PD Smith

The Times Literary Supplement has just published my review of Stephen Verderber's superb study Delirious New Orleans: Manifesto for an extraordinary American city (University of Texas Press). It's not on their site yet but you can read my version here.

Twitter can be seriously distracting, especially when the Minister of Science keeps sending you tweets.

Yesterday I saw a comment from science writer and broadcaster Colin Stuart (@skyponderer on Twitter):

"Anyone else worried that science and defence are now inextricably politically linked? with @lorddrayson doing both jobs!?"

Yes (I thought) that does sound worrying and I tweeted it on my page too. Within forty minutes Lord Paul Drayson himself replied (to me, note, not Colin - perhaps the Science Minister doesn't quite get Twitter?).

"What are you worried about?" he asked me.

I have to admit I was surprised. Actually that's a serious understatement. I sat in front of the screen for a few minutes wondering if I was seeing things. Don't Her Majesty's ministers of state have more urgent matters to attend to than dealing with comments on Twitter by authors? Perhaps it was a practical joke? A fake Lord perhaps?

But no, it really was Lord Drayson - Twitter bio “Father of 5, Minister For Science and Innovation, Labour peer, car nut: http://www.draysonracing.com/". Yes, that's him.

So I replied: "You shd ask @skyponderer - but history shows we shd all be concerned abt links between sci & defence." (Excuse the abbreviations but you only get 140 characters on Twitter.)

Then Colin joined in (no doubt justifiably peeved that the minister was ignoring him): "I agree with @PD_Smith, but I am also disappointed that science is undervalued enough not to need a full time minister...".

At the same time, other people began to contribute equally useful comments - @DrLucyRogers, @dr_david_w, @joergheber, @imascientist etc. But thereafter, silence - at least until this afternoon, when the Minister replied. Except he's not just "one" minister, but two.

Lord Drayson is now (thanks to Gordon Brown's latest Cabinet reshuffle) two ministers in one - he is both Science Minister and (reverting to a former role) Minister for Defence Procurement. Hence Colin's consternation, which I share.

This afternoon the two-in-one Minister again asked what was worrying us. I got my response in first (I should have been writing a review but was Twittering instead):

@PD_Smith: "1. why does Science not deserve its own minister? 2. Are there not ethical issues re unifying sci + military under 1 minister?"

This time @lorddrayson answered immediately: "In my view the more the sci minister is connected to wider roles in govt the more influence science has to the whole agenda."

@PD_Smith (two tweets in a row this time): "The logic of that is that you'll soon be taking on more portfolios? Sounds to me like a reduction in the import of sci. And what about combining sci + defence procurement? Does it send out the right message in an age of nuclear proliferation?"

In reply, the Noble Lord fired off five tweets in quick succession: "Science deserves a minister at the cabinet table. Thats key. Tick. Sci desrves a cabinet committee. Thats key too. Tick."

"But, many ministers have dual roles.. it really helps departments work together better. Silos in whitehall are not helpful."

"Many science issues are cross-departmental. Take GMES as an example. MOD / DECC / BERR / DIUS all had a view on earth observation"

"Re ethical issues. You have a point. I have to be absolutely clear on the separation between the 2 roles. Civil service r key."

I was pleased to have got him to at least concede that there was an ethical issue involved here (although also slightly confused by the idea that there might be silos in Whitehall. Nuclear bunkers I'd heard about, but missile silos?).

@PD_Smith: "I'm v glad to hear you accept there has to be separation. But I still say it sends out a mixed message to the rest of the world."

Side-stepping that, @lorddrayson continued: "However, many science breakthroughs originated in defence research: ultrasound, radar to mention 2".

@PD_Smith: "That's undeniable. But science should, and can be, about so much more than military hardware."

"I agree," @lorddrayson replied. "Defence is but a small part of the whole. "Science so what; So everything"....will continue from BIS... @sciencesowhat".

And with this rather hand-waving allusion to the grandeur of science and a website, @lorddrayson moved on to deal with other people's questions on this issue. As an exercise in government engaging with the public I give him full marks. Indeed, let's have more of it. But it didn't really cast much light on the question as to why this government thinks a full-time science minister is not needed, let alone deal with the ethical issues raised by lumping science and defence together under one minister. Maybe he will discuss these matters in more detail in the opinion piece the Times Higher Education Supplement offered him afterwards.

I have to say, chatting with the Minister for Science & Defence Procurement is one of the most intriguing Twitter experiences I have had to date. But I hope it doesn't happen every day. It's very distracting. And I have work to do.

I have been very lax recently about posting blogs and updates - sorry. My excuse is that I've been busy with my new book, a cultural history of cities to be published by Bloomsbury in the UK (more on that later), and reviewing. I've also discovered Twitter and would definitely recommend it - but with a warning: it is addictive! So come and say hello @PD_Smith !

One of the great new contacts I've made on Twitter is Dr Tim Jones (@physicus) who is currently on a career break studying for an MSc in Science Communication at Imperial College. He co-presents a show called Mission Impossible on Imperial College Radio and he invited me on to talk about Doomsday Men. You can stream the program here. (The interview is about 40 minutes into the show.)

As I say, there are lots of fascinating people to meet on Twitter - one of my favourite authors William Gibson is there, disguised as @GreatDismal, as well as many other great writers, like Clare Dudman, Fiona Mackenzie, and Thomas Levenson, author of Einstein in Berlin, bloggers like John Self, publishers and agents, such as my own, Peter Tallack.

To quote one of my other favourite authors, Nick Harkaway, Twitter is like a "giant pub". So order a drink and join the big conversation...

The Guardian has just printed my review of three books on the way science has used and sometimes misused animals and insects: Pavlov's Dogs and Schrödinger's Cat: Scenes from the Living Laboratory, by Rom Harré; The Lives of Ants, by Laurent Keller and Élisabeth Gordon (translated by James Grieve); Six-Legged Soldiers: Using Insects as Weapons of War, by Jeffrey A Lockwood. All published by Oxford University Press and all are well worth reading.

"The thing before you is no longer an animal, a fellow-creature, but a problem," says HG Wells's mad vivisector Dr Moreau, attempting to justify his grotesque animal experiments. In Pavlov's Dogs and Schrödinger's Cat, the philosopher and psychologist Rom Harré explores the history of scientists who have used plants and animals - the "living laboratory" - to test hypotheses and collect data. But Harré's original and thoughtful study is not explicitly about the ethics of animal experimentation. Instead, he wants to show how the instrumentarium of science is not restricted to beakers and Bunsen burners, but has always included organic apparatus, from Galvani's frog's legs twitching with electricity, to Mendel's pea plants, to thought experiments such as Schrödinger's cat, poised eternally (and inhumanely) between life and death. Indeed, the living laboratory is at the very heart of science, he argues: "animals and plants become devices we research with rather than something we research on".

Read the rest here.

In the same issue are two of my regular short paperback reviews, this time on an urban theme. The first is on that uniquely English phenomenon: the seaside town - Designing the Seaside: Architecture, Society and Nature, by Fred Gray. The second is anthropologist Marc Augé's haunting analysis of modern urban spaces, Non-Places: An Introduction to Supermodernity, reissued with a new introduction by Verso.

As a postscript to yesterday's piece about our nuclear future, it was announced last night that the Ministry of Defence's plans to modernise the Aldermaston Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE), at Burghfield in Berkshire, have been given the go-ahead, despite the fact that it's in an area at risk of flooding.

The AWE facility is where Britain's nuclear warheads are produced. Last month it was revealed that the US military has been using Britain's atomic weapons factory to carry out research into its own warhead programme, according to evidence seen by the Guardian.

The Ministry of Defence has admitted it is working with the US on the UK's "existing nuclear warhead stockpile and the range of replacement options that might be available" but has declined to give any further information.

Although Congress halted the Bush administration's plans for a new generation of nuclear warhead known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), it seems the US military may have used facilities in the UK to get around the restrictions at home.

At a time of global recession, with job losses being reported every day, there is a silver lining to this story: apparently the nuclear arms industry is flourishing and indeed expanding in the UK. One website I found has two pages of current jobs on offer at AWE.