 20th century , especially the last half, leaves a very bad (leftwing) taste to the mouth.
the 19th century is the true example for research and academia.
"The Royal Society has a responsibility to provide advice on difficult issues, even if they are contentious," he says.
Well that means it can shut up about CAGW then because, as we all know, no contention there, the science is settled.
Isaac Newton was allready a highly politicised character who did his best, exploiting the prestige he got from the RS, to undermine and tarnish his nemesis , Robert Hooke.
they have a long tradition bending science for the establishment.
Joe Crawford
Also from Parkinson, who predicted a time when the Royal Navy has more Admirals than ships.
It has happened
Nurse is simply following the glorious example of our beloved leader, Comrade Kim Il-sung. Even death should be no obstacle to remaining President.
If however he wants to modify it's Charter, untouched since 1662 and turn the RS into a modern, PR, report peddling, lobbying entity then it could be a good time to review it's Charter status and possibly remove it. Especially as some reform of NGOs and lobbying businesses is on the cards, or long overdue. Or the rest of the RS could consider if it's simply time to review it's President.
Translation:
Dear Prime Minister,
Look, we know there's not much money around these days (or so some people keep saying - haven't noticed myself), but we've been around for hundreds of years and we're a bit fed up with other rent seekers like ASH, Alcohol Concern and the BMA telling us all what to do and being paid lots of loverly gummint lolly for the privilege - and also, I can't help noticing, enabling the top management of those organisations to do very well indeed with nests feathered until the day they die (obviously such long and privileged lives being ultimately extinguished by none of the very scary and catastrophic social, medical or climate related things they make up to frighten everyone else with).
Look, we prostrated ourselves at the alter of CAGW, riding roughshod over our unique responsibility as scientists and our Society's motto. That took some doing, believe you me and I personally have been heavily involved in this undertaking.
We consider ourselves to be much better at bossing people about than any of the other rent seekers you fund and we think we have now proved this. So, can we please have some money for writing reports that scare the shit out of the general public and which will, I can assure you, recommend more tax, less freedom, and ever larger government?
Many of us here would rather like to spend our retirmement in Monaco or Geneva and the only way to do this is to align ourselves with other rent seekers and quangos so that we can receive some well deserved "performance bonuses" and massively increase our earnings year on year regardless of performance, efficiency or any other criteria that some obviously deranged proles think are relevant.
Yours in anticipation of a long and fruitful relationship..................
authoritative and influential reports
The Royal Society is, for all (positive and useful) intents and purposes, already dead.
Clarification on terms doesn't look too bad and makes sense. The RS also has a fine tradition of dealing with reformers in it's past, for better or worse. The report James Wilsdon is twittering about
"Fuel cycle stewardship in a nuclear renaissance. Join us on 13 Oct for a report launch & major speech by Chris Huhne"
may give an indication of whether whether policy is driven by science or vice-versa. They may also want to caveat Chris Huhne's appearence as being subject to liberty, unless they know something we don't know.
Sep 13, 2011 at 5:08 PM | golf charley
Do you have a link for the respective numbers?
thanks Sandy
Sounds to me like he has been seduced by his own advertising.
Why did the name pachuari pop into my head as I was typing?
"He hopes to boost the society's role in government decision-making"
There's a price for feeding at that trough Paul.
He wants Bob W back again, presumably.
With apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan
As some day it may happen that a culprit must be found
I've got a little list, I've got a little list
of (Royal) Society offenders who might well be underground
and who never would be missed
who never would be missed
Sandy, sorry, I do not have a link, and I can't remember where I read it, but I think it happened this year.
The numbers were in the 40's (?). Does that sound about right?
ok...so what is the charter of the Royal Society...I am sure that Charles 2 founded it as a way of getting intelligent people to talk about interesting stuff. It was never a lobby organisation. And if it becomes one, it should be disbanded, by a resolution of the membership (even if there are Coxes aboard). Its aim is surely to be disinterested and "scientific" in the way that "scientists" like to claim they always are.
"authoritative and influential reports on key issues, such as nuclear power, climate change and the definition of life."
The definition of life? Are the members of the Royal Society all philosophers and/or theologians?
P.Kenny
Yes. Their house magazine is Philosophical Transactions after all.
AH biu in the 17hc definition of philosophical...as a lover of knowledge in general...
Dr Nurse likes to argue from a position of implied authority. Perhaps he should read this article in the Economist
http://www.economist.com/node/21528593
"An array of errors
Investigations into a case of alleged scientific misconduct have revealed numerous holes in the oversight of science and scientific publishing"
It concerns fraud in medical research, which of course is quickly uncovered because checks are rigorous.
Is it possible that the government actually needs help on how to extricate itself from the proclamations of the IPCC? The only way to do this would be to get conflicting evidence from another august body of scientists which demonstrates a conflict and thus the breakdown of consensus.
The RS has already demonstrated a certain independent quarter is prepared to voice its concerns (witness the redrafting of the RS statement a couple of years ago). I cannot imagine this quarter has got any more compliant with recent evidence of solar effect, global cooling etc.
Is it possible that the great and the good are preparing an exit strategy?
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Well, you would hardly expect anything different from Sir P and the RS, would you?
Everybody, not excluding yours truly and, I dare say, the greater part of those of you who frequent this blog, actually spend our lives bettering our situations. Sir P and the RS are only doing the same.
We have a government structure to impose some order on this unruly competition of competing interests. It is up to them, acting on behalf of the collective good, to take no notice of Sir P’s pleadings, which probably, unacted upon, are not especially harmful.
Direct your entreaties to the Government and keep them advised of your derision. Ignore Sir P and the RS on this one.
"Nurse wants the society to have a stronger voice on the big policy questions of the day"
In that case he and the rest of the R.S. need to pick a political party, approach them with the aim of being selected as a candidate to represent a constituency. Should he then be selected at local level he can attempt to win the seat in an election and should he win, become an M.P.
He can then voice from the back benches. You know Nurse, its what we call democracy, not Lobbying!
Come to think about it, he would be joining a club of conniving people who are real experts at fiddling data!
did we not see PN looking at some earth cloud model with a NASA geek , some time ago at the BBC.
it seemed all settled then?
Re Diogenes
But now we're in the 21st century, some knowledge is deemed too dangerous to be known or discussed by the uniniated. To ask "Why?" risks being declared a sceptic, heretic or even denier. Nullius in verba becomes crede nobis.
Of course it could just be due to the way the RS works today. Rather than being independent free thinkers, it's now dependent on the government for funding via grant in aid. Being Chartered also means it depends on government approval for any changes to it's Charter. I can see why a government might want to have the RS supporting it's policies though. Pay the RS and other NGOs for reports and it becomes simple to create a consensus and drive policy through. I think I'll send Sir Paul a copy of "The Honest Broker" though and hope he reads it.
The late Richard Holmes' book The Age of Wonder is a good testament to the Royal Society's glory days, but the subliminal message is that its relevance was already fading towards the end of the 19th Century, let alone nowadays.
The problem with the Nobel prize is that it gives insecure people delusions of grandeur.
Compare Freeman Dyson and Paul Nurse.
Freeman Dyson should have received it but did not. Paul Nurse got one but is not worthy to clean the shoes of Freeman Dyson. And yet Dyson is the modest one who will engage with individuals and even crackpot journalists.
Mike
You are thinking of the Richard Holmes the military historian who died earlier this year. The Richard Holmes who wrote The Age of Wonder is alive.
golf charley
It sounds about right, but the excess of Admirals is probably even greater now.
I guess the Admirals complain about their numbers being reduced as do MPs and boundary changes causing them job insecurity! It's only us riff-raff who have to accept greater efficiency and improved output I suppose.
Sir Paul is obviously quite right about "cherry picking" data. Therefore it is a pity that he did not use the interview to give his opinion on what has been called "the most influential tree in the world."
YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World
http://climateaudit.org/2009/09/30/yamal-the-forest-and-the-trees/
Surprisingly for someone in such an influential position Sir Paul seems to be somewhat ignorant of the history of science. He claimed that if a scientist cherry-picked his data it would end his career. Perhaps he is unaware of the controversy over Millikan's experiment to measure the charge on the electron, for which Millikan got the Nobel Prize.
Robert Andrews Millikan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Andrews_Millikan#Data_selection_controversy
The data that Millikan discarded were probably erroneous so he ended up with the right answer but if a scientist discards data that seems incorrect because its inclusion would produce a result that he "knows" is not true, i.e. a result that would go against mainstream scientific opinion, that opens up a can of worms.
Whether the recent claims that neutrinos can travel faster than light are true or not it is good that the scientists involved made the data available so that other physicists can examine their work for flaws.