by Ben Falk
He remains perturbed by NASA – and the UK’s – lack of ambition in manned space exploration, arguing while NASA wanted to push on to Mars, small-mindedness and a misunderstanding of the scale of investment meant plans were stalled. ‘Britain on its own could have gone to look for life in the three most likely places that it might exist outside the earth for the cost of bailing out the banks,’ he says, astonished. ‘That should make you think. It sounds ridiculous and it’s a silly political thing because obviously we had to bail out the banks, but it still sets the scale. It’s overwhelmingly important to go to these places.
‘The last episode is about life and is called Aliens. To go and search for life beneath the surface of other worlds is for me the most important question we could try to address. It’s one of the few great questions we could answer. We actually know how to possibly find the answer to say definitively we’re not alone in the universe; we know how to do that, we know the places to look. And the fact we don’t do it, when it’s astonishingly cheap.’
It’s clear that he has taken his cue from his hero Carl Sagan, who more than 30 years ago was doing his best to convince civilians about the sums involved in space exploration in a similar way to how Cox is doing now. ‘The budget for space sciences in the United States is enormous. Comparable expenditures in the Soviet Union are a few times larger,’ Sagan wrote in his 1980 book, Cosmos. Sagan goes even further than Cox, suggesting serious manned space flight will never occur until the countries of the world undertake a dramatic stance on nuclear, as well as conventional disarmament.
Cox doesn’t advocate this, but he does point to exploration for exploration’s sake as being crucial to the future of the human race. ‘There’s a very famous quote from [Alexander] Fleming, when he discovered penicillin. He said something like, “On September something 1928, I didn’t expect to wake up and revolutionise medicine,”’ he says. ‘He woke up playing around with little bits of mould in his kitchen, basically – he was just interested in mouldy things. And he revolutionised everybody’s life. Everybody. Virtually everybody who is over the age of about 40 and 50 is alive today because of antibiotics. Virtually everybody would have died, if it hadn’t been for that. And it wasn’t someone trying to discover antibiotics that did it – it was someone exploring nature. So, the argument, “Couldn’t we just spend our money making everybody’s lives better?” We are doing that. That’s what exploration actually does.’
It’s not hard to see why he was so buoyed by the news in early December 2011 of a new earth-like planet discovered by CERN scientists. Kepler 22-B is thought to have a temperature of 22°C, is 2.4 times the size of earth and 600 light years away. ‘Beyond the Solar System, the search for exoplanets is going very, very well,’ says Cox. ‘Virtually every star we survey, we find planets! Well, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but we’ve found hundreds and hundreds of planets.’ It’s not yet known what the basic essence of the newly-found planet is, but as Cox told interviewer Richard Bacon: ‘You’ve got [a] planet there for the first time in the right place around a star to have oceans of water on the surface possibly. If we’re not alone, that probably means there’s a universe teeming with life.’ He may not know whether there are other kinds of life in the universe and whether space exploration would ever get us there, but he echoes Sagan again in suggesting that it’s crucial we find out. ‘Imagine if there’s one civilisation,’ he says, ‘how valuable does that make us? Would it make us behave rather differently?’
3. Repeat: increasing science funding and getting kids in schools to continue studying science is key to our world prospering in the future. Science is part of everything.
This is Cox’s version of a unified theory. It’s imperative that the world realises how fundamental science is to budgets, our children, to everything – and the requisite people should alter their mindset immediately. He complained to the Daily Telegraph: ‘It’s still acceptable in this country for people to say, while drinking their claret, “Of course, I don’t understand science – I did classics.” Everyone will laugh, but saying you don’t know anything about science at all should be like driving around without a seatbelt or something. It should become an unacceptable thing to do.’ As such, Cox tirelessly campaigns for increased government funding and improved education, and he’s not afraid to admit his agenda.
‘I want to use the platform I have to put pressure on the Government and on decision-makers to support science. I’m completely open about that,’ he says. That means tracking down Minister of State for Universities and Science David Willetts at the 2010 Conservative Party Conference to ensure he got the message about funding and speaking at pre-election events such as Eureka Live, which examined some of the key issues at stake in science. ‘I’ll say it to [David] Cameron, if I get to him,’ he told the Daily Mail, ‘make Britain the best place in the world to do science and engineering. It’s a realistic ambition.’ With a figure of 6.7 per cent of Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP) said to come from physics-based industries, Cox was frustrated at the powers-that-be and in his eyes, their failure to expand science funding. ‘We’ve got so little money that we only fund things like CERN and the European Space Agency, which are absolutely excellent and bound to work,’ he said. ‘Any venture capitalist will tell you that you don’t just want to fund things that are guaranteed to work.’
And Cox was not afraid to stand up in defiance against the head of the main physics funding body when a report by MPs criticised the way Professor Keith Mason handled an £80 million hole in his body’s budget. Mason was chief executive of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) and came under fire in April 2008 before a parliamentary committee. The report stated his decision-making ‘raises serious questions about the role and performance of the chief executive, especially his ability to retain the confidence of the scientific community, as well as carry through the necessary changes.’ Unafraid to stand up against the status quo, Cox, as a member of the UK Particle Physics Action Group, said: ‘If it was my organisation and I read that, I would resign. The organisation needs new management at the top.’ As it was, Mason stayed until late 2011, but the episode demonstrated Cox’s passion for ensuring science – and the money given to it – was treated with respect.
Those in the scientific community, including Cox, worried that the budgetary crisis would lead to Britain having to pull out of important international physics projects, threatened the work of the Jodrell Bank Observatory and would scale back the number of experiments running on the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.
Two years later, in early 2010, Cox was railing just as hard in a no-holds-barred, two-pronged attack in the New Scientist on the monetary crisis with the STFC. He argued that the funding issues had been carrying on for longer than many people realised – since 2007, when the STFC received the lowest increase in useable cash from the British government of all research councils other than Arts and Humanities. And he suggested the subsequent cuts and reprioritisation within the scientific community when it came to British endeavours and participation was a direct result of the initial low monetary injection.
Cox directly blames the Labour government for their part in what he sees as a disaster and says in the article that it should be considered an election issue (Labour, of course, lost the election). He also targets top dogs in the comparatively new STFC (an amalgamation of two smaller bodies) after a select committee report reported: ‘The timing of the formation of the STFC was not propitious. It takes time to set up a new organisation, especially one as large and complex as STFC. The government’s expectation that STFC would be ready for a new Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was overly ambitious.’ Cox ripostes: ‘It raises very serious questions about the role of STFC’s senior management and their ability to communicate with top civil servants.’
It’s worth noting that the New Scientist article came out before Cox’s show, Wonders of the Solar System, hit the air. With his subsequent increase in fame (and the change in govern
ment), he has found himself with closer access to the decision-makers, a fact he lamented somewhat in a radio interview when he mentioned those on television do seem more likely to gain direct contact with those who matter. In 2010, he wrote: ‘Despite a hell of a lot of digging, I don’t know who to question about the origins of the STFC crisis.’ What stuck in his craw and continues to do so is what he potentially perceives as negative attitudes towards science within the corridors of power. Cox argues that the 2007 spending cuts, which were carefully presented to avoid seeming like direct cuts, make it seem as if there’s a ‘deep malaise in our country.’ Indeed, he charged his fellow scientists to stand up against the funding backlash – ‘We must stand together, put aside interdisciplinary in-fighting and raise the volume of our voices in the public arena.’ While his tone may appear to be more temperate as his fame grows, it’s safe to say the fight hasn’t gone out of him.
He considered it a personal triumph when Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne froze spending on science despite other austerity measures in October 2010, but was particularly vociferous about the way the coalition government had upped tuition fees for universities, telling interviewer Cole Moreton: ‘If you get to a point where you are discouraging people who haven’t got a lot of money from going to university, then first of all it’s immoral. Second, it’s ludicrous to think that if there is an Einstein or a Newton out there, then they are going to come from a rich family.’
It’s understandable that the cuts touched a nerve since Cox is first and foremost an academic researcher and a professor at Manchester University, and has spent a vast amount of his working life in a university-funded laboratory. ‘It is a very dangerous game because I don’t think it is understood what effect it will have on the behaviour of young people,’ he has said. ‘What government is about is building the foundation to the future of the country and it’s a pre-requisite for the future success of Britain that we are a scientific country.’ It’s possible, too that he feels – like many prosperous people of his age, especially those already working within research fields – a pang of guilt at his own free ride through the university system.
Perhaps that’s why he is so gung-ho in his work with schools. Each week, he receives dozens of requests to speak at schools, almost all of which his schedule will not allow. However, he does work with events such as the annual The Big Bang: UK Young Scientists & Engineers Fair, which bids to celebrate and raise the profile of young people’s achievements in science and engineering, as well as to enable more youngsters to experience the excitement and opportunities through science. ‘People – especially kids – have the idea that you need to be a genius if you want to gain access to the scientific world,’ he told interviewer Danny Scott. ‘That’s not true. If science, technology or engineering capture your imagination, then stick with them. The opportunities are there. The average 15-year-old probably dreams of winning The X Factor or playing for Manchester United. That’s only going to happen to a tiny number of people, but society is crying out for scientists. And if you do choose the profession, the possibilities are literally endless. They stretch far beyond the pop music chart – as far as your imagination. You might change the way we view life itself!’
In November 2010, Springfield School in the Portsmouth suburb of Drayton won a competition to receive a one-off lesson from Professor Brian Cox, thanks to the fair and he was left overwhelmed by the response he received. In January 2012, it was the turn of Morley Academy in Leeds (who won the second incarnation of the same competition). Dubbing it ‘my lesson of a lifetime’, the lucky students went to Manchester University’s Jodrell Bank Observatory, where they got a chance to see the famous Lovell Telescope. ‘We’re always looking at ways of inspiring our pupils to love science – but this is something else!’ Morley head teacher John Townsley told the Huffington Post UK: ‘I’m sure some of the students involved will look back on this trip as the inspiration they needed to follow their dreams and pursue a successful career in science and engineering.’ Speaking to the Yorkshire Evening Post, student Rosie Hassan said: ‘I did not think the day would be as interesting as it turned out to be. It was an invaluable experience, one I will never forget. Brian Cox is a fantastic ambassador for physics: he is engaging and inspiring, he has a great ability to connect with his audience.’ Fellow pupil Tina Wearing added: ‘Brian Cox is a legend! It was very engaging and I want to watch more of him.’
One of his and Manchester University’s physics department’s philosophies is to open up young people’s minds to the breadth of jobs available to science graduates. ‘I think science has got to be cool for kids,’ said Cox, looking back on his own immediate and unquenchable passion for the topic. ‘In a few years’ time you could be building a Mars rover, a F1 car or designing special effects for Lord of the Rings.’ He’s quick to point out to ambivalent teens that their iPod works because of quantum mechanics, or that the internet on which they surf 24 hours a day was invented at CERN by Tim Berners-Lee. Luckily, his skill in conveying his passion for the subject, as well as his undoubted fame, generally means young people listen.
‘I find it remarkable that you can get an auditorium full of students essentially just listening about particle physics and cosmology,’ he told the Manchester Evening News. ‘That’s very gratifying.’ He adds: ‘I want to use the platform I have to put pressure on the government and on decision-makers to support science. I’m completely open about that.’
4. Climate change is real – and those who disagree are ‘irritating’
‘Climate modelling is difficult science, but there is a consensus about the modelling,’ says Cox. He argues scientists are not telling people what to do, not forcing them to rid themselves of their SUVs, merely telling them what is true. During his 2010 Huw Wheldon Lecture, in which he discussed science on television, he even praised the controversial climate change-denier documentary by Martin Durkin, a programme lauded by deniers and vilified by believers. While calling it ‘factually total bollocks’, he suggested it raised good questions about the politicisation of science, although he preferred to call it a polemic rather than a documentary. ‘Even though I don’t agree with the point of view expressed in the film, I would defend the right of the filmmaker absolutely to express an opinion,’ he explained to his audience.
Nonetheless, he is firm on the science and intractable in his own view. ‘We know that if you put CO2 into the atmosphere, it warms the earth up,’ he says. ‘That’s true. So then you may be able to have a debate about how much, [but] it’s very difficult to work these things out because our computer models are not very good. So it’s pretty likely that it’s not due to an increase in solar output, although the sun decreases and increases its output and we don’t know why. But with global warming you can see the mechanism and once you know the mechanism, you can accept that it’s true. Then you can start arguing.’
Suggesting it’s a good way to teach science in schools – building models, taking data, testing the data, getting a result – Cox is vociferous in rooting his theories in background detail, especially from those who might claim the earth has an ability to self-heal, thus negating the need for climate change debate. He’s not afraid to posit ideas which offer deniers a lifeline, while simultaneously and subtly slamming the door in their face. ‘The thing is that life seems to find a way to inhabit any corner of the universe that it physically can,’ he says. ‘As an example, the sun was 25 per cent less bright 3 billion years ago. From our models of how stars evolve, we can predict the brightness. I think it’s because of the explanation “what the hell happened then?” because it should have been frozen, if you think about it.
‘Actually, we know that the atmosphere in the earth was very carbon dioxide-rich because there were no plants and plants take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. So there was an intense Greenhouse Effect, which allowed the earth to be hot enough for liquid water to exist and life to develop. We know there was lots of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we know that a
ll our models of stars say they start off less bright and grow brighter and then die – it’s through a combination of models that we know that. So the Greenhouse Effect was very fortunate at that point because it allowed life to begin. And then as life took CO2 out of the atmosphere, the sun got brighter. It just tells you how precarious the balance is.’
‘It’s a nasty issue in the UK,’ he told The A.V. Club, ‘but certainly in the US because all that science does is tell you the most likely thing that will happen, given the available data of our understanding of the climate. Given the data we’ve got and the understanding we’ve got, then we’re committed to a temperature rise. At the upper end of the predictions, it’s catastrophic. It’s absolute disaster. If you’re looking at a four-degree temperature rise by the end of the century, then we’re in deep shit! But if you look at the lower end, it is perhaps manageable. The reason there’s a big range of predictions is because it is difficult – that’s the non-political thing to say. You can’t argue with that, because that’s the science. The science is the science – it’s there. Here’s the data, here’s the understanding; there it is. The policy comes in with the question of, “What do you do with that information?” You can take the view that you do nothing. You could say, “I think the markets will deal with it – insurance premiums will go up.” Or, you could take a more active role and you increase things and put green taxes on things, so I can see where the political debate comes from.
