Most of the laws are so obvious that we can be surprised that they exist. "Do not kill". Do we need such an obvious law ? Of course, I don't want to kill anybody. Who really wants ? Does this law prevent somebody to take action even if the risk is the death penalty ? On a softer note, do we need any law to prevent us to litter trash on the floor ? Yes, such a law does exist. Let us continue in good/not-good actions. Do we need a law to prevent us from cutting a line ? No, there is no law for that. Do we short-cut the queue even when we are angry ? For most of us the answer is no (except for a special category of people described in [1]).
Regarding ecology, I wonder why we do wait for a law. Above the law, there exists education (could I say ethics?). This thing that tells you what is good or not. Simple ! Limit yourself to 100 km/h on the highway makes a significant change in the CO2 production. Small things imply a lot (are there small thing in that matter ?).
Regarding the ecology and the profession of researcher, what can be done ? Research uses a lot of primary materials, a lot of resources. Is this useful ? (Have a watch on Grothendieck speech at CERN) I will change the word "useful" by "necessary" but it is not prior to humanity (food for all, peace and security). Where can we spare CO2? There is that question about travelling. I do love the US, the travel, meeting people and friends and rebuild the world all together. Traveling is useful but, is it really necessary ? Distant conference works; not as good as real one but it works. What we can decide that conference travel should be reserved for researcher below 35. Indeed, the travel and the meeting with other laboratories, other mentors and other inspiring people are relevant for young researchers. After 35, the travel should include a long duration stay, let us say 30 days in one or two foreign institutes. This scheme could be a personal choice. No law is required. What is the impact ? For science, the impact is reduced. Less travel, better quality displacement. For the environment, the impact can be significant. On the other hand, for the career, the impact could be huge ... and probably not in the positive way regarding how the work is evaluate.
Excellence is the requirement for any scientific activities. This is a very 'pure' and 'noble' aim. The problem comes from the evaluation process of Excellence. Evaluation sounds like counting stuffs : number of papers, number of conferences, number of invitations, number of citations... number number number. This is the requirement for any quantitative evaluation. But for quality, one deserves qualitative evaluation. How do personal choice, personal life, personal ethics impact the professional life ?
For example, to illustrate how my speech is delicate, here is a nice picture of a parabolic flight campaign... useful-necessary-prior...
[1] The excellent and hilarious book : Assholes: A Theory by Aaron Jame
Comments