METHOD AND MADNESS IN SCIENCE

Our future in their hands
Vanessa Baird argues that our blind faith in science is putting our lives at risk.

The good, the bad, and the ugly
Three science projects assessed by Dan Clery.

Dying for doctors
David Werner investigates mothers' claims that medicine is killing their children.

CHEATS!
A rogues' gallery of scientific hoaxers.

Science on the couch
Psychologist Judy Gahagan summarizes research into what makes a scientist tick.

After the Revolution
Mike Rose interviews a Mexican family who have first-hand experience of science's Green Revolution in agriculture.

Do you believe in magic?
Magic provides a better and more logical picture of the universe than modem science, argues Debbie Taylor.

Molecular Auschwitz
Thanks to biotechnology, scientists can now create totally new species. Dick Russell reports on the implications of this awesome new power over life on earth.

SCIENCE - THE FACTS

Action Directory

Pops and bubbles
Mary Randall looks at why girls avoid the laboratories at school - and at ways to make science more appealing to them.

Bouquets and brickbats
NI readers nominate their favourite - and least favourite - inventions.

SIMPLY: Alice's adventures in Blunderland
A conducted tour through the seamy side of scientific history.

Let me quickly say what this issue is not about. It is not about atoms, molecules, valencies, quasars - or even pulsars. And if you're after an explanation of the molecular structure of DNA, you would be better-advised to look elsewhere.

This issue is about science and people. That means it is about faith, power and madness. I say this at the outset because while I was compiling this magazine I found people responded in rather strange ways when I told them the subject was 'science'.

Those without scientific training would look blank; then say 'that's interesting' - in a tone of voice that meant the exact opposite. Or they'd mumble an apology about being 'scientifically illiterate', excusing themselves by saying that science had never really appealed to them because it was so 'cold, boring and inhuman'.

But once we got talking these same people would soon be expressing themselves quite vigorously. This 'cold, boring' subject seemed to inspire the strongest of passions. It seems to be out of control, they complained. Or, worse, to be in the control of people we cannot trust people with the power to play with our future but without any concern to safeguard it people busily creating things we never asked for. Who wants nuclear bombs and chemical weapons? Or animals made in laboratories? Or computers made with human cells?

Yet science has become so specialized that even the scientists I spoke to were unwilling to comment on fields about which they were not 'experts'. 'I'm not a scientist', one potential contributor protested when asked to write an article for the magazine, 'I am a technologist'.

Such divisions and distinctions are everywhere. One 'pure' physicist took great pains to explain to me the moral difference between her research on particle beams and the 'applied' work of a colleague who used that knowledge to make laser weapons. Yet both are funded by the military-industrial complex. So what is the difference as far as humankind is concerned?

Several people asked me whether I was a scientist myself, implying that if I was not a member of science's Sacred Brotherhood I was in no position to comment on it. My best response to that criticism is this little parable told by the Brazilian philosopher Rubem Alves:

Who is to decide whether the eating habits of science are relevant if not those most likely to be its food? Ultimately that means each and every one of us.

Letters
Letter from China
Update
Briefly
Endpiece: by Carol Fewster
Reviews: Film, music, books, plus classic
Country profile: South Korea

COVER PHOTO: Mark Mason
ONLINE MAG MAINTAINED BY SIMON LOFFLER