Soundbites
Cern’s large hadron collider project had a successful start-up last week after nine years of construction. The mammoth particle physics experiment could help to unlock some of the secrets of when the universe began. Is this useful knowledge to have? Or would the money have been better spent on more immediate human needs?
Nine years of funding sounds like a waste of money. We can’t change what happened when the universe began. The money should have been spent helping people who are alive in the world today.
Alison Graham, Blackburn, Lancashire
I understand the Cern project has finance from Northern Rock and its success has been guaranteed by Gordon Brown. The misspelling of Hadrian as Hadron is just a government ploy to put us all against the wall. If the doomsday scenario of an uncontrollable black hole results, Gordon’s thievery of our pension funds, his stealth tax conspiracy, and the consequences of his Soviet chancellorship will be solved at a stroke.
Andrzej Borucki, Ruislip, Middlesex
If it is successful, this project could facilitate the solution to virtually any problem mankind faces. Unlimited controlled energy supplies could be used to engineer solutions to pollution and global warming, irrigation and food production, transport, recycling, and many more. The downside is that it could change the balance of power and generate rapid instability. The oil and gas producing powers could fall off the edge of a cliff. How could this knowledge be unlocked safely? Prometheus gave us fire, could we be opening Pandora’s Box ?
Alan Cook, Braintree, Essex
I would say no while we have such levels of people going without their basic needs met but, if there is a chance it could lead to a cheap and environmentally friendly energy source, then I would answer yes.
Robert Moore, Banchory, Aberdeenshire
Throughout history, humans have searched for answers to questions that didn’t need answering. It’s what we do best. The LHC is simply the next logical step to the eternal question: “I wonder what’s over there?”
Antony Boyle, Derby
Every now and then, the scientific community must be given the opportunity to complete an experiment which may fail – or produce information which will lead to the advancement of our knowledge. The money could have been squandered on government consultants. This is better.
A simple engineer
Most aspects of modern civilisation started off as blue sky research.
David Andrews, Peterborough
It may be the first step of the cycle of blue sky research – no practical use to us now but our descendants may thank us for it. We are where we are technologically and as a society because of longer-term investment in research. I am glad we are still thinking long term.
Andrew Pinkerton, Manchester
Of course it’s worthwhile. The popular alternative would presumably be to spend it on a prize for Big Brother. Then we’d only find out how the universe ends.
Angus Buchanan, Ashford, Kent
Without this kind of research new technologies, knowledge and techniques cannot be developed. These grand-scale projects lead to the technologies we will take for granted tomorrow.
Ashley Kingston, Barkisland, Halifax
We need to keep pushing the boundaries of science. The cost of this lab could justify advances in, for example, medical science and our understanding of our environment. Knowing more won’t let us rest with easier conscience, just encourage us to keep pushing the boundaries of knowledge.
Alan Dewar, Ulverston, Cumbria
The money spent is worthwhile. Typically, research projects such as Cern provide knowledge and evidence of much more than they were initially intended to do. Besides, I don’t think even the money spent on Cern would help dig this government out of its current situation.
Andrew Dawson, Cheltenham, Glos
Knowledge gained through research often has a way of being useful beyond what might have been foreseen. If we don’t keep eating away at the boundaries we may miss out on solutions we can’t even imagine yet.
Andy Normand, Billericay, Essex
If the research results in a quicker route to nuclear fusion then the money will have been well spent. The benefits to the whole world, including the poor and disadvantaged, will be incalculable.
Andrew Gould, Dunblane, Perthshire
Money should be spent carrying out scientific experiments. Without pushing the boundaries of our understanding we do not discover new things and move forward. It is unlikely there will be any immediate commercial applications of what is learnt but give it time and they will come.
Andrew Hayes, Woodcroft, Glos
Better knowledge of particle physics could lead to effective methods of nuclear waste disposal or treatment of medical conditions such as cancer.
Alan Kenney, Cambridge
It’s exciting science but funding research into alternative energy sources would probably have been a more responsible way to spend public money.
Andy Pyle, Halton, Lancaster
Not long ago the fundamental particle was an atom. Then we got the nucleus and electron. Now we have quarks, hadrons, bosons etc. The smaller the particle, the larger the machine required to experiment on it. Following the principle of “Great fleas have lesser fleas… and so ad infinitum,” we will eventually have to build a machine as big as the earth to investigate unimaginably small particles. Big projects like this inspire interest in physics and science generally. It has certainly sparked discussion among people who would not normally take any interest in science.
Ann Cooper, Stroud, Gloucestershire
© PE Publishing, 17 September 2008
