The world of Petri dishes and microscopes was not for me, though I ended up studying industrial microbiology in UCD. I quickly realised academic endeavour in the sciences would be a little too rarefied for me.
Without the required dedication to meticulously oversee the application of biological processes in industrial settings, like many of my peers went on to do, my options narrowed.
I did, however, have enough guile to determine in undergraduate chemistry experiments what was a reasonable answer to come up with. And I had a brilliant ability to predict likely exam topics but even that skill does not deliver, if you don’t do the requisite amount of study – first-year students, take note.
But I always knew I was biologically inclined with a distinct lack of ability in maths and physics though a brilliant physics teacher in Glenstal Abbey School, Declan Casey, helped me secure a Leaving Cert honour in the subject – a C no less.
READ MORE
Lecturer Fr Tom Burke, a co-founder of the Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition, ensured I cleared (quite remarkably in my view) the considerable hurdle of showing proficiency in a set of classical physics experiments during my first year in college to enable me to divert happily to all things biological thereafter.
But I loved science. I instinctively knew why it mattered but I was wise enough to see the writing on the wall when the head of department called us all into his office at Ardmore House to announce how we did in our final year exams.
A modest 2.2 for me (but I always emphasised it was an honours degree). Strangely, he added: “But you had a good time in college.” Did he mean I got the balance wrong between the joys of Belfield in the late ’70s and my studies? Probably.
Journalism, and its sheer unpredictability, was a better career fit. In the years that followed, there was never a week when I didn’t recognise science was of some benefit to my work, especially in weeding out disinformation; the plain wrong, unjustified leaps in interpreting data, not forgetting studies and polls without a sufficiently robust sample size. It even gave me a nudge up the career ladder on occasion.
A high point while with The Irish Times was editing the Science & Climate page since 2017, a role which Caroline O’Doherty is taking over. There is both satisfaction and dismay at this juncture. The former stems from having built a pool of contributors and columnists who consider in compelling ways issues affecting human lives and Earth – and what might get us to a better place with the application of sound science.
The latter arises because we have come to a point in history when there is a parting of the ways between tied-in human progress and scientific advancement in polarised parts of the world, nowhere more so than the United States. Anti-science is getting a foothold there.
Who would have thought such a thing could happen at this stage of evolution, following sustained growth in human brain sizes, where for centuries, scientists, engineers, mathematicians, technologists and artists built on the shoulders of giants in our collective best interests?
Of course, there were bumps along the way: the clash of civilisations and great battles between religion and scientific discovery. There is one standout manifestation of 21st-century anti-science: For seven decades, the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, more than 11,100ft above sea level, has played a critical role in recording global warming, ie atmospheric carbon dioxide. It has increased unrelentingly and exceeds 420 parts per million. It is the “Goldilocks spot” for studying the atmosphere.
But US president Donald Trump’s proposed 2026 budget would put an end to Mauna Loa, along with three other key observatories and almost all the climate research being done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a leading research institution and part of a global network.
The axe is due to come in the form of a $1.7 billion (€1.5 billion) budget cut. The only hope is that it may be rejected by the US Congress, where Republicans have a small majority. The cut is a “logical” follow-on to excising references to climate change in US agencies.
We can only pray reasonable Republicans are persuaded this shortsightedness is not in the interests of their constituents, as it undermines their ability to anticipate and respond to the increasing incidence of extreme weather events – regardless of whether you think climate change is the antagonist or not.
They should heed the data indicating the US already suffers more insured losses from extreme weather disasters than any other country. But the reality is also that NOAA cuts, if applied, not only endanger American lives but all global citizens.
