Science as a calling

We are very international and I think I have been privileged to be part of this international community trying to understand the world and the universe. I have done this in a university, but I have had the privilege of working with younger colleagues and also working with colleagues all over the world. Of course, in astronomy, like in particle physics, we sometimes depend on very expensive bits of equipment which have to be shared internationally. That makes our subject especially international, and for me, that has been a bonus.

One important point is to pick topics to work on which are in a sense bite-sized. They are not too big to tackle in one go. To give an example, if you ask scientists what they are doing on a particular day, they probably will not say they are trying to cure cancer or they are trying to understand the universe; they would say something which looks rather specific and detailed. They realize that you can only tackle the big problems in a piecemeal way. Only cranks or maybe one or two geniuses can solve a big problem in one go. So science involves piecemeal efforts by the collaboration of many people to understand what is happening in a particular area of the natural world. That is a satisfaction, because I think the social aspect of science is very important for many of us.

Even more important is to realize that if their work has a possible dangerous downside, they guard against that being used. There were cases like that; I think there are cases now, in terms of biotech, when people realize that it is becoming easier to generate, to create, dangerous pathogens. The classic instance when that happened was, of course, in the 1940s when scientists realized it was possible to make an atomic bomb. This, of course, was made at Los Alamos in the 1940s. The world has been influenced by that ever since.

They felt they had an obligation because of their special knowledge to help control the powers they had helped unleash. It was some of these great scientists, names like Hans Batur, Joseph Rotblat and Rudolf Pyles, three I was privileged to know. They tried to promote arms control. They started something called the Pugwash Movement, which was a gathering of scientists from both sides in the Cold War, Russian scientists and American scientists, which tried to promote a dialogue and feedback to their governments. That was an instance of where scientists showed social responsibility in feeling they had an obligation to ensure that ideas they helped to develop did not have disastrous consequences, but had benign consequences. There are more and more cases where that is going to happen. So we have got to be aware that all these modern technologies, bio, cyber and AI in particular, are benignly developed, but that those involved in them are mindful that they do have downsides and they do what they can to guard against those.

Scientists are often groping for the truth, and their understanding develops year by year, even month by month. It is important that the scientists are listened to when their expertise is relevant, and everyone is aware that they are often themselves rather uncertain. Also they must be aware that when politicians have to make a decision, then the scientific input is crucial. Of course, so is the input from ethicists and from economists as well. Of course, in those fields, scientists are just citizens and they have no expertise. So scientists realize that their expertise is important, but they should realize that politicians make a decision based hopefully on the best science, but also taking into account other areas where scientists cannot provide any special background.

We would not have predicted that, but it is amazing. Also, when we look up into the sky, we see stars of huge variety behaving in different ways. We realize that all this is interlinked in an intricate way. We would not exist if the stars had not made the atoms that we are made of. So we need to understand the stars, as well as the atoms, in order to understand the everyday world. What is wonderful is the interconnectedness of everything and how this intricate complexity has emerged from simple beginnings many billions of years ago.

The motive is going to be reduced, because the gap between what humans can do and what robots can do is narrowing. Up till now, humans can do far more in terms of exploring the surface of Mars or fabricating some structure in space than a robot can. That gap is going to close. Let me bear in mind that it is far, far cheaper to send robots than to send humans; I think the practical case for sending humans into space is going to get weaker.

This is a technology which I hope will be regulated on Earth for prudential and ethical reasons. Those people on Mars are away from the regulators, and because they are ill adapted to the environment there, they can probably use the technologies we will have by the end of the century of genetic modification, perhaps cyborgs, interfaces with machines or electronic computers, to adapt themselves. Within a few hundred years, they will have become a new species. Then, if they become a new species which has a far longer lifespan, they could adapt to Mars and they can voyage further away, maybe into the blue yonder, beyond our solar system.

We have got to bear in mind that life has a vast future. The Earth has been around for four and a half billion years, but it is less than halfway through its life. It has got to go another six billion years, and during that time, the amount of evolution that can happen may be as dramatic as from the first protozoa to humans, as it was over the last four billion years. So we just cannot conceive what type of intelligence may exist billions of years from now, not just here on the Earth, but far beyond.

Editor’s note: This article has been faithfully transcribed from the original interview filmed with the author, and carefully edited and proofread. Edit date: 2025