Slashdot Mirror


Winston Churchill's Scientists

HughPickens.com writes Nicola Davis writes at The Guardian that a new exhibition at London's Science Museum tiitled Churchill's Scientists aims to explore how a climate that mingled necessity with ambition spurred British scientists to forge ahead in fields as diverse as drug-discovery and operational research, paving the way for a further flurry of postwar progress in disciplines from neurology to radio astronomy. Churchill "was very unusual in that he was a politician from a grand Victorian family who was also interested in new technology and science," says Andrew Nahum. "That was quite remarkable at the time." An avid reader of Charles Darwin and HG Wells, Churchill also wrote science-inspired articles himself and fostered an environment where the brightest scientists could build ground-breaking machines, such as the Bernard Lovell telescope, and make world-changing discoveries, in molecular genetics, radio astronomy, nuclear power, nerve and brain function and robotics. "During the war the question was never, 'How much will it cost?' It was, 'Can we do it and how soon can we have it?' This left a heritage of extreme ambition and a lot of talented people who were keen to see what it could provide." (More, below.) According to Cambridge Historian Richard Toye, Churchill was a "closet science-fiction fan" who borrowed the lines for one of his most famous speeches from H. G. Wells — to depict the rise of Hitler's Germany. "It's a bit like Tony Blair borrowing phrases from Star Trek or Doctor Who," says Toye. A close friend of Wells, Churchill said that The Time Machine was "one of the books I would like to take with me to Purgatory". Wells and Churchill met in 1902 and several times thereafter, and kept in touch in person and by letter until Wells' death in 1946. "We need to remember that there was a time when Churchill was a radical liberal who believed these things," Toye adds. "Wells is often seen as a socialist, but he also saw himself as a liberal, and he saw Churchill as someone whose views were moving in the right direction."

17 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Tony Blair quoting Churchill quoting Verne by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Pro-science politicians, let alone those who value the scientific method on par with weekly polls, are seemingly still in short supply....

    unless you're talking about advances in military superiority.

    There's an interesting argument to be made for man's warrior nature being the impetus for much of his science and engineering development.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Tony Blair quoting Churchill quoting Verne by NicBenjamin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with science spending in the current environment is that a) a lot of it has become politicized ( certain strain of budget-cutting Republican is very skeptical of anything that pro-AGW-scientist do), and b) we've been in fire government employees mode since Bush got termed out. Look at it this way: The IRS's is one of the last government departments that a rational person would cut because IRS Agents earn their keep by nailing tax cheats. Even if each agent is only finding $0.50 on the dollar, you have to cut $2 in IRS spending to equal a $1 cut anywhere else. And we're cutting the IRS. Congress is not in a invest-in-the-future mode, it is in a cut-government-spending-so-private-companies-can-magically-appear-and-invest-in-the-future-their-own-damn-selves mode.

      A scientist, who is probably so naive that they honestly think the founders sole objective in creating the Federal government was to protect freedom*, asking for money that could a) result in nothing more interesting then proving his line of research is a dead end, or b) revolutionize some obscure field Congressmen cannot spell properly, does not stand a fucking chance.

      *If your sole objective is freedom-protection you don't create a Federal government. The Founders were actually trying to do something very, very complex: create a government that restricted freedom enough it could effectively a) resist future British attempts to retake the colonies and b) destroy those goddamn Indians in Ohio once and for all, without c) granting it sufficient anti-freedom powers that it could seriously oppress the people.

      Note that their definition of freedom was wonky. If there'd been any chance the Federal government could end slavery, most of them would have considered that "serious oppression," so they specifically designed there Feds so that could only happen under the most dire of circumstances.

    2. Re:Tony Blair quoting Churchill quoting Verne by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well then, what do you do with people who aren't good at what they love doing, or whose labor is not in demand ?

      What you are falling into is the classic mistake of the labor theory of value. It was wrong in Marx's day and it is still wrong today.

    3. Re:Tony Blair quoting Churchill quoting Verne by PPH · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well then, what do you do with people who aren't good at what they love doing, or whose labor is not in demand?

      Management

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Tony Blair quoting Churchill quoting Verne by Crashmarik · · Score: 3, Funny

      LOL I would have gone with consulting

    5. Re:Tony Blair quoting Churchill quoting Verne by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The IRS's is one of the last government departments that a rational person would cut because IRS Agents earn their keep by nailing tax cheats.

      Or you'd simplify the tax code, which would make it easier to spot them, and which would lead to less mistakes which means less fraud and less errors. Then you wouldn't need so many tax collectors.

      If your sole objective is freedom-protection you don't create a Federal government.

      Wait, what? If your goal is to give states freedom to oppress people, that's true. Otherwise, false.

      Founders were actually trying to do something very, very complex: create a government that restricted freedom enough

      The founders were trying to maintain a status quo in which they and their ilk would control society. They suceeded. They were wealthy, racially privileged land owners, just like in Athens. And guess what? Wealthy, racially privileged land owners still run the country, so mission accomplished.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re: Tony Blair quoting Churchill quoting Verne by ClickOnThis · · Score: 2

      Or you'd simplify the tax code, which would make it easier to spot them, and which would lead to less mistakes which means less fraud and less errors.

      Fewer mistakes do not lead to fewer fraud cases. Fraudsters know they are cheating. They're not making 'mistakes.'

      I'm not indisposed to simplifying the tax code, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that this would somehow 'simplify' the ever-inventive schemes of tax fraudsters.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  2. Re:Not that unusual? by plopez · · Score: 4, Funny

    He had a miniature Babbage engine powered by an alcohol fueled Stirling engine installed in his abdomen to help him analyze economic data. The cover story was that he was a fat alcoholic.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  3. Most Secret War by hughbar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Although I'm old enough to have seen Churchill's funeral, I wasn't really aware of this. There's a good clue in his quote 'give them what they want' for Bletchley Park. Anyway, a good read about science and intelligence [apart from Collosus etc.] in WW2 is: http://www.hive.co.uk/book/mos...

    We're coming up to an election in UK and we don't seem to have anyone much that appreciates science amongst our politicians. It's a real problem since the actual world is now full of pure science and technology. Still, we have lawyers and people that understand ancient Greek, they are always -really- useful.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
    1. Re:Most Secret War by hughbar · · Score: 2

      Thanks, I probably shouldn't have picked on that, as a chemist who also did 12 years of Latin. It's the 'only the Greats' and 'only PPE' that's the worry. We should be broad. Funnily enough, when I entered IT, there were no degrees and a lot of the better programmers were classics scholars, Latin and Greek seemed to help them with COBOL and PL/1, go figure.

      --
      On y va, qui mal y pense!
    2. Re:Most Secret War by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Isn't it interesting, Churchill was a fan of H.G. Wells, Churchill was fighting against Nazism, the interesting bit is that H.G. Wells was a socialist fascist, he was arguing for a Nazi version of socialism rather than the Marxist version. Marxist version of socialism is international socialism and Nazi version is purely national version, where one socialist nation becomes the de facto ruler. Nazis realised that Marxism was impossible to implement and that the only way that socialism could work for one particular nation was if everybody else was ruled by them, basically turning to open slavery where the modern version of socialism is using a 'hidden' version of slavery, such that it is not other nations or races that are enslaved, it is classes - the wealthier you are, the more you are enslaved by those who are poorer than you.

      Just an interesting tidbit.

    3. Re:Most Secret War by Teun · · Score: 2
      I too remember his funeral, the man was iconic.

      And working for a UK based company I see problems in the English culture that have caused the losers of WWII to now be the owner and manager of great British brands like Rolls Royce, Bentley and Mini auto mobiles.
      Others like Vauxhal and Ford are just manufacturing plants building largely German engineered cars. Mazda and Toyota took over other factories.

      The British (English!) problem is they are so cock-sure of their own products they can't believe you need to continually work on improvement, "hey we have the best engineers in the world, this X-years old design is the best, change can't be an improvement".

      Even now the Brits have some brilliant engineers but until they recognise the outside world has moved on they will never be successful outside their own country.

      Oh and let's not forget the considerable number of followers of that idiot drunk Nigel Farage that want to close up even more. We're seventy years after the end of WWII and the following disintegration of the Empire and they still don't see the value of openness for future progress. Churchill was a Liberal Conservative, the Liberals is the UK party with the least support and the Conservatives with their shining example Cameron don't understand the modern world...

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  4. Attention Americans by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

    The meaning of "liberal", or "radical liberal" is the opposite of what you think.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Attention Americans by mjwalshe · · Score: 2

      Indeed a classic pre ww1 Liberal is quite different to an "American" liberal - closer to the orangebook liberals who are a block in the current UK liberal party

  5. Don't forget stats & much has changed since th by Raisey-raison · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was an article in the economist about how statisticians also served in WW II. They were indispensable to making sure that Britain did not starve. Before WW II the country imported most of its food. They enabled it stay in the war undefeated until the entry of the USA.

    Among the instances of their success was their analysis of the distribution of German bombs falling on London each day. They concluded that the Germans were trying to destroy the docks but missing. They conducted quality-control in the manufacture of aircraft components, and the calculation of the distribution of stresses on aircraft in flight. The aimed to load planes up to the point that the wings were about to drop off. The research meant the RAF dropped more bombs, and brought more pilots safely home, than it would have otherwise.

    They used sequential methods for the first time in trials of medical treatments. Analyzing the results of a trial bit by bit, rather than all at once when it was finished, meant it could be stopped straight away if it became clear that the new treatment was so good that everyone should be getting it, or indeed useless or even dangerous. This simple-sounding idea, now standard in medical trials, requires great statistical sophistication—and saved many lives.

    But after the war, so much of this was not integrated into the British educational system. I remember taking a GCSE in math and having to do a project. We had to figure our how to calculate the area under a curve. I asked almost every adult I ran into if they could help me and give me some ideas. No-one had a clue and this included college educated people. It was so sad that no-one recognized this as as the primary question behind integration and half of calculus. British people had forgotten all that Newton and Leibniz (albeit that he was not a Brit) had accomplished.

    No-one told us that 60 miles up the road DNA's structure had been discovered at Cambridge by Watson and Crick on 1953. No-one talked about Allan Turing and his Turing Machine. No-one would teach me anything about electronics in high school despite my begging and interest beyond a basic physics class. No-one talked about James Clerk Maxwell and his relations in thermodynamics. No-one had a clue about statistics. No one screamed off the rooftops the central dogma of biology - we merely had to memorize the names of bones and muscles in the human body. The phrase 'normal distribution' was not used. People in the USA at least have a vague sense of what 23 and me is. In the UK so many people I know have no idea. They see genetics as so foreign - oh the irony. The math and science teachers were mean and the books not very helpful. I learned all about British STEM history but only when in the USA.

    There was a time when inventors, manufacturing, science, technology and innovation was celebrated in Britain. Now the only time you hear about science is when people are discussing global warming. They spend their energy in opposition to building anything new. There are parts of London where 1/3 of the buildings are listed and cannot be torn down and rebuilt. People oppose new high speed rail projects. They oppose new home building despite the data showing the UK being short of 1 million homes. They axiomatically oppose genetically modified crops disregarding that at least some of them are helping to alleviate malnutrition. Where has your sense of innovation gone, United Kingdom? You argue now about whether to be in the EU, whether Scotland should leave, and whether more spying will solve your Islamic extremist problem.

    Why not aim to spend 1% of GDP on R&D and build institutions like the NIH and NSF? Why not have almost all school children complete the equivalent of pre-caclulus, Calc I and Calc II, and intro to statistics by age 16? Why not set aside land to allow high end manufacturing using 3D pri

  6. David nice but Vapid by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    In an interview recently Camerhun didn't even know what "magna carta" means.

    You'd think that was common knowledge even among people who hadn't gone to a posh school and done PPE at Oxford, but there you go.

    You'd think it'd come up in the second P somewhere, no?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  7. Klaus Fuchs was one of Chruchill's Scientists... by Grog6 · · Score: 2

    He pretty much Gave the bomb to both the British and the Soviets.

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani