Editorial

Security

Politics

World

Letters

Sports

Obituaries

Archives

Question dogmas, challenges, exsisting paradigms

Pioneer of the theory of cosmic life and Director, Cardiff Centre for Astro-biology, United Kingdom, Professor of Astronomy and Applied Mathematics in an exclusive interview with the SUNDAY OBSERVER staffer M. P. MUTTIAH said that the most important thing in science was to question the existing dogmas in theories.

If the young scientists blindly accept the ideas of their forefathers, science would not progress. Advancement could be made by continuously reassessing the existing paradigms. Science is an organic process and unless we continue to question the existing values, we would not make any progress.

Question: What made you to get interested in astronomy?

Answer: I owe much to my father P.H. Wickremasinghe who was a distinguished mathematician. He obtained First Class Honours in Mathematics at the Cambridge University in 1932. Since childhood I was interested in astronomy. Our house was full of books on astronomy and mathematics.

Whenever the family went out of town I used to admire the spectacular sight of the skies. This further pushed me into the depth of astronomy.

I used to go for walks in the evening along the railway tracks between Bambalapitiya and Wellawatteduring sunset, and watch the sight of the milky way. I wondered how much of life there would be outside the earth. The question came to me almost naturally.

In 1957, I joined the then University of Ceylon, and was inspired by two distinguished scholars - Prof. C. J. Eliezer, who was a mathematician and Douglas Amarasekera, the son of the famous painter A. C. G. S. Amarasekera.

I passed with First Class Honours in Mathematics and was awarded a Commonwealth Scholarship to proceed to Cambridge University. I must tell you that I did have problems in choosing the subjects when I entered the University, as I was interested in English Literature too. I wrote poems on the spectacular sights of the earth and the planets. But now I am satisfied that I have made the correct decision.

Q: Your research was centred on Earth?

A: Yes. Eventually it led me to the question of life. It was not the problem I had set out to explore. In the western world, the idea was that life had to be centred on the earth. In the middle of the 15th century, it was considered that the earth was the centre of the universe, and the centre of things.

The contributions of Galileo, Copernicus and Newton ultimately led to the belief that the solar system was the centre. But an earth-centred attitude remained deeply entrenched as far? as life was concerned, well into the latter part of the 20th century.

Much of my own research related to this particular issue and it took thirty years of effort to overturn the time-hallowed paradigm of earth-centred life. Now earth has become insignificant. Now we have to think of bigger systems.

To explore this possibility many arguments are posed on astronomy which suggests that this has to be a cosmic phenomena. When we first discussed this in the 1970s, it was regarded as widely theoretical. But during the past thirty years the situation has changed tremendously and everyone is looking for life on Mars and so on.

Q: Who were the pioneers of this theory?

A: Late Sir Fred Hoyle and I pioneered the idea that related to cosmic life in the 1970s. On July 4 last year a historic mission was completed by NASA. For the first time in the history of science ,an experiment was conducted literally upon an astronomical body.

A probe was sent hurtling through space at 23,000 miles per hour to crash onto a comet, Comet Tempel 1, at a distance of 70 million miles from the earth. The impact gouged out material from the comet's interior, and an analysis of the data has now provided further support for our theory, that comets might indeed carry the seeds of life. I think, we did succeed in bringing about a very important paradigm change.

In science everything was a slow take-off because, scientists all of us are conservative. We do not want a change in life, we do not want a change in the thinking. If you challenge the existing paradigms, facts have to take precedence over the paradigms.

Q: What made you to leave the country and work in the United Kingdom?

A: I was in Sri Lanka. There were inspiring people. There were limits to what I could achieve in Sri Lanka. There were no opportunities to engage in higher studies in mathematics or astronomy at that time in Sri Lanka.

There were superb teaching professionals in the country, but for further research everybody went abroad and Cambridge was my choice. I think our Universities are still very competent. The academics produce a good number of doctors, engineers and scientists upto certain levels. But encouragement to do research leaves much to be desired.

Research to create new science is very important. If you want to have a science culture, if you want to have a viable technological culture emerging, then you have to encourage young graduates, at least the brighter ones, to do what is called `blue skies thinking', that is to dream, the dream of today, for science to become the innovation of tomorrow.

This has been lacking from the very beginning.

In India, the visionary leader Jawaharlal Nehru's priority was the encouragement of pure science. Now, India is the world leader in many areas of science, a science that has no application, no significant application in daily life. For instance, in space science they launch satellites. They have powerful centres for space research, biology, mathematics and so on.

Q: What happened in Sri Lanka?

A: In the late 70s, President J.R. Jayewardene approached me to set up a centre for pure science. I served as an advisor for three years under a UNDP Program. I was the first Director of the Centre and it continues in some form, but its original mission to do pure science seems to have become secondary.

President Mahinda Rajapakse should play a big role, and I hope to interact with him soon on this matter. We need to have pure science. Borrowing science and technologies applicable to tomorrow's needs from elsewhere is demoralising in the long term. This is not good for our young people.

Q: What is your impression about Sri Lanka?

A: I frequently visit Sri Lanka. I was in Colombo in 2004 to receive my honorary doctorate from the Ruhuna University, just a week before the tsunami. After the Tsunami I was shocked and saddened by the destruction. I came back in February to estimate the damage.

We collected funds to repair the damaged schools. I was here in August to attend my father's funeral and this time I came as the guest of honour at the centenary celebrations of the Institute of Engineers of Sri Lanka.

Q: What else would you like to convey to our readers?

A: The question that humanity has to answer is that how long will this present civilisation survive. Our civilisation has existed for only 10,000 years.

It is a very short time. The space research has just 30 years of history. Nuclear arsenals in the world have enough nuclear power to destroy the world. If someone decides to explode all the weapons, that would be the end of human life with a few survivors. Hopefully, there are feed backs that our political system would prevent such disaster, but we never know.

We need a new civilisation more towards a pacifist world view. Such civilisation must be built into genes. It has to be actually based on the Buddhist way of life.

Job Opportunity - Jarir Marketing Co.

www.ceylincoproperties.com

| News | Business | Features | Editorial | Security |
| Politics | World | Letters | Sports | Obituaries | Junior Observer |

Produced by Lake House
Copyright 2001 The Associated Newspapers of Ceylon Ltd.
Comments and suggestions to :Web Manager