The pursuit of science is more often defended for what it makes possible than for what it actually does. In fact, what science actually does is readily seen as hard, boring, dangerous and often morally dubious. Yet, opinion polls repeatedly show that public support for all branches of science – including basic research without any specific policy goals – remains strong. The strength of this support is all the more remarkable given the destruction and risk that the planet has had to sustain in the name of “science” over the past hundred years alone. There would be no aerial warfare, mass surveillance, mass extinctions, forced sterilizations, gas chambers, nuclear threats, environmental despoliation or global warming without many of the most advanced natural and social sciences. While the public may be ignorant of the basic facts and theories of science, they are certainly aware of the facts I have just cited. Yet lay belief in science flourishes in a way that would be the envy of any religion, devotion to which normally involves some serious acquaintance and engagement with the relevant doctrines.

This point does not carry the weight it might because we implicitly adopt an “end justifies the means” approach to science. The parts of science that have become the signature products of our humanity – including the theories of Newton, Darwin and Einstein – are unequivocally “good” only if you operate with a very forgiving sense of unintended consequences and extend indefinitely the time frame for the desired impacts to be felt.