Sue Bowler

Astronomy for a better world

To many people the words “astronomy” and “development” simply don’t belong together. The former conjures up images of celestial beauty and the grandeur of our evidence-based imaginations, while the latter brings us down to Earth, to the poverty-ridden, disease-ridden, conflict-ridden society of which we are very much a part. That one should impact the other is sometimes a contentious issue. Why invest in astronomy when people are starving? Why invest in any “blue-skies” science for that matter? In 2009 the International Astronomical Union (IAU) took the bold and visionary step of ratifying a strategic plan that aimed to use astronomy to stimulate global development. IAU, the largest body of professional astronomers in the world, is a global voice in astronomy with a mission “to promote and safeguard the science of astronomy in all its aspects through international cooperation.” At the core of the IAU’s new plan was the establishment of an Office of Astronomy for Development (OAD), inaugurated in 2011 in Cape Town, South Africa, and hosted at the South African Astronomical Observatory. Since then, new regional offices have been established in China, Thailand, and Zambia. Astronomy for a Better World

Redrawing the maps

The global financial crisis is changing the world economic map at the same time that revolutions are changing the political map. But it is the differing priorities given to science worldwide that will transform the pattern of prosperity and politics in the future. Now that the shuttle programme has ended, NASA has no vehicles capable of carrying astronauts into space, for the first time. UK astronomers face the prospect of limited access to the northern hemisphere sky with world-class instruments. The next big thing for US astronomy, the James Webb Space Telescope, is seen as a fair target for cost-cutting as the US government tries to balance its budget. At the same time, China’s investment in science and technology is ramping up, with astronauts training for lunar missions and a space station taking shape. Submissions to journals from Chinese universities and research institutions are multiplying. UK, European and US universities are increasingly looking to China for the best undergraduates. As a result it seems inevitable that China will in future take the lead in research, worldwide. And that means leading as well in those economically vital spin-offs of impact, technological innovation, a scientifically literate workforce, and all the musthaves of a modern society, so desired by governments. It has proved difficult in recent years to quantify the role of basic science in boosting national prosperity; we look to have a case study unfolding before our eyes. The Chinese government appears to be directing the considerable potential of the Chinese people into research success, with a view to future national prosperity. Perhaps western governments could consider doing the same? Editorial NEws

National Parks for the dark

In the 400 years since Thomas Harriot led the way for astronomers to observe the heavens scientifically, using a telescope, we have lost the capability to look at starry skies over most of the UK thanks to light pollution. So it is good news that we may get Dark Skies Parks in the UK. There are already regions where the skies are dark, but this arises more from luck than judgement. Imagine the difference if society as a whole considered dark skies a precious natural resource, like the landscapes of the Lake District, Exmoor, or the Pembrokeshire coast. Millions of people visit the National Parks each year; and they are people interested in the natural world and the environment, in the main. That’s a lot of potential stargazers! For the people running parks and wilderness sites, truly dark skies could be a draw for visitors – but they would also enhance the environment of the parks themselves, for both tourists and the creatures living there. And if dark skies came to be seen as an asset for tourism, then further promotion and further awareness would follow. And there are further benefits: the bodies running Dark Skies Parks would be obliged not only to protect the dark skies that they have, but also to work to make them better, taking the lead in limiting light pollution in and around the parks, and including light pollution and dark skies in their outreach and educational activities. What an opportunity for dark skies to take their place where they belong – as an essential part of the unspoilt natural landscapes that so many people enjoy and value. More and darker skies could be a lasting achievement of IYA2009 – and maybe even inspire a new generation of astronomers, scientists and technologists. Editorial NEws

Missing the boat

A&G • August 2008 • Vol. 49 Missing the boat Sue Bowler, Editor At a time of economic doom and gloom, and hard times for many industries and individuals, it seems a shame if large, commercially viable and even booming sectors are short of skilled staff. But that is exactly what is happening. The shortage of geophysicists noted two years ago in the British Geophysical Association report on education in the subject is, if anything, even more acute today. Employers in companies based on hydrocarbons, mining and resources generally are crying out for recruits with the very geophysics skills that university courses teach, yet neither the companies nor many of the geophysics degrees can easily recruit the people they need. And these skills become more valuable as oil companies exploit more complex reservoir structures, in more extreme environments, and seek everhigher yields from existing and emptying fields. The 2006 BGA report highlighted the lack of awareness of geophysics in schools as a major barrier to students taking the subject at university. Anecdotal information reinforces this view, with physics students unaware of the existence of, and opportunities in, this field. This is where the Institute of Physics initiative should really help. If school students associate the study of the Earth with the humanities, potential students will not appreciate that there is a lively scientific field comprising the quantitative study of our planet, from core to crust, and out into space. Providing geophysics examples in physics classes, as well as across the curriculum, should go a long way to remedy this problem. Any geophysicists taking the time to write some guidance notes for the IoP initiative are taking a step towards a better future for this exciting subject. And we’ll all benefit if we can continue to support successful UK industries and train skilled geophysicists for demanding and rewarding careers. Editorial NEws

Bottom‐up boost at NAM

AG not only are young scientists coming to this national meeting, they are organizing sessions within it and setting up groups to make their voices heard. This is the sort of involvement and drive that cannot come about as a result of directives from above; it is true “bottom-up” engagement. And we are all – middleand late-career scientists included – lucky to have a community that can encourage and get such participation. But we are also lucky to have, in the RAS NAM, and typefied by the 2007 meeting at the University of Central Lancashire, a meeting that provides a focus for the work of early-career scientists as a part of the mainstream meetings circuit. Editorial NEws

Mixing it in the mantle - and elsewhere

Sue Bowler, Editor This issue contains a very satifying example of a step forward in science, when conflicting data and ideas resolve themselves into a new and clearer picture thanks to advances in data collection, modelling and so on. The example is excellently described by George Helffrich in his Bullerwell Lecture, which elegantly explains how the emerging geophysical picture of a mantle mixing throughout its depth conflicts with the geochemical view of distinct regions, chemically isolated and unable to mingle. The lesson of this review is that different viewpoints allow observers to see different things. The geochemical picture defined characteristics of distinct parts of the mantle, without locating them, whereas the geophysical view showed where such isolated volumes of rock could not be, but can see only fuzzily what the different rocks might be. Together, however, they now have a vastly improved picture of around half the planet, and one that in turn provides a framework for future research in all aspects of the deep Earth. But this is also a lesson for scientists in general. One point of view, whether a fixed opinion or a limited collection of data, is not enough. Astronomers have in the past few years seen a comparable explosion of data, thanks again to improved data collection and handling methods, and to the larger observatories now available. The boost in this field has been the availability of multiwavelength data, so that astrophysicists can now examine objects such as gamma-ray bursters in full colour, as opposed to the monochrome views of the past, that used only a fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. Planetary science, solar– terrestrial physics, and all branches of astrophysics are benefitting in the same way from this avalanche of data. Long may it continue – as long as the development of data storage and handling methods keeps pace, or we will all drown in data. EDITORIAL

Costs and benefits

Sue Bowler, Editor It’s a cheery time for solar system science: UK work in this field has had an international stamp of approval, ESA’s Aurora programme is moving forwards, and existing missions such as Cassini and Mars Express are producing superb quality data that are full of scientific surprises. But it’s a bit less cheery for other branches of the science, faced with PPARC’s and NASA’s budget plans for the coming years. NASA is giving human spaceflight – in the form of the International Space Station, the shuttle and its replacement – priority over planned science missions such as Dawn and the Terrestrial Planet Finder. PPARC is struggling to cover the higher than anticipated costs of paying universities a fair rate for the work researchers do, and paying postgraduate students and research assistants a living wage. The result, on both sides of the Atlantic, is a squeeze on successful areas of research that will mean some of them stopping for good. Space missions are being cancelled or indefinitely postponed, research groups will have to find something else to research, and hardpressed physics departments will feel the pinch of less research in the long run. It’s not an enticing prospect, but this is what is happening. Science and scientists are expensive, and those running science have to decide what parts of it are worth paying for. There is no alternative: money is not going to magically appear from the public purse, nor should it. Instead, people are going to have to make the case for science, loudly and repeatedly, at all levels. Outreach has become a necessity, not an extra. The challenge is to show that research – in space, Earth sciences and astrophysical sciences, as well as in planetary exploration – matters and is worth paying for. And we have to reach voters, not just the idealized “interested layperson”. Compare the current public enthusiasm for the ISS with the fervour of the early days of the Apollo programme: we have a very long way to go. EDITORIAL

Planning for the planets

Planning for the planets Sue Bowler, Editor. This issue of AG some of tomorrow’s successes will come from equally unsung endeavours. Let’s make sure we have the researchers and the funds to continue to play a part in the international collaborations that planetary science demands. EDITORIAL