Re: BBC - Astronomers 'must make own case'

Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

I wonder about Patrick Moore's outburst regarding the BBC being run by
girls with no interest in science. Other contacts have said much the

Not just the girls. Same in government. Very few of them are trained
scientists, a few are medics and the rest are lawyers who appear to
deliberately convolute legislation to help their compatriots in law
firms make more money.

same thing, though not quite so bluntly. Something along being told "SF
is for kids and we'd rather be doing grown-up programming".

Torchwood is SF and doesn't exactly look like a childrens programme
(in fact it has proved too racy to be a success on the US channels).

The thing is there's a rule that there has to be a gay kiss in every
episode. Given that gay marriage is pretty much on the "culture wars"
front line in the US, that's obviously going to cause trouble. Russell
Davies probably likes the idea of that but I bet the BBC Sales Team
doesn't.

Doctor Who seems to be going from strength to strength now.

That one with the gas masks is the only really interesting SF plot
they've done so far.

My bet is that it'd be a lot easier to persuade the public than to
persuade the luvvies. Patrick Moore has undoubtedly done a sterling job
in the face of intractable odds there.

But he is getting a bit long in the tooth. Eventually a successor will
have to take over. Some are being groomed, but when PM eventually
drops out of the frame Sky at Night will be vulnerable to
obliteration.

Yes, I share that worry. Whoever replaces him is going to have to make
themselves quickly popular with the general public if it's to survive.
That's not so easy with a show that goes out in the early hours.

Still, if that's the folks whose money astronomers want, then they're
the folks astronomers have to get interested no matter how difficult the
task.

Unclear. The public did not want us to invade Iraq, but the government
did so anyway. Persuading politicians is at least as important as
appealling to the lowest common denominator TV couch potato. And I am
not sure they can be swayed unless we invent some way of harvesting
cheap alcohol from nearby nebulae.

You can't fool all of the people all of the time and all that. Reckon
they'd get away with invading Iran now? Convincing the politicians and
going over people's heads may work in the short term but astronomers
want this money year in and year out. To achieve that, they neeed to
convince the owners of the money.

If they stick to just lobbying politicianss and grant bodies then the
end result will be that at a timee of low cash rserves, the nurses get
the money instead.

Arts and music do slightly better on the airwaves because many in the
media industry are Arts graduates. Science is typically bastardised.
"Horizon" is now a shadow or its former self and "Tomorrows World" is
history (John Dankworth blames the change in the theme tune from his
original jazz score to a funky heavy metal version for starting its
demise). Popular science programs are very thin on the ground.

Spot on. So is it that science graduates won't go into the media or is
there a conspiracy of arts graduates to prevent them?

I think most of the ones I have known end up as sound engineers or
technicians behind the scenes. Very few want to be in front of the
cameras.

I'm not sure either are the ones deciding on the programming.

True, but it's understandable if the politicians are more worried about
a repeat of the 1930s and think that saving banks is a better way to
prevent it than saving science. Like it or not, there's going to be a
lot less tax money available in the next decade and a half (credit

I agree. But I am not sure that saving Northern Rock (or Bear Stearns)
will have the desired effect.

It won't. That's been money down the drain. Credit bubbles have a
certain aftermath and by the time they've burst, it's too late to
prevent it. If governments want to alleviate the pain, they need to keep
their powder dry until things hit bottom. History indicates they never
learn though. Governments are probably doomed to become part of the
problem and to make things worse rather than better as things play out.
See my comments on uk.finance for details.

Banks can have their cake and eat it.
When they gamble recklessly and win they get to keep the profits and
when they lose the taxpayer has to bail them out because they are "too
big to fail". BoE calls it "moral hazard".

That it's unfair, surely nobody doubts? few governments have the guts to
just let a debt-deflation run though, even though a World Bank study
says that those that do will have vastly cheapeer cleanup costs than
those that interfere.

But if you stop and think for a moment one of the main reasons that Prof
Pillingers ill fated Beagle2 Mars lander mission failed was that he had
to spend so much time out on the streets begging for the money to build
it.

Unless he was going to build it out of squeezy bottles, what choice
was there? There are a few folks like Bill Gates who could sponsor such
things but by and large that much money is always going to be hard to
come by.

The amount they needed to do it properly was small in the aerospace
business.

That's always been a risky business. At least there are some companies
now building spaceplanes to capture the tourist market. Ultimateely that
will gain astronomy more than all ESAs and NASAs missiles. Could take a
while though.

Their idea was very neat but was starved of funding in such
a way as to practically guarantee failure. Heroic failure is now one
thing that the UK does extremely well.

Sadly so, but there is indeed something heroic about it.

I fully expect the 2012
Olympics to be every bit as toe curlingly embarrassing as the T5
fiasco.

Oh yes. You and me both. I'm rather enjoying the variants of the new
Olympic sport: we've had Capture the Flag and Manhunt so far. If I
recall my Paintball days correctly, Ambush should be interesting...

FoFP

--
Perhaps one day he will be considered a free thinker with radical views
and deep insight. However today he is seen more as "not all there"
-- Comment in the Evening News
.