News
October 1
Renowned scientist Freeman Dyson, who delivered this semester's Richard E. Snyder Presidential Lecture yesterday, is professor emeritus in the School of Natural Sciences at the Institute for Advanced Study, where he first began teaching in 1953. Dyson has attracted attention recently for his challenges to traditional thought on climate change and global warming. Among a swath of scientific accomplishments in his decades-long career, the physicist is arguably best known for his work on nuclear reactors and quantum electrodynamics, a field in physics centered on electrically charged particles.
Dyson has authored a number of books, including "Disturbing the Universe" (1979), "Origins of Life" (1986) and "Weapons and Hope" (1984) a study on the implications of nuclear weapons for war and peace.
The Daily sat down with Dyson hours before he spoke yesterday.
Tessa Gellerson: I just wanted to start on a more personal note, if you can tell me a little bit about your life and what it's taken for you to get where you are today?
Freeman Dyson: I started life in England ... My basic skill is mathematics; I was a mathematician. On the other hand, I don't find it interesting to spend my whole life doing mathematics, and so my tastes always were perpendicular to my skills, so it's a problem of how you'd handle that. So I tried to find important and interesting problems where mathematics would be useful, so that sort of line, my strategy as far as I had a strategy. So I got involved in all sorts of different ... activities, in physics and engineering, a little bit in biology, and I also started climate, and I was doing climate 30 years ago internationally ... Of course, my main characteristic is that I have a rather short attention span. I get involved in something very intensely for six months and then, when the job is either done or not done, I quit and do something else. It's been an interesting life. I've done nothing very great but a lot of things that were fun.
TG: From the reading I've done so far, it seems like you have a reputation within the scientific community for being a skeptic of conventional wisdom, perhaps most prominently for your views on global warming. I'm wondering how that's shaped your career, or if it's ever been difficult to face the criticism that that solicited?
FD: Not at all, no. In fact, what amazes me is that so many people agree with me but won't come out in public, and I think that's really sad. Almost all my friends sort of agree with me that skepticism is the right attitude and that scientists should be skeptical, that's why we're here ... Yet in this climate, it's become a kind of religion where people are afraid to speak up. I'm lucky I'm retired; I can say what I please ... I have never really encountered any problems. People are always friendly and polite.
TG: Would you say there's been one experience in your life that's had the most profound impact on your career?
FD: Oh, well I don't know. There [are] so many different things. One thing which I'm very proud of is designing a nuclear reactor, which is also politically incorrect in some circles, but I had a great time actually designing a reactor. Nuclear energy is a still a great thing, and it will be. It's not the answer to all our prayers, but it still does a lot of a good. This reactor — we built it in San Diego [in] California. At that time, you could build, you could design a reactor — first of all invent it, then design it, then build it and then license it and sell it — all within two years. And that was wonderful, a great ride for us and also for the company. The company that built it actually made money ... These reactors, many of them are still running, they've never given any trouble. So, I'm proud of that, and I find it very sad that in today's world you can't do that. If you imagine doing that in today's world it would take you 20 years and not two years, because there are so many regulations, obstacles you'd have to jump over. I find that troublesome, that new technologies are so very, very hard to get going just because of this hostility that society has created. So, I mentioned that because to some extent it's not only a problem for nuclear power, but it's a problem for many other technologies, particularly bioengineering, all of which are immensely dangerous and you could easily invent all sorts of disasters, but still it's much better to make mistakes early and learn from the mistakes than to try not to have mistakes at all. If you don't allow people to make mistakes, then you don't allow anything new.