The Science Is Vital campaign: Email(s?) to my MP

For those of you who don't know, there is a very real danger of the coalition government of the UK severely cutting science funding. Us in the science community aren't too keen on this happening, for reasons far too obvious to go into here. But there are many people who want to do something about it (check out the link for a full background as to why Science is as important as we say it is)

If you care in any way at all about the economy and international standing of the UK, please sign the petition. Even if you're not British. Actually, especially if you're not British; the argument that the cuts will affect the UK's international reputation will be strengthened if international people say 'Yeah, that will actually happen'.

As with most campaigns like this, just adding you (electronic) signature to a document is the bare minimum you can do. We are also encouraged to write to our MPs. So I will.

Thing is, do I send a sensible, rationally argued missive in an earnest attempt to get my MP to take the issue seriously and act upon it? Or do I send one of my usual satirical, flippant letters which is more indicative of my 'style', is more likely to get noticed and will provide me with some brief amusement, but will probably be disregarded as gibberish and may in fact be detrimental to the campaign.

So, here are the two options.

Option 1: An e-mail to Alun Michael MP, from Dean Burnett (Doctor of Neuroscience and concerned member of the scientific community)

“Dear Alun Michael

I am one of your constituents. I would like you to sign EDM 767, the Science is Vital petition, and attend a lobby in Parliament on 12 October (15.30, Committee Room 10).

The evidence is clear that investing in research brings a range of economic and social benefits, and that severe cuts at the very moment that our competitor nations are investing more could jeopardize the future of UK science:

Although every member of the science community understands that,, given the current financial situation and the national deficit, potentially severe cuts are going to be unavoidable. However, as much of the economy of this country is dependent on world-class research and the resultant innovations from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, any short-term gains made by cutting science funding will undoubtedly be severely offset by the loss of the research and revenue that would have been made available had the cuts not occurred. In short, cuts will harm the economy and encourage the best scientific minds in the UK to seek opportunities abroad, particularly as many other countries are actually increasing scientific investment in response to the economic challenges currently being faced.

Given the nature of scientific research, any cuts made to research currently in progress would effectively nullify the investment already made into the research areas being cut, so it could easily be argued that the cuts made to scientific spending will actually waste money, rather than save it.

And although it is difficult to quantify in a financial sense, it cannot be denied that cuts will hurt world-class research, not eliminate waste, and damage the UK’s reputation as a leading home for research excellence. This is a particularly relevant issue for the University of Wales (UoW). As someone who has for many years been (and still is) involved with efforts aimed at raising the reputation of the UoW, I am very much aware of the efforts that have gone into the UoW earning a reputation as an internationally recognised centre of learning and research excellence across many areas and departments, attracting much attention and investment. As an MP for Wales, I would hope you would appreciate how damaging science cuts could prove to the Welsh economy in particular.

The Science is Vital [http://scienceisvital.org.uk/] coalition, along with the Campaign for Science and Engineering [http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk], are calling upon the Government to set out a supportive strategy, including public investment goals above or at least in step with economic growth. Without such investment and commitment the UK risks its international reputation, its market share of high-tech manufacturing and services, the ability to respond to urgent and long-term national scientific challenges, and the economic recovery.

I have signed the petition at http://scienceisvital.org.uk/sign-the-petition. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Dean Burnett

[ADDRESS]"

Option 2: An e-mail to Alun Michael MP, from Dean Burnett (Unemployed Neuroscientist, aspiring but generally crap comedian, writer of weirdly popular-but-pointless ‘satirical’ science blog, sciencedigestive.blogspot.com)

“Dear Alun Michael

All right Al, how’s things? Dean here, remember me? I interviewed you that time when you came to my school during your campaign to be the first minister of the Welsh Assembly. Actually, I think it had just been established, so you were campaigning to be the first first minister. Would that be the first [squared] minister? Although first = 1, and 1 x 1 is still one, so the first minister and first [squared] minister would logically be the same thing, so probably not worth differentiating. Presumably, that’s why you didn’t.

Sorry, tell a lie, it was Rhodri Morgan who came to my school campaigning. We never saw you. What happened between you and Rhodri anyway? I don't really follow politics normally.

So we’ve never met in person, but you may have seen me. I live very close to the Welsh assembly, so if you’re in there often you’ve probably seen me walking past. Although I should point out that there’s another guy around here who looks and dresses exactly like me, so if you’ve seen someone giving you the middle finger and/or ‘wanker’ gesture while passing, it’s definitely the other guy.

I’m writing to you to see if you’d be willing to speak out against the science cuts proposed (or more accurately, ‘hinted at’) by Vince Cable and the coalition government. There are many reasons for this, some of which I will go into now.

Firstly, Cable argues that only ‘quality’ research should be funded. However, we in the scientific community (of which I am still a member, but probably because they haven’t got round to kicking me out yet), we question Vince’s credentials in judging what defines ‘quality’ research. He’s obviously a clever man/back-stabbing Tory loving git (delete as appropriate), and I’ll be the first to admit that there definitely are a number of scientists who don’t really engage in worthwhile or decent quality research. These can be easily spotted as they tend to be rather self- promotional, are usually seen on Big Brother or other tacky media formats as ‘experts’ on mundane or unrelated issues, or take bastard months to mark my I mean a typical postgraduates PhD thesis corrections.

However, the whole concept of funding only quality research is logically questionable. Research projects don’t even know if the thing their researching even works or is real (depending on the field), let alone what the economic or social benefits are. Why not just cut any research projects that don’t include an assessment of all the unforeseen circumstances they’ll encounter while you’re at it?

However, given your past clashes with members of the scientific community, maybe you agree that the cuts are a good and necessary thing? Well, fair enough if you think that, it’s your view and you’re entitled to it. I would only ask that you consider the implications of this ‘only fund things of demonstrably high quality’ approach. Who’s to say it’ll end with the science community? Presumably, other areas will be given the same treatment?

What if the political system itself gets the ‘quality’ axe? Exactly how useful is, oh, let’s say, the Welsh Assembly? Would you be ok to scrap that? No doubt it would affect you and your position, but how would you justify its continued existence? Bear in mind I live nearby, and can see for myself that most of the time it just sits there empty like an elaborate inverted mushroom, occasionally getting everyone together to approve of such vitally important things as golf tournaments.

And what about banks? Surely public funds should only be invested in banks that are of acceptable quality? I’m no financial expert, but I would dare to suggest the way to recognise a poor quality bank is that IT NEEDS PUBLIC FUNDS IN ORDER TO CARRY ON BEING A BANK! But like I say, that’s just my take on things.

But please, if you could, will you join the science community (and help mend some bridges) in opposing the suggested cuts. Even if you don’t feel particularly inclined to supporting the science community, it’s a chance to put the boot in to the Tories isn’t it? Sometimes we do things we don’t want to in order to gain the advantage, e.g. form a coalition government with rivals against the currently ruling party. I myself voluntarily did a comedy fundraiser in support of the (successful) campaign of a local Labour candidate before the election. I was very popular on the night as well (really, I was, surprised me). I didn’t want to do it, I’m not particularly enamoured with modern Labour policies, but I did it.

She got her funds and a successful campaign, I got to meet and perform with Andy Parsons (who’s a lot taller than he looks on the telly, which is weird as it’s usually the other way round with famous people I’ve met). So technically, the Cardiff Labour party owes me a favour, so I’m calling it in. e a mate Al, sign EDM 767.

It’s not like you’ve got much else to do these days, is it?

Love and kisses

Dean Burnett (PhD)"

So, which one should I use? Answers via any communication medium I'm contactable via.

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: 'garwboy

"Dear Economics, from Science" (No. 4)

Wrote this when ill, so if it shows a marked drop in quality, that might be why. Or I'm just crap, can't completely rule that out.

"Dear Economics

Hope this letter finds you well, but I'd settle for conscious. It's me, the anthropomorphic personification of Science. I'm writing to you because all the intangible concepts that form elements of society told me to. Apparently, when it comes to revealing things that people don't want to hear that are nevertheless true, I'm the expert. I can't argue that, your friend Politics usually does the opposite, and Religion hasn't spoken to me cordially since the whole Darwin thing. To be honest, unless you count the occasional screaming fit and frequent burning bags of 'organic waste' lobbed at me, Religion doesn't speak to me at all any more.

To be honest, everyone thinks I'm a bit autistic. I couldn't care less either way, but that supports their argument when you think about it.

But I digress, so I'll just get to the point.

WHERE THE HELL IS ALL OUR STUFF!?!?!?

Seriously, where in Newton's name has it all gone? I've heard about these people who selflessly allow friends/relatives with drug problems to stay with them, then end up with all their possessions sold for smack and their trusted friend/relative slumped in the corner of the now-empty front room, dribbling and giggling. That's exactly what you've done. And no, the giggling is not endearing. And that 'whoops! Clumsy me!' expression is far from amusing.

Thing is, you haven't emptied someone's home, you've flogged the house several times over! We all put you in charge of all the money because you assured us you knew what you were doing. This is something myself and Mathematics were dubious of from the start, but no-one listens to use because we're boring, apparently. And I admit it was sort of a relief, nobody would object if someone offered too do their accounts, at least not until the point where they find themselves eating out of bins.

Help me understand here. A lot of the things you do to 'regulate' and 'control' the flow of commerce are really confusing. And that's ME saying that. Science! I understand quantum wave functions. I pretty much invented complexity. A lot of the time, your behaviour made it look like you were making it up as you went along. Turns out, you were making it up as you went along.

What are you, a chiropractor? What sort of idiot bases a system INTEGRAL TO SOCIETY on the ridiculously fragile grounding of people's temporary optimism? As far as I can tell, the strength of the stock market depends largely on how much money people expect to get from certain actions. If we'd known that was what you were doing we might as well have put Astrology in charge. At least he'd make predictions based on celestial configurations, something he can't control. You make predictions based on how much money you think you'll make, and the amount of money you make is determined by the predictions of how much money you'll make? And you don't see anything wrong with this? It's self-referential! It's a closed system! And haven't you heard of the the second law of thermodynamics? No, you probably haven't. To be honest, I'm not sure to what extent physical laws apply to entirely made-up systems. I'll leave that one to Philosophy.

(That reminds me, I haven't visited her in a while, I really should, but then she does tend to babble on about stuff I don't really have any interest in, but then that's the same with most elderly parents I hear. Sorry, where was I?...)

Maybe I've got this completely wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, I've got a bit of a blind spot when it comes to people's behaviour. Maybe you operate according to something else entirely. Please, enlighten me if so. I prefer to study complex systems and try and figure them out so they become understandable; you seem to have done the reverse. It's impressive in a way, but also makes it quite easy to work things for your own benefit without people realising.

Not that I'm accusing you of anything underhanded of course (despite the megatons of evidence to support that claim). I know Law tends to weigh in on your behalf whenever anyone does. Utterly spineless sometimes, that guy. So much so that I'm reworking the biology classifications to put Lawyers and Jellyfish in the same genus. A bit harsh, admittedly; Jellyfish never sting people on purpose.

I suppose you are to be commended in some ways. I would have sworn it was impossible to violate the principle of conservation of mass, yet you've managed to make something like a trillion dollars just vanish! It's very impressive, it's as if Physics were to tell me he'd lost the moon. Seriously, where did it go? Have you checked down the back of the sofa? That's where my money sometimes ends up. Of course, that much loose change down the back of the couch means you'd end up sat somewhere in the ionosphere, but might be worth a look.

Seriously man, you have a problem. A junkie always hurts those around him. Look at Environment! Could you at least clean up your act long enough to stop repeatedly kicking her in the face? We need her a hell of a lot more than we need you. And don't think we don't know that Politics is enabling you, he's given you all our stuff so you can indulge your filthy habits. Meanwhile I've got particle physicists here who are having to do work with bloody abacuses! You could argue that what they do is 'non-essential'. And what you do is? Bovine faeces!

Anyway, the rest of the guys might be afraid of you, but I'm not. You want me and Technology to keep supplying you with things to sell to fund your habit? Not happening. Your guys make ten times as much as my guys on average, so don't play the bleeding heart angle with me. Most addicts go to rehab, they don't get given other peoples valuables just so they can keep getting high.

Sort it out, dickhead!

Yours increasingly angrily

Science (BA hons)

P.S. Have I introduced you to my friend Logic? You guys should meet, you clearly need him in your life.

Email: humourology (at) live.co.uk

Twitter: @garwboy