"You can argue with the Geologist, but not with the rocks!"

On 28^th June 2011  Portcullis House welcomed an odd looking bunch, as hundreds of scientists descended for the annual Parliamentary Links Day. Run by The Royal Society for Chemistry it’s success, I suspect, is due to the insistent nature of Stephen Benn (son of Tony), who chairs the event. Delegates included fellows from several scientific societies, various MP’s and other politically minded people eager to hear presentations on this year’s theme of Global Challenges.

Rt Hon John Bercow, Speaker of the House, introduced the event with an impression of Tony Benn (www.rsc.org)

The science presenters focused on a specific Global Challenge related to their subject. Dr Jim Wild echoed Andrew Miller MP that “ Astronomy is the most inspirational subject”. Then joked he’d incite mass panic, as he explained solar flares could hit during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics. “At the centre of climate change is Biology,” we were told by Dr Mark Downs, as he covered the various biological topics, from international trade to waste management, which can be considered Global Challenges. We were then entertained by Dr Brian Lovell OBE, President of the Geological Society, with his photo albums of past field trips. These acted as evidence that carbon capture and storage is effectively reducing carbon in the atmosphere. Interestingly, on a day devoted to establishing links, there was little mention about collaborations between the disciplines.

Brian Lovell explains how analysis of rocks led to his deep concern about the buildup of carbon dioxide and its consequences for humans and their planet. (youtube)

In between the scientists, the politicians explained ways science and policy could work together to tackle these Global Challenges. Dr Julian Huppert MP, explained why “basing decisions on evidence”, is a scientific reflex which should be run out across parliament. Whilst Chi Onwurah MP insisted only partnerships between the public and private sectors will make the most of innovative research, and a difference to the global challenges we face. It was continually noted that in order to fix global issues, we need to collaborate around the globe. Rt Hon David Willetts MP made a very sensible point, “we now we have a scientific advisor in every political department”. Since politicians are given the best access to foreign departments, the Haldene Principle makes it hard for these advisors to forge international links into joint scientific research. Although, he couldn’t answer my question on whether or not this might be reformed, as he had to run off, probably to prepare for that evening’s Newsnight.

Whilst all of the speakers agreed on the need to enthuse the “new generation of scientists”, only Prof. Lorna Casselton mentioned better science communication. The sudden rise to fame of the Rock Star Physicist, Dr Brian Cox OBE is an example of how packaging a scientific message in the right way can, and will, enthuse a classroom filled with potential Pasteur’s and Darwin’s. Examples from today, like Bryan Lovell and Imran Khan proved that being educated in the methods and tricks of science communication can make science far easier to understand and much more accessible to both new generations and decision makers.

Prof Brian Cox OBE- Former D:Ream keyboardist turned avid Science Communicator

Despite the scientists ignoring interdisciplinary links and placing their own subjects at the heart of the challenges faced, Parliamentary Links Day 2011 could be considered a great success. It brought less well-known actions of groups such as CASE, and research of less well discussed topics, such as weather models, to the forefront of discussion. However, perhaps next year the topic of communicating science could be the theme of the Day.

Congratulations NASA, it's a ... Rover?

This week the Mars Science Laboratory completed the first part of it's mission, flying from its birthplace in California to it's launch-pad in Florida. Here it will take it's first steps on a year long flight to Mars. NASA's latest prodigy arrived late on Wednesday night, weighing 7500 pounds and with all 3 of it's cameras, 4 spectrometers and 5 other sensors perfectly intact. 

Mars Rover Curiosity, Left Side View (NASA/JPL-Caltech)

The last expedition to Mars proved a huge success, mostly down to the Spirit Rover. Spirit's heroic contribution to the exploration of Mars is to be commemorated in a service later this year, after Nasa chose to pull the plug on the ailing old timer on 24th May 2011. Spirit beautifully surpassed all expectations by running 5 3/4 years longer than her originally intended 90 sol (1 sol = 24hr 37 minutes) expedition. She even transmitted data and collected samples despite having to traverse backwards, dragging an injured front wheel in her wake! 

 A video from NASA reflecting on Spirit's Triumphs on Mars 

MSL's rover Curiosity is bigger, heavier and can travel further than Spirit and her brother Opportunity. Although Curiosity will still retain many of their more successful features she will also have equipment to gather samples of rock and soil and be able to distribute them to onboard analaytical instruments. And, unlike previous rovers, Curiosity is powered by the radioactive decay of plutonium. This means she can collect data for a full year, where previous, solar powered rovers, went into hibernation during winter months.

It's intended launch later this year, is a shimmering star on the horizon for Mars scientists, representing the first leap into a new decade of space exploration. The mission goal is to determine whether the landing site and surrounding areas have ever (or still can) support life. It also aims to prepare for human exploration by demonstrating the ability to land a very large and heavy rover, very precisely.

Curiosity's Science Instruments showing the 4 spectrometers and 3 cameras on board.

The Spacecraft has been designed to steer itself into landing in a similar series of moves that the astronauts landing a rocket would use, then slowly lower the rover into place by tether. This has made several, previously inaccessible, landing sites available by increasing the accuracy of landing by 5 times. However, the landing could still be anywhere within an area of 20 kilometers (see ellipse in image below). 

Image of Gale Crater showing 20km wide possible landing ellipse and layered mound in centre (NASA/JPL image)

The landing site will be chosen later this week by a crack team of scientists, choosing a spot which fulfills these criteria:

 i) Evidence that the area may once have, or still can, support life

 ii)Meeting the safety requirements and engineering problems faced by landing a rover

iii) Allow the rover to operate and perform its duties immeadiately

Out of four options the Gale Crater was today tipped by Nature to be favourite. The 3.5 billion year old crater is named after Walter Frederick Gale, an australian banker who became a renowned astronomer after discovering several comets and describing the canals on Mars. The crater has long been topic of discussion due to the layered mound in the centre. Suspected to be layered clay minerals with alternating layers of sulfur and oxygen-bearing minerals above, this peak could have formed due to periodic flooding and be protecting complex organic minerals indicative of microbial life. There are also several channels carved into the sides of the mound by water erosion which would provide ideal cross-sections for the rover to analyse. The Gale Crater is competing against Eberswalde Crater and Holden Crater who's river delta sediments may hide organic lakebed deposits. Whilst Mawrth Vallis, the mineralogists favourite as it contains some of the oldest and most complex rock sequences on Mars, appears to have come in last in a site selection workshop last month.

Layers visible in Gale Crater- Image taken by HiRise (NASA/JPL image library)

NASA is expected to make the decision next Friday and announce which landing site has won the week after, the rover will then remain incubated until it's launch from the Kennedy Space Centre at the end of the year. Congratulations NASA!

Cold shoulder for Global Warming

Tim Oates, the government advisor in charge of overhauling the national curriculum, has come under fire for his recent proposals to drop climate change from the syllabus for 5-16yr olds.

In a Guardian interview Oates called for schools 'to get back to the science in science'. Oates has a point, core subjects like evolution, magnetism and chemical formulae are vital information for children to learn and should always be part of the curriculum. However, surely the point of teaching is to enthuse children in a subject so that they can better learn and understand it. In my opinion, and one shared 100 years ago by Thomas Huxley in his Science in Education journals, the biggest change Oates could make is to make science lessons more practical. Repetition and constant memorization will never instill a fervor to learn, whereas the excitement and fun from performing experiments can make any concept easier to understand. Informal science education, such as trips to museums, should also have more emphasis.

How better to do that than show how science is constantly advancing and new, exciting discoveries are being made all the time? Oates says "we're not taking it back 100 years" by removing climate change, but instead getting back to grass roots science. By removing  science issues and their  relevance you are moving children away from learning about all current news. Climate change covers politics, geography and science. It's a hotly contested topic which has all major newspapers, websites and television channels introducing separate environmental sections. Without it being taught in school a child will be far less equipped to make their own decisions about relevant issues and debates. Other debates in the news, including women's equality, abortion and the war on terror are all taught about in schools, through both history and current events. In 2007 'Cultural Understanding of Science' was added to the curriculum for 11-14 year olds. Science should follow the same policy as other major topics in todays society, with both core theories being covered and then teachers making the decision on which current topics are the most relevant to the children and their immediate culture. 

In America, children can choose 3 science subject and Earth Science (including Climate Change) is quickly becoming the most popular. This shows that children can take an active interest in our planet and the environment. Reforming science education is necessary. especially when science is taught as a single subject until GCSE and without, for some pupils, practical lessons until you reach secondary school. However, removing the current most interesting topics in science, and not educating future generations about how to look after our planet is not the way forward.