The shocking truth about scientific utopias
Scientists hate science. Or so it seemed when we read the judges' comments and the winning stories in the EU-LIFE/Nature essay competition, which had been intended to encourage scientists to write speculative fiction about their ideal future—a scientific utopia.
When the submissions flooded in, the judges were alarmed by what they received:
What we [had] hoped for was bold, imaginative and ambitious pieces ... seeing far into the future of science and scientific life. ... We anticipated pieces on people who lived forever, or on a different planet, or what was left to investigate when there was nothing else to discover. We published our call for submissions, sat back, and awaited the unleashed imagination of the scientific community.
What we received was far more sober: less of a dream, and more of a howl against the most pressing barriers faced by many in science today.
The 326 essays we read dealt less with visions of the future, and more around what researchers struggle with today. Our writers built institutes that had eliminated racism, sexism, or excessive paperwork. Many Utopias had eradicated the Tantalusian grasping for funding that seems to rob so much time and energy away from the actual act of science.
When there was hope for the future, it was cautious, cagey and careful: we read about academic worlds with work-life balance, or that were energetically sustainable, environmentally friendly or embedded in the community. We received pieces that explored the idea that genuine collaboration and human relationships were celebrated, accommodated and respected. Such a world, our authors felt, was utopia enough for them.
This, we feel, is a wake up call.
During our dinner salon and discussion this month similar sentiments were widely shared—it was sobering. And many of the scientists in the room felt that the general public had no idea how difficult and sometimes downright miserable doing science can actually be. This seemed like a fruitful area for more interesting creative writing about science.
The good news is that the winning stories in the EU Life/Nature competition themselves were great, we enjoyed reading and discussing them—short, entertaining examples of how imaginative storytelling can convey difficult truths. Check them out:
- "Tackling an early-morning crisis at the Institute of Merged Sciences" by radiologist Katherine Ember
- "The Stupid Questions Office" by biochemist Miles Lizak
- "The Eclosion Event" by computational biologist Evandro Ferrada
—Trevor Corson
Image: Nature, "Tackling an early-morning crisis at the Institute of Merged Sciences"