Science, Not Art: Ten Scientists' Diaries

Jon Turney, Ed.
Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London UK, 2003
144 pp. Paper, £8.50
ISBN: 0-903319-98-5.

Reviewed by Rob Harle
Australia

recluse@lis.net.au

This book like its companion volume, Art, Not Chance: Nine Artists’ Diaries is a result of the grant programmes of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Whilst this foundation is best known for its involvement with the arts, in recent years it has run a grant programme–The Arts and Science, "to encourage artists to engage with new thinking and practice in science and technology" (7). The results of this are the present book being discussed and a further book–Strange and Charmed: Science and the Contemporary Visual Arts.

Science, Not Art is of a similar format and style to its companion volume, but in this case 10 scientists are asked to keep a diary for about six months to help others get an insight into their day-to-day lives. Each of the scientists represented are outstanding in their fields, many are Royal Society Research Fellows, and their expertise includes the following: cosmologist, ecologist and meteorologist, neurophysiologist, mathematician, marine biologist, palaeopathologist, biophysicist, geneticist, physical chemist, doctor, and space physiologist.

In contradistinction to Art, Not Chance, I found this book inspiring, engaging and a pleasurable read. The diary entries of the scientists seem less contrived and far less superficial than those of the artists. Both groups mention quite personal matters in their entries; however, the scientists do not seem to make a big thing out of the many banal situations we all encounter from day to day. This disparity caused me considerable concern as the theme and content of the two sets of entries were very similar, so I searched for an answer.

Perhaps a clue to this difference can be found in a statement in Siân Ede’s foreword: "[W]hile they [artists] may dread the cruel review, they are responsible to themselves alone" (8). Whilst this may be true of the solo artist painting or chipping away in their lonely garret for some vague future exhibition, it is not true, or at least should not be, for the contemporary artist involved with so many others such as publishers, orchestras, dancers and manufacturing engineers. Further, in reply to the narcissistic, self-absorption implied in Ede’s comment, if the artist has entered a contract and received publicly funded grant money, then he is as morally and legally responsible as scientists in similar circumstances. I’m not suggesting for one moment that artists compromise their creations by pandering to the whims of a committee of "bean counters," only that artists are responsible to others in varying degrees.

It seems this mythical (though obviously manifest) lack of accountability is reflected in many of the artists’ diary entries. It is almost as though the artists hold their audience, funding bodies, and associates in contempt. This is nowhere to be found in the scientists’ diary entries. They are absorbed totally in their projects and seem absolutely genuine in the passion for their work.

The scientists’ diaries give a fascinating insight into the "fast lane" world of scientific research, competition between scientists, funding, and the potential benefits for humanity of the successful project.

I highly recommend this book. Apart from fascinating general interest reading, for any student contemplating a career in research science or academic science teaching, it is indispensable.