There was programme on over the weekend which I wanted to see very much . It was called, I think, Inside the Cell, or some such, and a terrific bio-chemistry swot had been wheeled in to provide the spiel. Now, as you all know, I am a semi-educated man, in fact, worse than that, I am a semi-self-educated man which, of course, provides me with little inthe way of hard facts but a great deal of self-inflated opinions! Where was I? Oh, yes, Inside the Cell, well, I didn't stay for long, but before I blow the BBC to hell and back let me explain why I was looking forward to this programme with such eagerness.
I can still remember my exact location the day I first found out about the intricacies of the human cell - a remote farm cottage in Wales, since you ask, and yes, it was raining! The book was Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe which itself caused a minor sensation in the world of biology and nearly caused 'Archbishop' Dawkins's mitre to achieve lift off. This was because of its advocacy of the Intelligent Designer notion which is about as convincing as the idea that something like a human eye could have evolved as a result of zillions of tiny incremental improvements. However, in the course of supporting his argument Behe, a micro-bio-chemical swot, himself, went into some detail describing the actual 'mechanics of what goes on inside a living cell.
It was a very quiet weekend that weekend in Wales because I was so utterly gob-smacked as to be incapable of anything in the way of conversation with my wife and friends - probably to their relief. Until that moment I had simply no idea of the complexity - well, 'complexity' is hardly the word, think of 'complexity' multiplied a hundred-fold - and then multiplied again - of the processes which go on inside every cell in our bodies every minute of the day. I cannot describe the excitement I felt on learning all this, but also I felt a sort of rage because I realised that had I known of this as a boy I would have concentrated on chemistry and made it my life's work. In a recent exchange of comments down below somewhere, the subject of blood-clotting arose, and again, that is one of the 'miracles' (I use the word loosely because I cannot find another to express my reverence for the process) that Behe describes and which left me - well - silenced!
So, you can imagine my eagerness to watch this programme Inside the Cell. Of course, being a weekend there was Strictly Come Prancing on and the 'Memsahib' has prior rights to the schedules so I turned in gratitude - yet again - to dear, old Rupe's 'do-flicker-recording-thingie' (which is the cleverest clever thing since, well, blood-clotting, really) and duly recorded it. Yesterday I watched it. I switched off after 10 minutes. Rage ensued! I do realise that making scientific programmes is not easy. Not everyone wants some dusty, old university prof (sorry DM!) standing there talking directly to camera, although I seem to recall it worked quite well in years past, but neither do we - or I - want ludicrous, special effects cartoons all over-laid with portentious and ghastly non-music. That's what we were provided with on this programme. It was science for seven year-olds!
The boss of the BBC is up in front of a committee of MPs this morning to answer questions about this hsyterical Jimmy Savile nonsense. I wish someone would ask him about his totally crap science programmes!
I fully agree!
Whilst there used to be some inspiring science programmes in the past I gave up watching TV long ago for similar reasons. I suppose I am slightly biased being one of those lucky children who, living nearby, had the good fortune to be able to have David Bellamy show us round our local forest and inspire wonder at lifes complexities (believe me you will never find anyone either as enthusiastic, knowledgeable or as inspirational as he).
As with almost every aspect of modern life (think musicians, actors, even TV presenters) the emphasis has gone from competence to appearance (form over function). Then there has been the shift from presenting a programme that stretches (informs, teaches and requires thought) the viewer to one which pampers to an attention span of a few seconds (and is there only to amuse and entertain). (I'm not sure whether this is a reflection on the programme makers, the viewing public or both).
Whilst I could recommend some truly awe inspiring material, most of it may be a bit too technical for you to enjoy. What I can do is recommend you check youtube for some excellent, often independently produced, videos (either just Google - cells, components, function or try those produced by Bozemanbiology, a little oversimplified in some ways being aimed, I think, at high-school students but excellent nevertheless).
"that something like a human eye could have evolved as a result of zillions of tiny incremental improvements"
Hah, that's way beyond me, I'm still trying to imagine how the phospholipid bilayer of the cell membrane could have formed incrementally (let alone how the groups of identical or homologous proteins decided to group together to form ion channels). As I've said, my mind is in a permanent state of bogglement.
Posted by: Able | Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 10:37
"phospholipid bilayer"s are seldom far from mind, either, Able! Just kidding, and you are entirely right in believing that 'entertaining' has taken over from 'educating'. I still remember old Bronowski who educated us all but illustrated his teaching with pertinent pictures. Also, that old WWII General (no time now to look up hisname) who gave military history talks entirely ad lib lasting exactly 30 minutes. Then, of course, there was the incomparable Richard Feynman, than who, etc, etc.
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 11:09
D, it's called dumbing down.
If you saw the stuff they "teach" them in schools these days, you would expire in apoplectic rage, I am sure.
As for Prof. Feynman, well what can I say, other than "we are not worthy"...
Posted by: Andrew Duffin | Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 12:39
I cannot judge his scientific work but as a man he was a delight and my guess is that as a university teacher he was terrific.
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 17:30
"I realised that had I known of this as a boy I would have concentrated on chemistry and made it my life's work."
That would have been a terrible mistake.
There's less money in it than in second hand cars, and you don't get to jump out of planes with a bloody great pack.
Posted by: Whyaxye | Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 19:53
Jumping out of planes was the easy bit, carrying the afore-mentioned 'bloody great pack' was the hard part! But you're right, I would have made a crap scientist - lack of concentration. Ah well, anyone want a nice, clean, one-owner . . . ?
Posted by: David Duff | Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 21:25
"Not everyone wants some dusty, old university prof ... standing there talking directly to camera": A J P Taylor did it very well wheniwasaboy.
Posted by: dearieme | Tuesday, 23 October 2012 at 22:29
Well, I would have thought it was a show about living in jail.
I might have watched that.
Posted by: Andra | Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 00:19
Yes, DM, he was good, wasn't he?
Well of course you would, Andra, you're 'Orstralian', aren't you, and you're all descended from convicts I'm told!
Posted by: David Duff | Wednesday, 24 October 2012 at 09:11