Science still has the power to take us all by surprise. Whether it’s the stunning observations of light bending around a black hole, or the discovery of new species of human ancestors, atmospheric physicist Philip Campbell is still regularly awed by breakthroughs in the scientific world.
“We are still in the thrall of Albert Einstein, and his predictive success continues to hold us spell-bound,” says Campbell, who served as editor-in-chief of one of the most influential peer reviewed scientific journals on the planet, Nature, and is now the editor-in-chief of publishing company Springer Nature. Knighted for his contribution to science, he has also served on many key committees dealing with science and its impacts in society in the UK, Europe and the United States, and has worked on mental health issues with the charity MQ and the World Economic Forum.
As part of our Scientists Meets the Media series, Campbell spoke to WIRED about the rising threat of antibiotic resistance, his increasing sympathy for vegan diets and why journal editors shouldn’t be left to police scientific ethics alone.
Philip Campbell on climate change
Guilty! Although I bought a Prius a few years ago, I still haven't fully insulated my house and I haven't replaced my oil-fired boiler. And please, bring on post-meat meat. For those of us who love the taste of lamb, the need is urgent for lab-grown replacements.
My taste buds are admittedly undistinguished, but the samples of artificial beef I've tasted have been just as good as the original. Alas, I love environmentally-damaging cheese too, for which replacements have yet to prove themselves. Changing our diets would make a major impact on emissions. One of my family is a vegan. From my original position of respectful sympathy for what she was missing, I now seem to be heading her way.
On the rise of antibiotic resistance
It's like Brexit politics – a monster against which you feel powerless. You can only hope that people who can make a difference suddenly find the incentives to act for the greater good. The latest horror was presented at a research meeting last month, revealing high levels of antibiotics in the world's rivers.
On ethics in science
After years of unproductive talk talk talk, genome-editing scientists at the turn of the year got a wake-up call from a clinic in China, where two babies were born with manipulated genomes. These were quickly condemned as ethically unacceptable and biologically misguided, and Chinese authorities have cracked down.
It's not clear to me that a key category of humankind – people who by conventional standards have been considered disabled from birth – are engaged in the conversations, but at least the WHO and research academies are pushing forward the ethical discussions with renewed urgency. We research editors are doing our bit in refereeing the ethics of papers submitted to us, and rejecting on that basis alone sometimes. But we also need the community and society to provide the larger ethical and policy frameworks.
On the need for more diversity in science
Recently I was a member of a prize-awarding committee including a visual artist, an architect, two scientists, a historian and journalist, and a philanthropy leader. The unusual diversity of expertise and cultures brought a lot to the sense of confidence in the outcome, in selecting from very worthy candidates. Every committee I have ever sat on has been all the more stimulating and all the wiser, the greater the diversity of its members' backgrounds. I believe that the same is true in workplaces.
On the best and worst of today’s science
The worst of today's science, when it isn't the fakery of sociopaths, comes from unacceptable pressures on young researchers and inadequate support in universities for a robust research culture – though many people are trying to make things better.
As always, the 'best' science takes you by surprise. Even though they broke none of the accepted laws of nature, the discoveries of exoplanets, of gravitational waves, of 'Hobbits' on Flores, of the ozone hole – these were breath-taking moments when it was great to be a part of the research community.
And even better when the use of great knowledge and great creativity totally up-ends our thinking about those fundamental laws. I cannot avoid a cliché, because he's a cliché for good reason: Albert Einstein continues to amaze. Over 100 years after his general theory of relativity, and even though we know it's inadequate to explain everything it deals with, its predictive success continues to hold us spellbound.
Witness the recent observations of light bending around a massive black-hole at the centre of another galaxy – a fabulous accomplishment in itself, providing yet another validation of one of the greatest intellectual leaps in human history.
Campbell was one of the guests at Scientists Meet the Media at the Science Museum in London, organised with the Royal Society, sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Innovation and supported by the Association of British Science Writers and WIRED.
This article was originally published by WIRED UK
