Last week the radio show that I co-host, Atheists Talk, had Lawrence Krauss on the air. In preparing for that show I stumbled across an NPR radio interview in which Ira Flatow was speaking with Dr. Krauss about his newest book A Universe From Nothing. One of the audience questions was this:
CALLER: With all due respect, and I find what you’re saying fascinating, but where is the practicality for us on Earth? What is it doing for us today or even in the very near future?
How often do we hear this? “Why are you studying x, y, z?” “What could that study possibly have to do with anything?” “You want to do what to a mouse?”
The payoff for certain avenues of exploration is not always clear to us if they deal with a subject or field outside of our experience and understanding. This goes double for those who don’t have an appreciation for science, who don’t understand the gazillion steps and painstakingly slow pace that scientific methodology sometimes requires, who don’t understand science for science’s sake.
I haven’t been able to get Dr. Krauss’s response out of my head. I want to memorize it so I can use it for my elevator speech whenever someone asks, “Why does that matter?”
KRAUSS: Well, you know, it’s a good question. And I put it back to you. I’d say, well, what does a Bach cantata or a Picasso painting do for us? I think the point is we are human beings, and one of the most wonderful aspect of being human beings is being creative and asking questions and trying to understand our place in the universe. And it is absolutely true that understanding the beginning and end of the universe is not going to produce a better toaster. But I’m always amazed that people – for me, one of the great virtues of science is it’s a cultural activity, like art and literature and music. It enhances the experience of being human, and it addresses the questions that I’m sure you’ve asked about your own existence.
And if we can get new insights into our own existence and our place in the cosmos, well, that’s what happens when we attend a good play or see a good painting. It gives us a new perspective of our place in the universe. And I happen to think that is worth it for its own sake. Plus, I happen to think these ideas are among the most remarkable and astounding ideas human beings have ever come up with. And we owe it to – we scientists owe it to the people to try and explain what’s happening, and I think they enhance the quality of our existence. And you know, it’s not just technology. I think that’s what is really important. Now, of course, there are always side benefits of doing – of every time we build a new big machine like the Large Hadron Collider and push the limits of technology, we develop tools that later on are used in society. But I don’t think we should justify this remarkable adventure just because of the side effects.
Science can’t be reduced to only monetary or material gain. Well, no…it shouldn’t be reduced to only monetary or material gain. Speaking as an industry scientist, let me tell you science can be focused on the bottom line, but in my experience that’s rarely a happy or motivational atmosphere for a scientist to find herself in. Innovation and discovery comes from dreaming and playing around with variables and making mistakes and learning new information.
So no, science doesn’t always give you a better toaster. But it can give us a better understanding of ourselves and the universe in which we find ourselves. And that’s exciting.
6 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Cory Albrecht (@Bytor)
March 8, 2012 at 13:30 (UTC -5) Link to this comment
I think the best example to use what basic research (i.e. the stuff that doesn’t immediately lead to some practical application) is the lasing effect.
It was 20 years from the discovery of the effect (1953), first done with microwaves rather than visible light, until and optical fiber of high enough purity was developed to need lasers (1973) and the barcode scanner was introduced into grocery stores (1974). Even then it wasn’t until the CD player in 1982 that lasers became ubiquitous outside of labs or telecommunications long distance switching offices.
It’s not the turning of scientific discovers into practical applications which drives scientific progress, it’s the basic science which inspires somebody to do other research which then inspires a third person, a fourth, a fifth and so on. The practical applications are just the icing on a very yummy cake.
slc1
March 13, 2012 at 10:50 (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Relative to the laser, it should be pointed out that the basic science behind the laser, stimulated emission, was first identified in an obscure theoretical paper by an employee of the Swiss Patent Office in 1905. I don’t think that the identity of this individual is any mystery.
This is a textbook example of a seemingly innocuous piece of theoretical research having enormous consequences.
oldebabe
March 8, 2012 at 16:42 (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Whatever happened to finding things out just because one wants to know? That applies to theoretical sciences as well as day-to-day living. ISTM it’s the never-ending search in every aspect of knowledge that advances humanity, and he individual as a result, on every level.
Kevin
March 9, 2012 at 10:07 (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Not just a Bach cantata or a Picasso painting.
What does the entire entertainment industry do for us today? What do spectator sports do for us as a species — other than waste a couple of hours of our time either on the couch or at the game?
No one asks this questions of sports figures, singers, actors, playwrights, the developer of Facebook, and on and on. And the ultimate benefits of all entertainments are the same — nothing but amusements to distract us.
Society values amusements above all other aspects of modern life. And the leave nothing behind of intrinsic value. A well-played basketball game ends, leaving nothing but an empty arena.
Scientists like Krauss are answering some of the most fundamental questions that can be asked. What’s left behind is knowledge. Something far more precious and enduring.
Wittsend
March 10, 2012 at 21:04 (UTC -5) Link to this comment
Perhaps we need to to encourage unrestricted scientific exploration for the same reason that the biosphere is better off with a large amount of genomic diversity. The application of knowledge gained through research is analogous to the evolutionary process. In both cases, you never know when a successful combination of information (based on the ecosystem or the cultural environment) will occur. But you increase your chances when you have more “options” (genetic variability or scientific knowledge) to select from. Natural selection is so ubiquitous.
Is it any wonder that the most frequent complaints against freedom of inquiry/research also comes from the most strident of religious zealots?
“Throughout history, every mystery, EVER solved, has turned out to be NOT MAGIC!” – Tim Minchin
Atheism is a non-prophet organization
Aquaria
March 11, 2012 at 03:02 (UTC -5) Link to this comment
No one asks this questions of sports figures, singers, actors, playwrights, the developer of Facebook, and on and on. And the ultimate benefits of all entertainments are the same — nothing but amusements to distract us.
Fractally wrong.
The kind of person who would ask the question the caller did does think that the arts waste time. Krauss was all wrong to emphasize the wonders of Bach cantatas or Picasso paintings for this reason.
This numbskull probably thinks the only things that are useful to know are accounting, finance, marketing, computers, engineering, and maybe–maybe–architecture, teaching and medicine. Everything else is a waste of time to the extreme pragmatists that seem to be the default for the average nitwit American.
And if you think the sciences get crapped on, try being in the humanities. Nobody gets less respect and more of the “what are you studying that for?”/”want some fries with that” sneering than the humanities–other than the fine arts.
But I’m going to school for me in the fall, not to have a career, so I’m going to enjoy my Asian Studies major with the minor in Art History, and anybody who doesn’t like it can bite me. If it gets me a job later, great. If it doesn’t, oh well. I’m going to have a lot of fun learning what interests me–and what I think is important. Why would I care what a bunch of moron Americans think is important, anyway? They’re morons. The whole point of going to college is to get as far away from being one of those as possible.