phaeton magazine issue 02

32
PHAËTON NEWSLETTER OF THE LONDON HISTORY OF SCIENCE SOCIETY VOLUME 1 ISSUE 2 www.historyofscience.co.uk Plus: Science policy: technocracy or democracy? Astronomy and 18 th -century navigation Event and book reviews Calendar of forthcoming events The use of Nazi research – an ethical dilemma

Upload: nickseeber

Post on 10-Apr-2015

203 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

The second issue of Phaeton, the magazine of the London History of Science Society (http://www.historyofscience.co.uk).

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

PHAËTON

NEWSLETTER OF THE LONDON HISTORY OF SCIENCE SOCIETY

VOLUME 1 ISSUE 2 www.historyofscience.co.uk

Plus:

Science policy: technocracy or democracy?

Astronomy and 18th-century navigation

Event and book reviews

Calendar of forthcoming events

The use of Nazi research – an ethical dilemma

Page 2: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

Inside cover

Page 3: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

3

Editorial 5

Minutes of the inaugural meeting of the Society 6

Photos 8

Recent society events 10

Immoral science: Nazi medical research 12

Calendar of forthcoming events 18

Technocracy or democracy: science policy 20

Clocks, charts and almanacs 24

Book review: ‘The Periodic Table’ 28

Contents

Albert Einstein Photographed by Oren J. Turner (1947)

Page 4: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

4

London History of Science Society

Committee

Julia Flint

President

Nick Seeber

Chairman &

Editor of Phaëton

Hen Crichton

Treasurer

Sam Kuper

Secretary

Rob Melville

Event manager

Michael Nevard

Webmaster

Kat Steger

Campaign director

Page 5: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

5

Editorial Welcome to the second issue of Phaëton – I hope that you will find it absorbing, interesting and entertaining.

During the last few months the London History of Science Society has been very active: we have grown in members, and organised a number of events. Phaëton, however, has suffered due to my busy schedule: more time has passed than I anticipated since the first issue was published. I hope that the quality of writing we feature in this issue will be adequate recompense for the wait.

The cover story, Michael Nevard’s exploration of the ethical problems with using data from Nazi medical research, is a compelling and thought-provoking article which I am sure will stir up passionate debate and differing opinions.

Julia Flint investigates how decision-making for national science policy can be truly democratic, given the general lack in public scientific knowledge and understanding on which I commented in the last issue.

My own article is on maritime navigation in the 18th century – a topic which has been covered in popular science writing before before, but which I hope you will find bears examination nonetheless.

In this issue we also introduce book reviews, inaugurated by Joseph Nevard on Primo Levi’s The Periodic Table.

We also feature reviews of the events the society has organised and attended in the last few months, photos from the launch party, and details of forthcoming events in London over the summer.

Finally, I’m delighted to bring to your attention the new and improved website, where you will find not only digital versions of Phaëton, but also a calendar of forthcoming events, a discussion forum and the latest Society news.

Looking forward to a fascinating summer,

Nick Seeber

London, 15 May 2007

[email protected]

Page 6: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

6

Minutes of the Extraordinary General Meeting of the London History of Science Society

Held on 17 t h November 2006 at 9 .30pm

The Pint Pot , 183 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7PD

Present: Jul ia Fl int – Pres ident Nick Seeber – Chairman

Henriet ta Cr ichton Sam Kuper Rob Melvi l le

Michael Nevard Kat Steger

Late: (none)

Apologies: (none)

Secretary’s note:

The minutes are not presented here in chronological order. During the meet ing, there were several occasions when a number of separate discuss ions were being held simultaneously. For c larity, I have decided to set the precedent of transcribing by subject from the hand-written minutes . The result ing transcript ion then orders the subjects in the most readable fashion. I bel ieve that this process preserves a l l necessary semantic accuracy. Each meet ing ’s minutes are to be agreed at the s tart of the fol lowing meet ing.

Special business

The Pres ident and Chairman welcomed al l present to the inaugural meet ing of the London History of Science Society. Each person present was presented with a copy of Phaëton (vol . 1 , i ssue 1) autographed by the Pres ident and Chairman.

The Pres ident and Chairman agreed that other than themselves , those present were pending members of the Society, possess ing equal r ights to members .

A. Approval of agenda

A vote was not cal led, but no-one objected to the agenda.

B. Approval of previous minutes

This being the inaugural meet ing, the approval o f previous minutes was not on the agenda.

C. Open issues

This being the inaugural meet ing, there were no open issues.

D. New business

D.1. Elect ions of Officers

The Pres ident proposed that Henriet ta Cr ichton should be the Society ’s Treasurer . The Chairman seconded the proposal . An

Page 7: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

7

open vote was held, with al l present in favour of the proposal . In the same way, Rob Melvi l le was elected Events Manager .

The Chairman proposed that Sam Kuper should be the Society ’s Secretary. The Pres ident seconded the proposal . An open vote was held, with al l present in favour of the proposal . In the same way, Michael Nevard was elected Webmaster and Kat Steger was elected Campaign Director .

D.2. Aims, Object ives , Manifesto

The aims of the Society were discussed br ief ly . Al l present seemed broadly in favour of the manifesto published in the f i rs t issue of Phaëton. The proposals of

• publishing Phaëton quarter ly on 15 t h Feb, 15 t h May, etc ,

• forging l inks with the Royal Society, and

• arranging dinner meet ings ,

were supported by al l present .

The Chairman of fered to hold responsibi l i ty for edit ing and publishing Phaëton even i f i t meant rel inquishing h is Chairmanship – though in the end this was not fe l t to be necessary.

No-one was ass igned the task of forging l inks with the Royal Society.

The duty of arranging dinner meet ings was seen to be that of the Events Manager .

D.3. Administrat ion costs , funding and membership fees

( removed on publicat ion)

D.4. Patronage and recruitment

( removed on publicat ion)

D.5 . Cal l for artic les

The Chairman issued a cal l for art ic les to be submitted for publicat ion in the next issue of Phaëton.

E. Any other business

The Secretary proposed that at each meet ing, at least f ive minutes of d iscuss ion should be mandated to be devoted to the history of sc ience. The Pres ident seconded the proposal , and i t was unanimously voted for . A discuss ion on the Hooke fo l io ensued.

F. Agenda for the next meeting

To be set .

Page 8: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

8

Photos from the inaugural event

Page 9: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

9

Page 10: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

10

17 November 2006

Lecture on the Hooke Folio

The president reports: The inaugural event

of the London History of Science Society

was held on Friday 17th November 2007

in a lecture theatre at UCL. The pioneering

members attended an enthralling Royal

Institution lecture given by Lisa Jardine

entitled ‘The Rediscovered Hooke Folio:

What Happened Next?’

As an authoritative Robert Hooke expert,

and author of the popular book, ‘The

Curious Life of Robert Hooke’, Lisa

Jardine was able to offer us a riveting

insight into the history of this newly

discovered folio. The folio was discovered

in a “country house” in “Hertfordshire”

(although a Freudian slip led us to suspect

that its actual location was somewhere

entirely different).

The folio consists of Hooke’s transcripts of

the proceedings of the Royal Society,

copied from the minutes taken by Henry

Oldenburg, his predecessor as secretary

of the Royal Society. These pages are

followed by Hooke’s own rough notes from

his time as secretary. Lisa Jardine

believed that Hooke had removed the

minutes from the official transcripts of the

Royal Society in order to painstakingly

prove, perhaps amongst other things, his

claim to the invention of a pocket watch

before Christian Huygens published his

design in 1675.

By removing the notes from the gaze of

the Royal Society, and in more recent

times generations of Historians of Science,

Hooke shot himself in the foot as no

record remained of his invention, leaving

the priority of Huygens’s watch

unchallenged! The hitherto unseen pages

of the folio have shed light on Hooke’s

claim which, previously been believed to

be unfounded, has been disputed for

centuries.

The lecture closed with some thought-

provoking comments about the ‘business’

of science, the developing of protocols and

standards to which scientists have to

conform, and to which Robert Hooke was

so bad at conforming.

After the lecture, drinks and light

refreshments were served to the audience

at the venue and the members of the

Society had the opportunity to talk to

Professor Jardine. Mr Sam Kuper was

introduced to the members of the Society

by Prof. Jardine and was admitted as a

member forthwith.

Inaugural meeting of the Society

The Society then rejoined to a local

hostelry and held the inaugural meeting of

the Society. The minutes were captured by

the new secretary of the Society, Mr Sam

Kuper, and can be seen on page 7 of this

issue.

Society events

Page 11: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

11

Photos of some of the members can be

seen on pages 8-9. For copies of the

photos please contact the President.

4 February 2007

President’s dinner

The members of the Society were kindly

invited to have dinner with the President at

her London residence. Over a delicious

dinner the history of science was

discussed, ideas for future event proposed

and new friendships made. It was decided

that the next dinner would be hosted by

the Chairman, with a date to be decided.

27 February 2007

In Armour Complete: Practising Safe

Sex in the Eighteenth Century

Famously ‘indelicate’ in his choice of

female company, the diarist James

Boswell enjoyed a lifelong relationship with

‘Signor Gonorrhoea’. Alternating between

bouts of unrestrained licentiousness and

bitter remorse, Boswell's history of

venereal disease was probably typical of

many men and women in Georgian

London.

Natasha McEnroe, Museum Manager of

the Grant Museum, UCL, provided an

entertaining and salutary insight into the

lives of Boswell and his contemporaries.

From sheepskin condoms to mercury

medicines, the Chairman heard how

eighteenth-century Londoners battled the

pox.

5 March 2007

More on the Hooke folio…

Professor Jardine gave a follow-up talk on

the Hooke folio to an audience at the

Cambridge University Library. This was

attended by the Secretary who informed

the society that some progress had been

made in the study of the folio. A report by

the Secretary will follow in a further issue

of Phaëton.

21 March 2007

The Last Man Who Knew Everything:

Thomas Young

Young’s most recent biographer, Andrew

Robinson, gave a talk at the Royal College

of Surgeons on this incredible man – a

pioneer in so many fields: physics,

medicine, linguistics, Egyptology

mathematics, actuarial sciences and

navigation. The Chairman bought a copy

of Robinson’s book – a review will be

forthcoming in the next issue of Phaëton.

Page 12: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

12

Immoral science: Ethical problems posed by Nazi research

Michael Nevard What are the limits of science? In the

journey towards knowledge of the world,

and faced with the innumerable problems

of research, some scientists left behind

any humane or ethical restrictions in

pursuit of results. Perhaps some of the

most horrifying examples of this took place

in Nazi Germany during the Second World

War. At the Nuremburg Trials, twenty-

three doctors and scientists were charged

with war crimes and crimes against

humanity for their role in experiments

carried out on unwilling prisoners in

concentration camps, and participation in

the mass murder which took place there.

For what end was science perverted in this

way? And is it possible for any of the

results to be used by reputable scientists?

During the Second World War, the

German military was faced with a host of

problems concerning its servicemen in

hostile environments. In particular the

Luftwaffe desperately wanted to improve

the survival of its airmen at high-altitude

and after having fallen into the icy waters

of the North Sea. By 1941 the use of

experiments of human subjects to provide

knowledge of these problems was seen as

essential, and the general attitude of

viewing certain groups in society as

expendable lead to the creation of

comprehensive programs of such research

into hypothermia and hypoxia. The work

was organised by the SS under the control

of Heinrich Himmler, and was led by Dr

Georg Weltz a radiologist. Initially the work

experimented on animals but the research

was extended to human subjects, which

were conducted by Dr Sigmund Rascher.

This body of work is perhaps the most

clear example of the brutality and

ruthlessness of the Nazi scientific mindset,

which was also applied to research on

malaria, antibiotics, chemical weapons,

poisons, weapons and surgical

techniques. Due to its strong backing from

the government, detailed documentation

and results have survived and can be

analysed today.

Where does the evidence of these

experiments come from? At the end of the

war, amid jubilation in their home

countries, the Allied forces in Germany

faced the grim task of uncovering the

details of the crimes that had occurred

under Nazi rule. Major Leo Alexander of

the US Army Medical Corps, was given

the task of investigating the so-called

‘scientific research’ into hypothermia which

had been carried out at the concentration

camp Dachau. His 1946 report, “The

Treatment of Shock from Prolonged

Exposure to Cold, Especially in Water”,

also known as the “Alexander Report”,

includes his analyses of both human and

animal experimentation, as well as

information from interviews with some of

the perpetrators. This document, included

as evidence at the Nuremburg Doctors

Trial, provides a clear and dispassionate

Page 13: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

13

account of the atrocities committed in the

acquisition of the results and has proved

to be a controversial document since it

was written. The reason is that, given the

lack of controlled scientific evidence into

hypothermia, reputable scientists have

wanted to cite the report as evidence in

their research. Over time, both the

questionable scientific validity of the

results, and the ethical defensibility of

using information obtained in such an

immoral way, have fuelled a wider debate

about scientific ethics. We shall give a

brief account of what happened at

Dachau, look at the possible scientific

value of the results, and consider some of

the ethical questions they raise.

Tanks Of Ice

By the summer of 1942, the Nazi scientists

began a program of study into

hypothermia using human subjects. Two

principal sets of experiments were

devised: the first, to determine the human

body’s response to freezing water; the

second, to test and evaluate various

rewarming techniques for hypothermia

victims. All of these experiments were

carried out at Dachau concentration camp

in Germany, under the direction of Dr

Rascher.

A wooden tank measuring 2x2x2 metres

was filled with water and ice and

maintained at temperatures between 12°C

and 2.3°C. The experimental subjects

were placed in the tank, sometimes

dressed in the uniform of a German

airman, and sometimes naked. The

subjects’ rectal and skin temperatures

were monitored along with their heart

rates. Both blood and urine was sampled

to test for a range of effects. In the

rewarming experiments various

techniques were tested: rapid rewarming

with a hot bath; body-to-body rewarming;

packing in blankets; vigorous massage of

the whole body; diathermy of the heart

(using a electrical current to heat the heart

tissue), and various chemical stimulators.

The human cost of these experiments is

not easy to quantify. The suffering caused

to individuals was certainly extreme, and

there many fatalities as well as unknown

long-term effects. The Alexander report

stated that 107 experiments were

performed on unconsenting prisoners, of

which at least 13 died. However, Walter

Neff, an assistant to Rascher claimed that

up to 300 subjects were involved with 80

to 90 fatalities. The identities of the

individuals used are not known but it

appears the priority for subject selection Heinrich Himmler

Page 14: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

14

from Dachau’s diverse prisoner population

was: Jews, foreigners, gypsies, criminals,

and political prisoners.

Some evidence was found that the type of

clothing worn by the victim did affect the

cooling process and certain protective

outfits could minimise the danger of

hypothermia. The physical condition of the

victims also effected the rate of cooling

with emaciated subjects experiencing a

faster temperature drop after being

immersed in the water. Violent shivering

and stiffening of the limbs took hold as the

skin temperature dropped rapidly in the

first 5 minutes of exposure, and after 40 to

50 minutes in the tank the face of the

subject turned blue. At a core temperature

of 31°C, consciousness began to cloud

and as the temperature dropped further

the heart beat became ragged and

irregular. Between 25.7°C and 24.3°C the

subject died of cardiac arrest. Of seven

known victims of this method, the total

time of immersion before death was

between 53 and 106 minutes.

The rewarming results indicated that

immersing the victims in a hot bath (40°C

to 50°C) was the most effective way to

treat the hypothermia victims and

particularly to reverse the highly

dangerous ‘afterdrop’. The ‘afterdrop’ was

the phenomena when the victim’s core

temperature continued to drop even after

being removed from the water, explaining

why rescued pilots sometimes died half-

an-hour after being rescued, even after

attempted rewarming. In general the other

techniques were shown to be relatively

ineffective particularly body-to-body

rewarming where, in this case, the victim

was forced to lie next to a nude female

subject.

In early 1943, Rascher moved to

Auschwitz to determine whether the rapid

rewarming method would be successful for

victims of cold-air-induced hypothermia. In

spring 1945 Rascher and his wife were

imprisoned by the SS, and after a failed

escape attempt they were executed just

two weeks before the Allies entered

Dachau. Although the reason for his

capture and death is not known, it is

thought that Himmler, in charge of both the

SS and the scientific program, was trying

to prevent Rascher testifying against him

after the end of the war.

Is it science?

In many cases of unethical and illegal

experiments carried out in the name of

science there is very little recorded

Sigmund Rascher

Page 15: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

15

information that survives the demise of the

perpetrators. This means that the full

horror of the crimes committed and the

true suffering of the victims slips into

unrecorded history. However, in the case

of the Nazi hypothermia research Himmler

himself kept records which were

discovered by Major Alexander even

though the labs themselves had been

completed destroyed before the Allied

troops arrived at the concentration camps.

Since this data was discovered

researchers in hypothermia have used and

referenced the Dachau data. This has in

turn sparked a highly-charged debate

about whether the findings have any

scientific validity, and whether it is right to

reference them in contemporary research

papers. It appears that American military

scientists had little doubt about the validity

of the data that had survived in Himmler’s

possession. Immediately after the war, the

cooling curve from the Dachau results (the

rate at which the core temperature of the

victims fell) was compared to

measurements from US pilots that had

been rescued from cold water. The non-

fatal portion of the Dachau data seemed to

fit well with these other results and so

seen as reasonable. The data were also

used as part of investigations into the

viability of using hypothermia to preserve

the life of the heart during open-heart

surgery. A set of studies on temperature

variation, and some on the cardiovascular

system referenced the Dachau data,

primarily to corroborate particular findings.

Aside from these example of the data

being used, many scientists have had

significant reservations. Some have

argued that Rascher was not a trained

researcher, and since he clearly was a

The gates of the concentration camp at Dachau

Page 16: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

16

sadistic murderer he cannot really be

trusted. However he worked with two main

collaborators Holzloehner and Finke who

did have the required scientific credentials,

and the work seemed to have been used

within the Luftwaffe and Wehrmach in a

way which suggests the Nazi’s had no

problems with the results’ credibility. On

the other hand, Andrew Ivy of the

University of Chicago, who evaluated the

data for the Nuremburg trials, suggested

this greatest of medical tragedies was

compounded by the fact that they added

“nothing of significance to medical

science”. However later he conceded that

some of the data were “obviously good”

and there had been “some very worthwhile

results”.

Doctor Robert Pozos, a specialist in

hypothermia at the University of Minesota,

believes that most of the data obtained

already existed from experiments on

animals, and the experiments could have

been conducted on volunteers by dropping

their core temperature by 2°C or 3°C, with

no risk of death. Recent studies of

rewarming techniques have also

attempted to partially replicate the Dachau

experiments but under safe, controlled and

humane conditions. Rascher’s conclusion

that body-to-body rewarming was

ineffective was corroborated but the

researchers dismissed the Dachau

findings as useless because of the

“emaciated condition of the subjects as

well as questions regarding the protocol

and accuracy of the results”.

Another problem is the difficulty of judging

the Dachau research by modern scientific

standards. At the time, small numbers of

experiments and case studies were

considered sufficient evidence to support a

hypothesis without the requirement for

controlled repetition and statistical analysis

of significance. It is also evident that,

under the pressure of war, experiments

would have been rushed and

documentation limited to the essentials

only. This lack of reported detail does not

show that the methodology was

necessarily shoddy, especially as most of

the researchers’ own papers were

destroyed.

It seems then that, from a utilitarian point

of view, the findings from Dachau did have

some value, and were certainly used for

various worthwhile ends. However, some

people, including relatives of victims, and

survivors, believe that even partially

accepting the data’s validity gives some

kind of acceptance of the Nazi philosophy

that produced it. Conversely, others

believe that if it can be used for some

good end, and particularly if helping to

save lives, then the data should be used in

an appropriate and respectful way. As we

have seen, the findings from Dachau have

already used for various worthwhile

scientific ends, and this cannot be undone.

However this debate is highly relevant to

science as a whole.

Never Again?

In our discussion we have only looked at a

small part of the Nazi experimental

programme; concentration camp inmates

and other unwilling human subjects were

also used to investigate: altitude sickness,

Page 17: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

17

drinking sea water, infectious diseases,

battle injuries and their treatment,

chemical weapons, fertilisation and

sterilisation, and research related directly

to ethnic cleansing policies. It is also

apparent that similarly unethical

programmes have, at various times, been

carried out under other governments

across the world, particularly in countries

at war.

It is useful here to consider how science

should deal with possible contemporary or

future cases of military scientists using

people deemed as ‘expendable’ to further

their governments aims. Consider a

hypothetical future scenario: a repressive

regime is developing biological weapons

and to in order to protect its soldiers it is

also secretly testing antidotes to these

agents on political prisoners sentenced to

death. Given that the scientists involved

have been educated at respected

universities, and have access to current

scientific thinking, it is possible that the

research could be seen as valid with

respect to the latest scientific standards.

Given this, what would be the right thing to

do with a report on this work that fell into

the hands of a right-minded researcher

from an opposing nation? Should she

destroy or ignore the report? or would it be

more ethical to use the results to help

develop vaccines against a possible

forthcoming biological attack? It seems

likely that most people would say the

findings from the unethical source should

be used if it is scientifically valid, cannot

be gained from other ethical sources, and

could have a direct impact on saving lives.

There are, in fact, many real life cases

where the same crucial dilemma is

involved: how should science treat work

that was done unethically. After the

Second World War many German

scientists were taken to the United States

to assist with the arms race against the

Soviet Union, ignoring the fact that some

may have been involved in unethical

experimentation. Today with differing

moral views towards human cloning and

embryonic stem-cell research the same

issue is raised, but without the added

complexity of considering the ethics of

weapons research. If you are a professor

who believes that abortion is a moral

wrong, how can you assess the work of a

colleague who believes the opposite?

What about quoting that research in one of

your own papers?

Inevitably the whole debate over the use

of data from unethical research is

dependent on individuals’ own ethical

codes and on how they view the place of

science in society. It also reflects one’s

position on how far individual’s rights

should be subservient to the greater good.

In the face of war, or great suffering

caused by disease there will always be the

tendency to push aside the limits of what

is acceptable, but some people believe

that any use of results obtained in this way

is not justified, even at the loss of scientific

progress. With the Dachau hypothermia

data it has been used by reputable

scientists, but accompanied with a clear

explanation of how the results were

obtained, and the suffering inflicted on the

innocent victims. Whether even this is

acceptable is up to you.

Page 18: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

18

Calendar

What happened to the polymaths?

Oliver Morton, Andrew Robinson & John Whitfield

Wednesday 16 May 7.00pm (£8/£5)

Lecture Theatre 1, The Royal College of Surgeons of England

Join the News Editor of Nature and this series' speakers to discuss why there are so few modern polymaths, and if there ought to be any at all.

Society visit to the

Foundling Museum

Saturday 9th June 4pm (£5/£4)

40 Brunswick Square, London WC1N 1AZ

The Foundling Museum tells the story of the Foundling Hospital, London's first home for abandoned children and of three major figures in British history: its campaigning founder the philanthropist Thomas Coram, the artist William Hogarth and the composer George Frideric Handel. This remarkable collection of art and social history is now housed in a restored and refurbished building adjacent to the original site of the Hospital, demolished in 1926. Up to a thousand babies a year were abandoned in early 18th-century London. In 1739 Thomas Coram established a “Hospital for the Maintenance and Education of Exposed and Deserted Children” which looked after more than 27,000 children until its closure in 1953. The Foundling Museum tells the story of the foundlings, how they lived and displays the many poignant objects relating to their lives at the Hospital.

The Asiatic

Enlightenments of

British Astronomy

Simon Schaffer

Wednesday 23 May 5.30pm (Free)

Lecture Theatre 1, The Cruciform Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT.

Followed by a reception in the Wilkins North Cloisters

The crises of empire and their impact on our own cultures are high on the contemporary political agenda. The status of western sciences plays a major role in these debates. Some claim that their global dominance demonstrates the supreme value of one kind of knowledge; others that their worldly rule depended on the militant projects of imperialism. Complex encounters between British astronomers and scientists were played out in Bengal where, in 1789, an Arabic translation of Newton’s Principia Mathematica was produced by a Shi’ite scholar and political agent. How and why was this work conducted?

Page 19: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

19

How the media promotes the public

misunderstanding of science

Ben Goldacre

Tuesday 26 June 7.00pm–8.30pm (£8/£5)

Small Hall, Friends Meeting House, Euston Road, London NW1 2BJ

From MMR to the formula for the worst day of the year: every day in the media we are bombarded with miracle cures, hidden threats, amazing breakthroughs, and wacky boffin stories. But is there any evidence behind them?

Often there is none: but we can find patterns in the dirt, reflecting broader themes. If we are charitable, the pace of medical development has changed since the golden age of medicine, and the many smaller, incremental discoveries of modern medicine don't lend themselves so readily to exotic headlines.

But there are also more sinister forces at work. Bizarre and bad science reporting in the media may well be the product of ignorance among journalists, and the need to sell readers to advertisers. But more than that, these stories are often planted by people with clear personal and commercial interests, who exploit the flaws in the media's approach to science for their own gain.

And if the stories weren't so funny, it would all be very upsetting.

Islam and Medicine

Aziz Sheikh, Salim Khan

& Ehsan Masood

Thursday 19 July 2007 7.00pm-8.30pm (Free, but book in advance)

Wellcome Collection, 183 Euston Road, NW1 2BE

How do Islamic-era ideas of the human body compare with Western medical theory and practice? Join a doctor, a Hakim (traditional physician) and a philosopher to explore how two different medical systems are trying to live together in the modern world. What implications do these different views present for us as patients?

Speakers include Aziz Sheikh, Professor of Primary Care Research and Development, University of Edinburgh, Salim Khan, Director, Mohsin Institute, Leicester. The discussion will be facilitated by journalist Ehsan Masood.

Society Summer visit to

the Chelsea Physic

Garden

Date to be confirmed, please check the Society website (£7/£4)

66 Royal Hospital Road, London SW3 4HS

Situated in the heart of London, this 'Secret Garden' is a centre of education, beauty and relaxation. Founded in 1673 by the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries, it continues to research the properties, origins and conservation of over 5000 species.

Page 20: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

20

Science Policy: Technocracy or democracy?

Julia Flint Science policy decisions affect every one

of us. So, why should a government

department decide, for example, which

vaccinations our children should have?

Nick Seeber’s article on popular science

writing in the last issue of Phaëton, alerted

us to the fact that the general public have

limited scientific literacy. They do not

understand enough about the prevalence,

aetiology and prognosis of childhood

diseases to be able to make informed

decisions about vaccinations. In the past

this has led to a ‘technocracy’ where the

experts make the decisions, dismissing

the views of the ‘ignorant and uninformed

public’1. But does this lack of education or

understanding preclude any public

involvement in scientific policy making? I

argue that ‘deliberation democracy’ could

be used to effectively combine informed

scientific opinion with values and beliefs

representative of the population, and

create responsible and respected scientific

policy.

Between 1945 and the 1980’s, the

predominant model for science policy was

the ‘Social Contract for Science’2.

1 Science and Public Policy : from

government to Governance 2 Vannevar Bush ‘Science: The Endless

Frontier’ (Washington: United States Government Printing Office:

Throughout this era peer review alone was

used to regulate science, and the

autonomy of scientists was unchallenged

by those outside the scientific community.

Alongside this, a ‘deficit model’ postulated

that the public did not understand enough

to make science policy decisions, and that

any public resistance to science policy

was due to their misunderstanding of the

science.

Cases of alleged fraud in science in the

1980’s challenged the autonomy of

scientists3. There began to be calls for

greater public scrutiny, as ‘science is too

important to be left only to the scientists’4.

In 1998, Dr. Andrew Wakefield challenged

the technocracy. He published a paper in

‘The Lancet’ suggesting a possible

causative link between the combined

Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR)

vaccination and autism. He concluded that

single vaccines should be given instead,

and in 2002 commented: "What

precipitated this crisis was the removal of

the single vaccine, the removal of choice,

and that is what has caused the furor -

because the doctors, the gurus, are

treating the public as though they are

some kind of moronic mass who cannot

make an informed decision for

themselves." The opinion that the public

should be more involved in scientific

policy-making is now widespread.

http://www.nsf.gov.od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm) 3 E.g. Accusation of David Baltimore, an

MIT Nobel laureate, of deliberately misrepresenting results 4 Department of Trade and Industry (2000)

White Paper on ‘Excellence and Opportunity : A Science and Innovation Policy for the 21

st Century.

Page 21: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

21

Furthermore, ‘unless the public’s values

and attitudes are recognised, respected

and weighted along with scientific and

other factors’5, there will be no public

support of any decisions reached.

Wakefield’s research however, was “fatally

flawed” 6 and ten of the thirteen authors

have since retracted their published

interpretations. But official statements and

further research dismissing his claims

could do nothing to relieve many mothers’

doubts and concerns. Understandably,

vaccination rates dropped considerably. Dr

Wakefield may have thought he was giving

parents choice, but ‘expert’ opinions were

conflicting and the average parent lacked

the scientific literacy required to analyse

the papers for themselves. How could a

parent know who to believe or trust?

5 House of Lords Select Committee on

Science and Technology’s report, ‘Science and Society’, 2000 6

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3510721.stm

In an environment of mistrust of expert

opinion, such as that created by the MMR

fiasco, there is a greater risk that activists

might ‘seize control of decisions on their

own terms’, and their unfounded

arguments might hold greater credibility

with the public7. Numerous groups and

websites currently proclaim the evils of

vaccination, reaching a wide audience to

whom these ‘expert’ opinions are just as

credible as those of the mainstream

medical profession.

Even now, after Wakefield has withdrawn

his statements and been discredited by

the medical profession, vaccination clinics

are full of mothers asking if the MMR

vaccination will make her child autistic.

Clearly parents require more explanation

about the vaccination policy, and

reassurance that their values and beliefs

7 Sheila Jasanoff ‘Technologies of

Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science

Page 22: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

22

are understood and have been taken into

account by the ‘experts’. Evidently flooding

them with options, without providing the

education with which to make informed

choices, is not the answer.

Of course, every parent has the right to

refuse vaccinations, and so it could be

argued that it is up to individual parents to

satisfy themselves that they have made

the right decision. However, we have

already heard how policy decisions lead to

restrictions of choices, exemplified by the

withdrawal of the single Measles, Mumps

and Rubella vaccines. Furthermore it

takes great courage for a scientifically

illiterate parent to completely ignore the

strong recommendations of a medical

professional. I therefore believe that the

public needs more than just choices about

the extent to which they follow policy; they

need input into the creation of the policy.

Collecting votes from the whole public (for

example by a referendum) is the only way

to truly reflect the views of the public.

However, we have already seen an

example of the public having inadequate

scientific expertise to make such

decisions. Education is needed before the

public take any responsiblity for science

policy. Secondly, although it is obvious

that the public are able to inform

themselves when it is in their interests, for

example during times of national crisis or

when considering vaccination of their own

child, there are plenty of scientific policy

decisions that do not enter the individual’s

consciousness or concern. A currently

childless man may not see the need to

become informed about the MMR

vaccination: not only because he does not

see how it immediately affects him, but

also because he realises that his vote

counts so little amongst the millions of

voters – an example of so-called ‘rational

ignorance’8. Such a man might thus be

swayed easily by advertising or mass

opinion (‘tyranny of the majority’) and

would be unlikely to deliberate on his

decision before voting in a referendum.

Finally, it would be practically impossible

to organise serious deliberation by the

whole public and referenda on every topic.

Although this is the only way that the

whole public could be driven to reach

informed opinions, it clearly would not

work in practice.

So we have seen that both extremes – on

the one hand a technocracy, on the other

the involvement of the whole public – have

serious limitations with regards to scientific

policy making. But perhaps there is a

halfway house, a compromise that could

instil elements of democracy into science

policy decisions, without compromising

their veracity. Deliberative democracy has

been proposed as a solution to this

problem. It aims to include the views and

values of the public in science policy

without holding a referendum for the whole

public. Proponents of the process see its

origins in ancient Greece: in Athens there

was no place to gather together the whole

population for debate. Therefore a group

of citizens, chosen by lot, would debate

the issues on behalf of the public. In his

paper, ‘Deliberative Democracy’, James

8 Anthony Downs, ‘An economic theory of

democracy’

Page 23: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

23

Fishkin uses three metaphors to defend

the principles of deliberative democracy –

the filter (deliberation to filter out

indefensible views), the mirror (political

equality as the group is representative)

and the mob (no tyranny of the majority as

debate is kept dispassionate) 9. The

tendency towards rational ignorance is

also removed as the vote of each

individual matters more. The decision

reached by the group is assumed to reflect

the decision that the entire population

would have reached had they deliberated

in this way. Policy makers then have the

chance to promote this representative

informed opinion rather than choosing

between following uninformed and

unreflective public opinion (no filter) or

ignoring public opinion entirely and

following their own single informed opinion

(no mirror).

It seems to me that the public would be

happier to co-operate with science policy

and follow mainstream expert advice if

they knew that some like-minded

individuals had had the opportunity to

assess and discuss all the available

evidence, and that the values and beliefs

used to make the decision reflected not

just scientists but the population as a

whole. Perhaps if a consensus conference

had been held for the MMR vaccine

debate, parents would have respected the

resulting policy and the vaccination

programme would not have been dealt

9 James Fishkin, ‘Deliberative Democracy’

in R.L. Simon (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Social and Political Philosophy’ (Oxford: Blackwell), pp 221 - 238

such a blow by statistically insignificant

and inappropriately interpreted research.

Page 24: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

24

Clocks, charts and almanacs: 18th century navigation

Nick Seeber

During the 18th century, the colonial

expansion of the major European powers

(Britain, France, Germany and others) put

a premium on navigational expertise that

would allow successful trade and conquest

across the globe. In particular, determining

longitude whilst at sea was seen by the

British government as an especially

relevant problem which justified vast

investment to find a solution through any

reliable means. In addition, accurate

astronomical observations both on sea

voyages and at home were critical: these

allowed, respectively, a charting of the

globe and the creation of nautical

almanacs, both essential for the

establishment of a successful maritime

empire. At the same time, as astronomy

served navigation, navigation was being

used by astronomers: for example,

observations of the transit of Venus were

the purpose of several simultaneous

voyages in 1761 under the auspices of the

Royal Society of London (of which more

later).

Deficiencies in navigation had been

brought into sharp relief in Britain by the

Shovel disaster of 1707, when four ships

and two thousand lives were lost in the

English Channel. In the public uproar

following this tragedy, particular

importance was placed on finding a

solution to the problem of longitude: that

is, discovering the distance East or West

of a meridian such as Greenwich or Paris.

In theory, this is a fairly simple problem, as

it only requires precise knowledge of the

time difference between the meridian and

the current location10

; but early 18th

century reality was that sea-borne

chronometers were too inaccurate, and

using astronomical observations to tell the

time required a predictive astronomy (ie

knowing exactly where stars and planets

would be at a precise time in the future)

which was at that time inadequate. Thus,

maintaining an accurate knowledge of

meridian time presented a challenging

problem. Stimulus for its solution was

provided by the Longitude Act of 1714,

which offered lucrative prizes for

techniques which would allow the reliable,

accurate and practical measurement of

longitude at sea, administered by the

‘Longitude Board’. The brilliant work of the

self-taught Yorkshire clockmaker George

10

Longitude (distance East or West of an

established meridian):

Since the earth performs one complete rotation

per day, 1 day = 1440 minutes

= 1 revolution of the earth

= 360° degrees of longitude

Therefore, 4 minutes = 1 degree of longitude

So if ‘local noon’ (when the sun is highest in the

sky, measured using a sextant) is at 1.55 pm

according to a chronometer set to Greenwich

time, you are 115 minutes or 28° 45’ West of

the Greenwich meridian.

Latitude (distance North or South of the

Equator) can be calculated from a

measurement of how far the sun is from the

horizon at ‘local noon’ and does not require a

chronometer.

Page 25: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

25

Harrison – “the lone genius who solved the

greatest scientific problem of his day” – in

building immensely accurate individual

marine chronometers has been publicised

in popular science writing – most notably

Dava Sobel’s ‘Longitude’ (1996).

It has been argued, though, that the

compilation of accurate lunar and celestial

almanacs under the aegis of the Longitude

Board was of far greater value to

navigation during the latter half of the 18th

century, and I am inclined to feel that this

is justified. An almanac allowed repeated

corrections to be made to even an inferior

chronometer by frequent astronomical

observations, resulting in acceptable

accuracy whilst avoiding the cost and time

required to construct and care for a

exquisitely constructed one-of-a-kind

mechanism that required no adjustments

during a prolonged sea voyage. However,

the idea that there was a binary ‘either/or’

struggle between chronometers and

almanacs during the mid-18th century is a

naïve and erroneous reading of a more

complex situation: the reality is that both

components were required to construct a

workable solution that would benefit British

naval and mercantile interests. The

astronomical component of this solution

was the measurement of ‘lunar distances’.

The motion of the moon is comparatively

faster than the apparent motion of the

fixed stars, which allows the moon to be

used as a clock if its motion can be

predicted in advance and detailed in

tables. To do this needs three things:

sufficiently complete tables of celestial

observation; an accurate instrument for

measuring angles between the moon and

a celestial point of reference from aboard

a ship; and mathematical equations to

predict the motion of the moon in the

future. The exhaustive, accurate and long-

term observations of the Astronomer

Royal John Flamsteed provided the frame

of fixed stars in the heavens, whilst the

reflecting quadrant of John Hadley allowed

sufficiently accurate observations to be

made. Finally, in 1755, James Bradley,

another Astronomer Royal, compared the

tables made by the German

mathematician Tobias Mayer using

Eulerian equations with his own

observations, and found them to be

adequate for the purposes of navigation.

This set in motion a British effort to

develop a nautical almanac, which was

accomplished through the work of Nevil

Maskelyne, who tested Mayer’s tables on

several voyages and later implemented

the production of the subsequently annual

Nautical Almanac and Astronomical

Ephemeris, a publication which allowed

reliable and consistent measurement of

longitude to an accuracy of less than 1

degree.

In real terms, however, the contribution of

astronomy to navigation was far more than

providing the material for almanacs. Being

able to know fixed positions on the globe’s

surface allowed more accurate geography

to be performed, and in turn enhanced the

performance of other endeavours, such as

cartography. Writers have argued that the

ship can be considered an eighteenth

century instrument of discovery, as it

shaped the ways in which European

voyagers interacted with the locations that

Page 26: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

26

they visited. In particular, the way Cook

charted the Pacific Islands is very strongly

influenced by his method of sailing around

the islands whilst triangulating the

distances which separated points on the

land and constructing a cohesive map

from these data, combined with

measurements of latitude and longitude at

certain locations. These “marks on maps”

could be made even more precise with

observations of eclipses or transits (which

could be used to determine a very precise

‘local time’). The charting of the oceans

which occurred during the late 18th

century was another product of astronomy,

aiding navigation and, as a consequence,

the travels of Europeans.

Nevil Maskelyne

Expeditions, too, made important

observations and gathered data which was

physically impossible to obtain without

travel. The prime example of this

phenomenon is the expedition led by Nevil

Maskelyne to observe and measure the

transit of Venus across the face of the sun.

This would allow the measurement of a

quantity which was at the heart of

planetary astronomy: the distance of the

Sun from the Earth. By measuring the

apparent differences in angle which

Mercury made with the Sun at different

locations across the world, a numerical

value could be given to this ‘constant’.

Multiple expeditions were equipped with

instruments and sent to various points on

the globe, to maximise the chances of

obtaining useful data; a vital ploy as the

transit only occurred twice every 113

years.

Maskelyne’s expedition to the island of St.

Helena was not an unqualified success,

due to the cloudy weather which he

experienced, as he recounted to Lord

Macclesfield in a letter to the Royal

Society. However, he did obtain several

measurements of the transit, which he

relayed in his letter, apologising in addition

that he had not made an accurate

measurement of the longitude of the

location from which he made his

observations. In any case, that an

expedition was sent to make this

observation is very interesting. As

Maskelyne stated:

“I cannot conclude, my Lord, without

making one remark, that if the late noble

Dr. Halley were now alive, he could not

receive greater pleasure from seeing the

observation of the transit of Venus

undertaken by astronomers of different

nations, conformably to his proposal, than

from finding it so warmly espoused by your

Lordship, and the Royal Society, to whom,

Page 27: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

27

as a perpetual body, whose care it would

always be to watch over the interest and

advancement of science, he particularly

recommended it.”

Treating the practice of expeditionary

observations as an essential component of

astronomy demonstrates how great the

value of navigation was: it allowed a virtual

extension of the eyes of the astronomer in

London or Paris to anywhere on the globe,

in the same way that 18th century

collectors could delegate the task of

collecting specimens to others who had

been trained and thus would be

appropriate witnesses of ‘matters of fact’ in

distant locations.

In the eighteenth century, a complex and

reciprocal relationship emerged between

the practices of astronomy and navigation

which effected changes in the ways both

the world and the heavens were

visualised. Centralised astronomers and

distributed navigators formed a network of

contacts who acted for each others mutual

benefit, controlled by patronage from the

state or natural philosophical societies.

The result of this cooperation was the

establishment of a reliable framework

which the state could use to its

commercial advantage, whilst the new

planetary knowledge benefited the

discipline of astronomy. With reference to

Britain, the navigational advances directly

led to the pattern of conquest and the

subsequent establishment of a global

empire linked by maritime routes and

guaranteed by naval force. In some ways,

then, Maskelyne’s Almanac, not George

Harrison’s marvellous chronometer, was

the basis on which the British Empire was

built.

Page 28: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

28

Book Review

Joseph Nevard

Primo Levi - The Periodic Table

(1975, Italian)

Trans. Raymond Rosenthal, 1984

© Penguin 1995

Literature and science have rarely met

happily: the gulf between them seeming as

deep as that between fantasy and fact.

There are of course exceptions. The

essays of Francis Bacon are read for their

literary merit, for example, while Tom

Stoppard and Thomas Pynchon, among

others, have shown a rare ability to

translate scientific theory into drama and

fiction respectively. The problem

presumably lies in the mutual distrust

which exists between the sciences and the

arts combined with the all-consuming

nature of either enterprise. The average

novelist is unlikely to see the relevance of

quantum theory to her explorations of

‘human nature’ while the mathematician is

unlikely to see the point of using mere

words to communicate that which is more

clearly expressed in elegant equations.

Primo Levi is best known as a writer - ‘If

This Is A Man’, his memoir of Auschwitz, is

one of the seminal works of Holocaust

literature - but he was a working chemist

throughout his life. ‘The Periodic Table’ is

a collection of autobiographical fragments

(with a few short fictions) organised

around Mendeleev’s organisation of the

elements. In his words, it is more precisely

“a micro-history…of a trade and its

defeats, victories and miseries”. As a

result his personal life is almost completely

passed over, and even the interruption of

Auschwitz is not given special

prominence. Instead he describes long

hours of painstaking analysis, failed

experiments and occasionally the

solutions to tricky chemical problems. The

book also contains the author’s reflections

on broader concerns and it is thus that is

makes its claim on the realm of literature.

Levi’s structuring conceit, in which each

chapter is named after an element, proves

surprisingly flexible and provides the key

to the text. Chemistry is a metaphor for

life. But Levi is to good a writer to stop

there. Like all great metaphors, this one

can be reversed - life is a metaphor for

chemistry - and ultimately collapses:

chemistry is life / life is chemistry. This is

fully expounded in the last chapter,

Page 29: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

29

‘Carbon’, which imaginatively traces the

journey of a carbon atom from limestone

to falcon to wine, etc. This exhilarating tale

reveals the truth that chemists know,

despite all the pontifications of

philosophers: life is simply a question of

this one humble element.

The young Levi regards the Periodic Table

as “poetry” and chemistry as “the missing

link between the world of words and the

world of things”. (Words concern Levi. On

one occasion he pursues etymologies with

the same rigour in which he pursues his

analyses. The analogy is implicit but

clear.) Chapters spin off from the

associations of each particular element to

a more metaphorical level. Some of these

connections are conventional - mercury

naturally leads to alchemy, and lead is the

metal of death - but many are deft and

unexpected. Gold, for example, might be

expected to tell a tale of the evil of avarice

like Chaucer’s ‘Pardoner’s Tale’, but for

Levi it represents the dream of freedom

whilst imprisoned as a partisan. Heavy

uranium, generally carrying the weight of

apocalyptic destruction, here serves as the

catalyst to an airy meditation on self-

delusion.

Chemistry also provides political lessons.

Growing up in Mussolini’s Italy, Levi sees

in his science a riposte to the “stench of

Fascist truths which tainted the sky”. Real

science, “clear and distinct and verifiable

at every step” stands, firm as matter itself,

as the bulwark against Fascism’s pseudo-

science of “unproved affirmations” and

outright lies. A student experiment to

produce zinc sulphate reveals that pure

zinc will not react with sulphuric acid; an

impurity is needed. As a Jew Levi was,

according to the prevailing dogma, just

such an impurity. Yet the impurity is vital

for the reaction, for a change to take

place: “in order for the wheel to be turned,

for life to be lived, impurities are needed”,

and even soil must contain impurities to be

fertile. This moral is, of course, perennial.

As multi-culturalism comes increasingly

under attack it might be worth considering

that chemical reactions are often violent

but without them there is no change, only

the stasis which is death.

Further to this, Levi later speaks of matter

as often manifesting “a cunning intent

upon evil and abstraction, is if it revolted

against the order dear to man”. Thus his

trade teaches him (and us) the folly of

hubris and the necessity of tolerating flaws

and imperfections both in chemical

processes and in human beings. To draw

such a counter-intuitive lesson from the

study of a strictly rational and supposedly

predictable science is typical of Levi’s

wisdom and his ability to compound the

concerns of literature and science. It is not

the depth of his moral and political

observations but his ability to reach this

profundity without neglecting his original

intention “to convey to the layman the

strong and bitter flavour” of his trade which

is his greatest achievement as a writer.

Page 30: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

30

Visit the website!

www.historyofscience.co.uk

Recently re-launched, it features:

• Downloadable version of Phaëton – so you can tell your friends all about us

• News about the society and event reviews

• A calendar of forthcoming visits, lectures and society events with a relevant theme

(requires registration / login)

• A discussion forum (also requires registration / login)

Pay it a visit some time and let us know what you think either at the website or via

[email protected]

Page 31: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

31

Page 32: Phaeton magazine Issue 02

32

www.historyofscience.co.uk