Richard Dawkins is retiring from academia, but I’m sure he’ll still be involved in the greater culture, so this isn’t sad news at all. Now the search at Oxford begins for a new professor to take on the Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science, and from that manifesto, whoever it is will have to reach high.
Good luck to Richard and to whoever has to try and fill his shoes!
A few of us over at RD.net are hoping you will apply for the job, PZ.
Before someone over here asks, Dawkins states on the linked thread that he’s simply retiring because he’s reached the college’s mandatory retirement age. So no worries on that front. He also says he’s working on another book…
PZ would be an interesting choice. It would certainly give the job a strong connection to the culture wars, with Dawkins followed by Myers.
Also, what about Neil deGrasse Tyson?
Or even a virtual unknown, thereby raising yet another name to the list of well know advocates of science and reason. Looks good in any of those cases.
LOLcat: Oh noes – they be taking his chair! :-D
If it wasn’t an entirely metaphorical one, it was probably smarter than the walrus’s bucket.
Go on PZ, you know you want to!
Maybe Guillermo Gonzalez should try his luck?
I am now soooo tempted to email Richard Dawkins and ask if he can arrange a staged photograph of “them” taking his chair away from him. It shouldn’t be too hard to find someone to dress up as a caretaker / mover type in traditional flat cap and scruffy mackintosh and pretend to wrestle some innocuous (or even posh) piece of furniture off him.
Go on PZ, Oxford’s a lovely place.
And besides if you took up the reins it would have a lovely “Obi Wan/Luke” symmetry about the situation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
First they came for the buckets,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a walrus…
SEF, please, please do. If he actually went along with it that photo would be a wonderful gift to the world.
You should really apply PZ.
I’m pretty sure that PZ does too much actual research to get Dawkins’ job.
As he mentions in the thread over there, RIchard has invited me to apply…but he also invited Lawrence Krauss and Carolyn Porco. The competition is a bit intimidating.
Mandatory retirement age? There must be a case for challenging that on discrimination grounds. Just because your over 65 (or whatever) doesn’t mean you can’t work.
I was gonna cast my vote for Glen D for the Molly this month, but SEF makes a compelling case @ No. 9.
Somehow I doubt PZed will want the job – unless of course the Democrats once again manage to “wrestle defeat from the jaws of certain victory” at the upcoming election.
Hmmmm – if Pzed does go to Oxford, will his super
heroscientist name become PZee?Nothing says he isn’t going to teach, he reaches a much wider audience with his books than he ever could in the classroom anyhow.
“P-Zed, Oxford Professor” sounds like PZ’s evil alter-ego.
Good luck Richard and to whoever takes your place.
%3CA HREF%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazilia.net%2Fimages%2FBirds%2FSulidae%2FRedfootedBooby2.JPG%22%3E%26%2340%3Bo%26%2341%3B%26%2340%3Bo%26%2341%3B%3C%2FA%3E%0D%0A
Whoops, sorry about that.
At any rate, I wish all the best for Dr. Dawkins’ future. I hope Oxford can find someone as (pardon the use of the word) evangelical as he to fill the position.
Porco is a great scientist but she is more one dimensional than you, PZ. Besides, biology is more relative to everyone’s life than the planets, as interesting as they are. Go for it!
Maybe I shouldn’t, but I still find the news of RD’s impending retirement a bit sad. RD is both a passionate proponent of science, and a consistently outspoken voice for reason. It is RD himself that has made the Simonyi chair a prestigous position.
I’m not sure exactly how the decision will be made, but I sure hope Oxford doesn’t wuss-out and fill the position with someone they feel will be less ‘controversial’ (i.e. a subscriber to the late Stephen J. Gould’s politically correct ‘non-overlapping magisteria’ school of thought — a lapdog for the religious set).
I would like to see someone who’s strong in the philosophy of science.
For the sake of genetic diversity I’d like to see a theoretical physicist get a shot. Many theoretical physicists have spent their careers jumping between mathematics, science, philosophy and art.
I’m not particularly interested in any other of the famous popularizers. Though, I think it’s a mistake to snobbishly reject candidates based on their fame alone. Sagan was a popularizer and would have been a great choice.
We need someone who can do razor sharp dissection of difficult logical, political, religious and moral issues- and make it interesting. It’s easy to imagine that many scientists who are world experts in their field might stumble badly when it comes to politics and religion. e.g.: a Feynman would have no clue about politics (and would freely admit it).
The more I think about it, the more impossible the task seems. I did propose three candidates on the Dawkins page, but I doubt that they would feel comfortable giving advice on e.g. stem-cell research. Unlike me, truly smart people tend to be very quiet when it comes to topics they haven’t spent years thinking about.
(I admit that P.Z. would be an interesting choice, but he is a bit inky.)
How about Pat Condel? I’m sure he can do some crash
courses in the various science disciplines and fill in
admirably. And we will also get a daily rant against the
forces of insanity to boot. What a hoot he wold be!
As he mentions in the thread over there, RIchard has invited me to apply…
Imagine no billboards on that commute to the U of M… ;-) Go for it!
All the best to Richard.
I’m glad to know Professor Dawkins hasn’t been Expelled!
The next chapter will surely be as interesting as the last. :-)
Off-topic, but cool: Tiny dinosaur fossil is found in China.
Good luck to Professor Dawkins! Man, those are some tough shoes to fill.
As a physicist, I have to say I really don’t want to see a theoretical physicist get the job.
No matter what group you take a theorist from, either they are totally unable to communicate their field, or their field is totally pointless to communicate at this time. Either you get a quantum mechanic (curse the BBC for that term) or a brane theorist. There is relatively little in the middle.
Someone who deals with, say, astronomy would be ideal. A new Patrick Moore, only slightly less conservative and sexist would be nice. A new Richard Attenborough would be almost as good – a figure the public can see in interesting and enjoyable situations while drawing the youth towards a love of science.
I think they might well go for a strong British figure. At the moment a lot of funding is being cut. I recently had to sign a petition to stop cuts in physics, and was rewarded with little more than a denial that the original cuts were actually cuts anyway. If Oxford can motivate more of the youth to take scientific routes, we can’t afford to abandon the sciences for, say, the service sector any more.
I don’t know who is best for the job though.
Typo – scratch Richard and replace with David…
The conservapedia article on his leaving suggests that he is not an actual professor, and states that his departure heralded an outpouring of “the atheistic substitute for love.” What utter Bastards.
Brian May?
I hope they chose someone because they will enhance the public understanding of science, not because they will be controversial. Someone like Richard Fortey would be ideal.
My prediction – the new sitter in the chair will have done a RI Christmas lecture series in the last few years.
Bob
I agree with Paul, theoretical physics is not the bit of science that needs to be widely publicised. If it was up to me, I’d pick Neil deGrasse Tyson.
Over at my post on this topic, people have suggested Steve Jones, Ian Stewart and Lisa Randall.
Paul Schofield (#28):
Clifford Johnson has been on TV explaining astrophysics and Newtonian mechanics despite the fact that he works with D-branes.
“75. Comment #125250 by Richard Dawkins on February 11, 2008 at 6:16 am
I wonder if they should have an American
I think that’s an excellent idea. Moreover, because of the relative values of the pound and the dollar, and also the considerable perk of a Fellowship at New College (it was new in 1379, you see), the salary will look considerably more attractive to Americans than would have been the case in the past. I have sent the advertisement to several Americans, including Carolyn Porco, Lawrence Krauss and PZ Myers.
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins”
I think Richard nailed it by mentioning you PZ…what a well deserved honor just the mention is. Just think of how much fun that job would be! You make us all very proud.
“Good luck to Richard and to whoever has to try and fill his shoes!”
You could fill those shoes with those tentacles!
My partner and I talked about this, and we thought of three questions that seemed pertinent:
1) What branch of science is currently the least well understood or the most misunderstood by non-scientists?
He said theoretical physics, and I said medicine/pharmacology.
2) What branch of science is the most important to further understanding of other sciences and of other academic disciplines?
I said practical physics, on the ground that if we can’t invent the tools to measure things with, we can’t gather good evidence. He said that the study of what makes science (and scientists) work is insufficiently addressed… what would you call that? Metascience?
3) What branch of science is the most important to humanity at large at the present time?
Gee, what a toughie that was. Right now it seems that biology and evolution are the very things that need to be stressed right now, since there is so much needless controversy and so little known about what our own bodies. He thinks that the work done in neurocognition is specifically the most important, because it’s crucial to bring human minds to their full potential and to eradicate mental diseases and failures to cope with reality.
That is the funniest thing I’ve read all day. My fiancé is still laughing…
I think this is the perfect opportunity to start again to build bridges between the atheistic scientific community and those in the population who are religious. Its a difficult task but I think I know the perfect candidate who can achieve it. He’s UK based, has a degree in chemistry and has carried out research in molecular biophysics in the Oxford University where he currently holds a professorship. He’s very well known to many here and indeed to Richard himself – he’s even written two books about him! Step forward Professor McGrath, your time has come!
(Only joking!).
Speaking as a scientist I would suggest that someone who is an expert on neurology and consciousness might be a new and interesting choice for the post (its not even my field but I think its where a lot of the really interesting stuff will emerge over the next decade or so).
Wow- two slams against any theoretical physicist getting the chair! Way to stereotype an entire field of research at once. I’ve seen quite a few theoretical physics talks given by outstanding speakers, the oratorical equivalents of anyone in other fields.
And why shouldn’t theoretical physics get publicity? Apart from its utility, it has produced some of the most beautiful ideas in the whole of human history.
Christianjb, who would you suggest then?
Saying that a Lisa Randall or a Brian Greene could only speak to the public about their current research interest is like saying Stephen Jay Gould could only write about snails. No single person can claim intimate, professional familiarity with every subfield of science, but so what? Science is a collaborative effort, and anybody given a professorship in the “public understanding” of it will be the focus for communication with many others.
I’d vote for a physicist (if I knew any) as it’s the discipline that seems most likely to go extinct in many a British university. We need someone to make it look attractive and relevant again.
Charles Simonyi?
lpstrI lpverbHope lpstrThey lpstrWill lpstrRecosider iIt.
Charles Simonyi deserves eternal hell only for his invention of Hungarian Notation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Notation#History).
Blake,
I agree. If only there were a compulsive, forceful speaker in philosophy of science. Someone who could revitalize interest in the sciences as a whole, and as an enterprise against the bullshit paraded as science. Any ideas? I’m rather ignorant of powerful personalities in the philosophy of science.
Ah, but how many of the other candidates can match you for LOLprof moments? Eg: the “can has trophy wife” one. On the other hand, apparently you do already have a chair (bottom of page).
I suppose Prof Steve Steve is out of the running though. I expect Oxford discriminates against both pandas and soft toys holding important positions at the University.
February 12th apparently is Darwin Day. Good news from Cincinnati where the mayor has recognized it.
Be It Proclaimed:
WHEREAS, The City of Cincinnati has always been at the forefront of scientific research, medicine, and academia; and
WHEREAS, The City will continue to support the sciences at all levels of education; and
WHEREAS, many scientific advancements can be traced back to the work of Charles Darwin and his groundbreaking discovery 150 years ago, that living things change over time, or evolve, in response to selective pressure of their environment; and
WHEREAS, Darwin’s theory redefined the direction of research and progress, and has since been the cornerstone of the biological sciences that have brought advancement in medicine, agriculture, zoology, paleontology, and conservation, to name a few, to benefit us all; and
WHEREAS, Charles Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, and
WHEREAS, February 12 is a world-wide Darwin Day Celebration; and
Now, Therefore, I, Mark Mallory,
Mayor of the City of Cincinnati do hereby proclaim
February 12, 2008,
as
“DARWIN DAY”
in Cincinnati.
http://www.atheists.org/nogodblog/index.php/2008/02/11/darwin_day_in_cincinatti#comments
In the bath this morning, I decided that “Darwin Day” had the right cadence to replace “Gnome Mobile”. Now I just need to work on the rest of the song. It probably ought to feature pygmies and dwarves …
“PZ” said:
Intimidated PZ, you? Who are you and what have you done with the real PZ?
Seriously though, best of luck to Richard and whoever is chosen to fill his shoes.
Go for it, PZ!
Sili @ 15.
If PZ goes to Oxford, he will be PZed. Not the other way round.
I’ll second the vote for a physicist, with all the funding being pulled from physics departments at our universities, we need to put physics back into the public eye.
NB The original bucket picture.
Sigmund: I already gave my choices on the original RDF thread. I doubt that any are in contention, but you never know. I chose them because I personally admire their writings. They are not mega-famous or known as popularizers. I don’t know if they’ve even appeared on TV, which means they may as well not exist.
I nominate the following theoretical physicists/philosophers of science:
Max Tegmark of MIT
Christopher Isham of Imperial College
Huw Price of University of Sydney
The above have devoted their careers to answering the big questions: The nature of time and space, identity, the limits of logic and mathematics and the structure of science itself.
They are all inspiring visionaries who have not been afraid to think deeply about philosophy, science, mathematics, truth and beauty.
Definitely going with my bias as a developmental biologist and anatomist here, but I suggest Neil Shubin. He has an impressive record of excellent peer-reviewed publications on original research, and a very engaging book written for a general audience.
Though philosophy of science might not be his thing, and he has a really cool job already….
PZ should definitely get the job as it will finally force him to write the damn book already.
Also I live in Oxford now. There’s a drink here with your name on it if you make it over this side of the pond.
Come to think of it, RD already called you “magnificent” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharyngula_(blog)). Surely that counts as an endorsement?
Okay, for some reason I now have a bizarre mental image of Richard Dawkins as Yoda, muttering “When sixty-nine years old you reach, looks as good you will not… Strong am I in Oxford, but not that strong… ”
I can only assume someone has been putting LSD in my coffee again.
The world will have to do without it. Richard Dawkins doesn’t approve of the idea of a LOLprof image.
What? You got something against Finno Ugric?
I do hope you will consider the position, PZ, at least by reading all the particulars on the Oxford website.
I suppose it would be nice to have a different kind of scientist, but I’m still hoping for biologist, if only because I’ve been offered a place to study biological sciences at Oxford in October.
Ha, maybe I’ll see you there!
Good Riddance (sarcasm) its not like he actually dose science anymore (look at the peer reviewed literature, he has not done much recently), just creates pop science metaphors. I mean there is still a huge amount of people online who still tout the Selfish Gene as being the end all of evolutionary theories (especialy online in creation vs evolution forums). Its just a simple metaphor for a hugely complex idea, luckily evolutionary biology and animal behavior has moved on (read Developmental Plasticity and Evolution by Mary Jane West-Eberhard, Niche Construction by Odling-Smee, and Kevin Laland,and Animal Traditions by Eytan Avital and Eva Jablonka, just to name a few!).
Grooog, what are you complaining about? His job is to widen the public understanding of science, which is different from peer-reviewed research. Go read Ancestors’ Tale.
Well I’m going to announce my bias up front:
I am a working research scientist in the field of organic chemistry.
And now I’m going to shock you:
I reckon the new Simoyi Prof should be a {drum roll} chemist!
Well wasn’t that a surprise?
Ok, I do have reasons:
1) Chemistry is absolutely fundamental to our society. From materials to medicine everything around us that we use and interact with involves chemistry (yeah yeah, I know, physics and biology too, trust me, I’m on a roll!).
2) Chemistry is counterintuitive. Sure the extremes of particle physics or evolutionary biology tax the tiny human brain, but so does a simple appreciation of the molecular world around us.
Don’t believe me? Fine. How much is the homeopathy market worth worldwide? To the nearest billion pounds should do. Creationists and moon landing denialists dream of that sort of budget! Watch TV some time, see the “now for the science bit” commercials, look in any media type to see the word “natural” being buggered thoroughly, see also the perjorative use of the word “chemical”. Most people are quite open Vitalists. It’s as if Wohler never existed! More people think a “natural” nutrient is “better” than a “chemical” one than ever thoght the world is 6000 years old or that relativity is a Jewish conspiracy. The lack of understanding of very very basic chemistry is so widespread that most people don’t even see it as a misunderstanding.
3) Big questions. Ok physicists have got us beat. Fair and square, where the universe came from is kind of important and the ideas involved in physics are tough. Sure biology has done wonders with the whole diversity of life thing, and they do have all the cute furry animals (or tentacly ones) and some tough old ideas too. But I’ve got one good question for you: the origin of life. Abiogenesis. Minimal self replicating systems. Early metabolism. Encapsulation of self replicating systems to make cells. All chemical problems. Replication first vs metabolism first. Etc. Hell, we don’t even have stars and fossils to look at (please don’t nit pick that, we actually have both, I iz just waxing faceciously lyrical). Figuring out minimal systems that could be described as living is going to be (and is) very tough.
Ok enough chemical evangelising.
Louis
P.S. Just FYI the standard interdisciplinary barriers are something I consider utterly useless and always have. They are only good for banter down the pub: physicists are ugly little spods who have no sex, biologists get all the pretty girls but prefer animals, and chemists smell funny. Etc etc etc, yadda yadda yadda. Someone who worked at the interface between “traditional” chemistry, physics and biology would be great, espeically someone like George Whitesides or Ronald Breslow would be great except for the fact that they are ancient.
I’m hoping for John Allen Paulos.
I suspect one theoretical physicist candidate would be last year’s Michael Faraday Prize winner, Jim Al-Khalili. Currently chair in the Public Engagement in Science at Surrey.
On second thoughts, Paulos is only four years younger than Dawkins. I’d like it to be a mathematician or statistician though – Marcus du Sautoy?
PZed as an Oxford prof ? Hmm wouldn’t such a position, um, perhaps require someone, ahem, to have done some, uh, scholarly work ? Like, I dunno, published a few papers (in recent years)or perhaps a book ? Can’t imagine those stogey old dudes on the hiring committee over there would consider running a blog to be equivalent to, let’s say, writing “The Selfish Gene”.
Um, er, typing out, uh, lots of you know, discourse markers, doesn’t, like, make you sound witheringly sarcastic. More sort of, well, dull and tiresome, know what I mean?
Well most of the earlier lecturers will not only be older than Richard Dawkins but already dead! Here’s the wikipedia listing though.
Louis:
I’ve always understood the disciplines as explained on an old sign on the physics department bulletin board:
“If it bites and scratches, it’s biology. If it stinks and pops, it’s chemistry. If it doesn’t work, it’s physics.”
Epikt,
Good point. My old physics teacher used to say something exctly like that. He swore blind that no experiment in classical mehanics, especially ones involving weights, pulleys, moving masses of any large-ish description etc, would utterly fail to work unless there was some sort of gerbil* under the falling weight/rolling ball/whatever. Basically unless a gerbil died, the experiment wouldn’t work.
It’s a little known secret that scientific research actually requires a pagan sacrifice to appease the God Xprymnt. Unless you sacrifice something valuable, Xprymnt will not smile on you and your research is doomed. All ye who enter grad school beware!
Louis
*Yes he did mean the small fluffy abominably cute pseudo-rat type of gerbil. Horrible things. Death’s too good for them.
If PZ is ‘over there’ does Pharyngula become a British based science blog or go extinct? I suspect that Richard suggested PZ apply because of the contribution to public understanding of science that this blog represents- witness the recent furor over plagiarism and the defeat of a ‘non education’ bill in Washington state. Would PZ be as effective in the United States- WHERE EVERY VOICE really matters right now, if he were re-located to Great Britain? I doubt it.
Louis:
Dammit! That’s why all the midden has hit the windmill, Xprymnt is obviously displeased. Now, what should I sacrifice… hmmm… something valuable you say? How about my PI?!
PZ – With your outstanding pedagogical and communication talents, you should go for it! You are extremely effective and passionate in communicating with a variety of audiences in different types of media. And you certainly have nailed the part of Charles Simonyi’s description “Above all, they must approach the public with the utmost candour.”!!!!
“If PZ is ‘over there’ does Pharyngula become a British based science blog or go extinct? I suspect that Richard suggested PZ apply because of the contribution to public understanding of science that this blog represents- witness the recent furor over plagiarism and the defeat of a ‘non education’ bill in Washington state. Would PZ be as effective in the United States- WHERE EVERY VOICE really matters right now, if he were re-located to Great Britain? I doubt it.”
Well one thing can be known for sure, if PZ did move to the UK he would no longer be a voice in the wilderness. On the other hand, whilst politicians in the UK often do or say very stupid things, they seldom do or say them because of religious motivations. I know there is always Ann Widecombe but taking the piss out of her is something everyone is lining up to do.
In any case, could PZ stand the competition from Marcus Brigstocke in who can be nastier about religion ? :)
Dawkins suggested PZ apply for his job?
Reminds me of the answer Nick Cave gave when asked his response to negative reviews.
‘Fuck you, Johnny Cash covered one of my songs.’
maxi, #50
I’m an RP snob. So I enjoy mimicking his Dawkinsness and calling PZEd PZed. I think of it as his superscientist alias. But if PZed goes to Oxford everyone will call him PZed, so PZed won’t be much of a superseekrit identity anymore. Hence PZee.
Officially, yes. Unofficially, I hear it’s because Oxford won’t allow shivs in creationist debates. Hopefully Michael Winner is available to make the documentary.
Louis:
That would explain the gerbil-in-the-particle-beam rumor I heard from a fellow grad student who spent a semester at Brookhaven. I’d always assumed he was joking.
Maxi in #70:
The sacrifice of a PI is a dangerous course. Sometimes Xprymnt smiles upon it, sometime he does not. The God of scientific research is a fickle deity. I suggest a sacrifice of time and effort, possibly combined with a burnt offering of social life and relationships. Xprymnt likes these sacrifices. The smell of no friends and toil is pleasing to his mighty nostrils.
However, I have known of instances where the ritual slaughter of the PI has had amazing results. A good way to initiate the ritual is, when a PI advocates a specific direction in one’s research that one disagrees with, to say “Oh yeah? Where’s your fucking Nobel prize then, biatch?”.* The ritual sacrifice of the PI, and importantly the relationship with the PI, can now begin. It is risky as I said, for if Xprymnt does not smile on this sacrifice the research will not succeed and the PI will utter the approriate curse of Xprymnt: “Told you so, motherfucker”. If you are righteous in your course and Xprymnt smiles upon you, then if you are lucky he will unharden the heart of the PI and favour shall shine upon you in the form of Xprymnt’s most profound blessing: HPUBLLYKAISHUN (May its name be softly spake). Many have sort work worthy of HPUBLLYKAISHUN, many have failed.
Go with Xprymnt my friend. Myriad are his ways and fickle are his blessings. I find drinking heavily also helps.
Louis
*This must be used with extreme caution when your PI does in fact have a Nobel prize.
Epikt in #76:
Well of course you must know what the G in LIGO REALLY stands for….
Louis
P.S. Tying this to another piece of nonsensical comedy: the reason the death of a gerbil is important in the success of certain aspects of research is because Xprymnt, the God of reserach, hates gerbils and wants them killed in the millions (why else does the pharmaceutical industry have some much money for research? It’s all down to the favour of Xprymnt I tells ya). Little known fact: Richard Gere was performing a particularly sensitive series of experiments in physics when Xprymnt smote him for not sacrificing a gerbil in an appropriate manner. Beware! The wrath of Xprymnt can result in anal gerbilage.
I recommend David Deutsch, who is strong on philosophy of science, an excellent and clear writer, and was awarded the 2005 Edge of Computation Science Prize, judged by
Rodney A. Brooks, Daniel C. Dennett, Freeman Dyson, George Dyson, W. Daniel Hillis, Seth Lloyd, Marvin Minsky, Nathan Myhrvold, Charles Simonyi, and Anton Zeilinger.
Here is a discussion with Deutsch in which one can see how clearly he is able to communicate complex stuff. And that’s explicitly his goal:
Hmm, I’m sort of surprised not to see any love for Richard Wiseman . . .guess he’s not “hard” science enough.
speedwell: Mario Bunge distinguishes several metasciences: history of science, sociology of science, politology of science, economics of science, etc. as well as a few other metafields like the branches of philosophy. As for the questions you debated, I think psychology is actually the most misunderstood (since people don’t realize it has a science aspect in general anyway and think of it as all technological (i.e. clinical/industrial etc.), unless math counts.
As for who to replace RD, I don’t know. I think (sorry PZ, others) a non-biologist would be good, to emphasize the breadth and yet unity of science.
I’d suggest Massimo Pigliucci. He he’s done quite a bit of research, is pretty good at engaging the non-specialist on science and critical thought, and is well-versed in the philosophy of science.
They appointed Marcus du Sautoy.. Go maths!