Robert Winston: "Would you rather live in 1913 or 2013?"

The Imperial College Professor of Science and Society takes the NS Centenary Questionnaire.

What is the most important invention of the past 100 years?

It’s a very arguable point. Possibly the microchip, because it has facilitated so much of what we do in modern society, and what we will do in the future as it becomes more and more miniaturised at the nano level. But I think you could say that the close runner-up would be the laser. It is one of the most ubiquitous pieces of technology. First posited by Albert Einstein in 1905 in his special theory of relativity, it wasn’t actually made until 50 years later. It can be used for nuclear fusion, for microscopes, for recording, for surgery.

What is the most important scientific discovery of the past 100 years?

Maybe the discovery of subatomic particles, because although we knew a bit about electrons, the organisation of the atom has been a phenomenal discovery in terms of our understanding of the universe.

What is the most important sporting event of the past 100 years?

I think the Olympic men’s 1,500 metres, because that gives a very good yardstick of how human performance has improved. In 1900, the world record was about three minutes and 56 seconds. By the 1970s it had fallen to around three minutes 30 seconds. It’s now down to three minutes 26 seconds. It’s actually improved about 8.6 per cent in that time. So that gives you an idea.

We have probably peaked at three minutes 26 seconds, so unless we genetically modify humans, or give them drugs, it won’t improve much more.

Who is the most influential politician in the past 100 years?

Denis Healey. I think that it was one of the great tragedies of British politics that he never became prime minister.

He was widely educated, with a very powerful intellectual background and an extraordinary sense of humour, and great fun to be with.

And philanthropist?

Leonard Wolfson. He was a remarkable philanthropist who did amazing things for the medical and the arts community in Britain and overseas. He was an extraordinary man, although very difficult to deal with.

I am deeply grateful to him; he was very supportive of some of the things I find very important.

What is your favourite quotation and why?

I quite like Gerald Kaufman’s comment, which was also quoted by Denis Healey. It’s “the longest suicide note in history” – referring to the 1983 Labour Party manifesto, which wanted to renationalise a whole lot of industries, and all sorts of things that were completely insane.

What is your favourite speech?

Robin Cook’s resignation speech at the time of the Iraq war. He demolished the front bench of the Conservative Party and it was one of the funniest and most abrasive speeches. Cook at his masterful best.

What is the most significant change to our lives you envisage over the next 100 years?

I think that’s a really stupid question. It is quite impossible for us to envisage what is going to happen to us over the next five years, let alone the next 100 years. We live in an uncertain world. I don’t think that we should try to make predictions. It’s only when uncertainty becomes certainty that it becomes dangerous. Both religion and science are at their most dangerous when they are certain.

So then, what is your greatest concern about the future?

I’m an optimist. I think that human affairs are becoming steadily better. Would you rather live in 1913 or 2013?

Of course I have concerns. But I think that people are becoming more concerned for other people, and we are valuing our children more than ever before. There are all sorts of signs that human society is improving.

In your own field, what will be the most dramatic development?

I have no idea! I don’t think you can predict any developments in my line of work.

Science is never clear where it is going to go, but this is what I find interesting.

What is the most important priority for the future wellbeing of people and our planet?

The education of young people, especially primary school children and below. Having a better, broader education for people before the age of nine is important, because by the age of nine and ten, children start to lose that wide-eyed innocence.

We corrupt their view of the world and stultify their innovation and imagination. What we need to do is to start maintaining that inquisitiveness and inventiveness of children. They are the young scientists.

 

The New Statesman centenary questionnaire (Illustration: Ellie Foreman-Peck)

This article first appeared in the 30 October 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Should you bother to vote?

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.