Stephen Pollard • A nation stuck in the mindset of the Beagle (The Independent)

This is no longer my blog.

It is now an archive for my newspaper and magazine pieces. My blog can now be read at: www.spectator.co.uk/stephenpollard

» Print Version «

Recent

Brown's dilemma (Wall Street Journal)

When the left loved Zionists (Jewish Chronicle)

An enigmatic insult to Elgar (The Times)

Food as art, or pie in the sky? (The Times)

What are the Tories thinking of ditching grammar schools? (Daily Mail)

Content

Browse the archives:

Links

Link to Stephen Pollard

Use this button:

Visitors

Support

Network

Developed by:

Previous: Not so selective listening
Next: Spring Dawn...

January	05
2004

A nation stuck in the mindset of the Beagle (The Independent)

» Posted on January 5, 2004 12:21 AM » Category: General

The word is ‘embarrassing’. The BBC’s lunchtime news yesterday reported the triumphant transmission of pictures from Nasa’s space probe on Mars. As the reporter put it: “The Spirit rover survived the perilous plunge through the Martian atmosphere after a seven-month voyage from Earth.” A marvellous success, indeed. The report then – quite rightly - went on in breathless tones to describe how, as Nasa’s science manager, John Callas, put it: “The images are outstanding. The quality (is) the best that have been taken. This is incredible. This could not be better.”

And then, snuck in at the end of the report, came this single sentence: “The European Space Agency is still searching for the missing British-built Beagle 2.”

How typical. In the run-up to Beagle 2’s Christmas Day landing, we became a nation obsessed, the news dominated by previews of how Colin Pillinger and his plucky British team were going to sock it to the rest of the world. And then…oops. Nada. Much ado about nothing. Ah well, we tried. Jolly good show. It’s the taking part which counts.

Someone else was also taking part: Nasa. I won’t labour the point, but it boils down to this. We tried and failed. They tried and succeeded. And ne’er the twain shall meet.

I understand neither space nor science, so the value of yesterday’s pictures - indeed, of the entire space project – is not for me to judge. But I do understand the British and American psyches, and there are few more stark illustrations of the difference between the two than events on Mars over the past fortnight.

Take Prof Pillinger himself. He has been profiled everywhere, his name now synonymous in Britain with space exploration. Part of the media’s fixation with his project was because it was so clearly (ital)his(ital) project, which he alone got off the ground. Slightly eccentric, looking like a caricature scientist, battling against the odds to achieve his dream, he could hardly have been more perfectly constructed to appeal to the British mindset.

Here’s a question. Can you name his opposite number at Nasa – the person responsible for the success of Spirit? Of course you can’t, because such a person doesn’t exist. It’s Nasa as an entity which got the job done, not a gutsy scientist who tried to prove everyone wrong.

A caller to a phone-in which I heard yesterday took umbrage at the underhand tactics employed by Nasa: “It’s so typically bloody American. If they want to do something they spend billions, buying up all the talent and swaggering around as if they’ve got all the answers.” As opposed, that is, to the Brits who, when we want to do something, spend as little as we can get away with, come over all coy about it, deny it really matters to us and then, when someone else succeeds, behave like a kid who’s had his toy taken away from him.

Take TV. The Christmas edition of Dead Ringers had a marvellous line. Up flashed the ITV logo, followed by this: “Coming up next on ITV1: an opportunity to watch all your Christmas DVD presents”. Why is it that almost the only programmes worth watching (The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Frasier, The West Wing, to name just a few) are American? There are many factors, but one is the ‘Nasa effect’- the sheer weight of resources which they can put into a project. What few original and worthwhile British dramas or comedies there are (rather than hack-work programmes such as East Enders or Casualty) almost always have a writer – just one writer, that is - who sits in a room alone. After a few episodes, the ideas run out and the programme either ends or carries on and is awful. It’s the classic British model, which repeats itself across all sorts of other areas and industries.

American shows, by contrast, employ vast teams of first-rate writers who pool their talents and, more often than not, come up with a product far superior to anything achieved by the single British writer.

The same holds for lawyers, too – another field in which Americans dominate. Go to a top City firm with a problem and you will be put in the hands of one lawyer (and their subordinates). Go to a top US firm and you will be put in the hands of the firm itself, and the pool of its partners’ knowledge.

This difference extends to a more general problem with British culture, as opposed to American. They worship success and so – cause and effect - are successful. We sneer at their in-your-face attitude to success and so – again, cause and effect – end up with little choice but to laud failure. Thus our attitude to Nasa’s triumph yesterday – as if it somehow doesn’t merit that much praise because it was bought through vast amounts of time and money. While Beagle cost just £45 million, Spirit got through £220 million. How tacky and American!

We dismiss actors such as Catherine Zeta-Jones who move to Hollywood for ‘getting above themselves’, and we criticise actors such as Anthony Hopkins who appear in box office hits for ‘selling out’. And – my favourite, this - we loathe companies such as Microsoft, which have the nerve to make computing simple, accessible and popular not just because they are – crime enough – American but also because they are too successful. Too successful!

MessageSpace

Comments

You can sum up the whole article and the difference in attitudes in a few simple paragraphs.

Opportunity and teamwork.

Opportunity for all of ability, not just a few 'fortunates'.

American life, community and ethic are based strongly on teamwork. They really believe that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

And of course we must not forget - optimism. Nothing breeds success like a little optimism. (n.b. this is very different from hope!).

Stated by: ernest young on January 4, 2004 11:15 PM

At first I misread the last sentence in the 3rd graph: " It’s the taking part which counts." I thought it read, " It is the talking part that counts."

I wonder how many British--Hell, European--readers made that same mistake and would agree that either reading is about equally plausible. If there is ever a contest involving rhetorical pirouettes, British professionalism and European savoir faire will carry the day.

Stated by: George Lee on January 5, 2004 1:18 AM

At last, a comment piece that suggests that there is a reason that Microsoft is one of the biggest companies in the world - that lots of individual consumers buy its products rather than others on the market - and that it's not some huge American plot to take over your computer.

Stated by: Mike Wood on January 5, 2004 9:28 AM

I could not help but notice. Prof Pillinger = Bob Fleming from the Fast Show.

Stated by: john on January 5, 2004 9:28 AM

Agree totally, but in the light of this piece perhaps you should reflect on why it is that you don't want the Olympics, whereas for every other country in the World does.

Stated by: Richard on January 5, 2004 10:39 AM

Stephen, I'm completely unqualified to speak to the cultural differences between Great Britain and the United States, but my gut reaction is that they don't call Mars "the death planet" for no reason. Consider how much time, money and hardware we tossed into the drink in our Mars exploration program. Go back and watch The Right Stuff and think about how many of our rockets blew up on the launch pad before we finally got them to fly right. Then cut yorselves some slack.

Stated by: Rev. Mike on January 5, 2004 12:37 PM

Mr Pollard

Success for its own sake, or aim, you seem suggest is inalienable and wish. I disagree. Microsoft IS too successful, as are petroleum companies etc. basically they set an agenda for what is wrong, right or acceptable and we have to reform our moral universe accordingly. Going to Mars and spending billions on the exercise is fundamentally fucked in a world where millions starve, don't have water, etc. and we pollute our beautiful planet. (Mars, as the pictures testify, is less beautiful)

Stated by: sage on January 5, 2004 12:58 PM

The names you found so hard to find are at:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/team.html
Perhaps the question should be why British journalists find science so uninteresting that they only cover it if eccentric and amusing personalities can be brought into the picture, and why some (presumably) British people find the idea of finding out more about the universe "fundamentally fucked" - perhaps the light pollution in our cities makes it easier for them to forget the beauty that lies in the sky. Our culture still takes too much pride in ignorance.

Stated by: Ken on January 5, 2004 1:22 PM

Rev. Mike,

'Death Planet', - 'Mars, the God of War'. now do you see the connection?.

I also think it was called that in some 1930's science fiction film, and comic strip, it certainly has nothing to do exploding launchers, etc,

Stated by: ernest young on January 5, 2004 1:45 PM

"Microsoft IS too successful, as are petroleum companies etc. basically they set an agenda for what is wrong, right or acceptable and we have to reform our moral universe accordingly"

What on Earth does this mean?

That it would be preferable for there to be several competing PC operating platforms, all incompatible, all with a restricted range of applications and all (vide Linux) stricly manageable only by computer obsessives?

That, instead of a cheap (that is before the Tax and VAT man gets to work on it) fuel supply that enables mobility to be enjoyed more widely across all income and social classes than ever before, we should choosing between incompatible steam/horse/gas/electric/petrol fuel sources for our vehicles?

No, it's just more simplistic, anti-freemarket nonsense that would be more at home on the letters page of The Grauniad.

Stated by: GH on January 5, 2004 1:46 PM

I would take your point about Microsoft were it not for one important fact: the product they ship is substandard. It's riddled with security holes and bugs, some of them critical, and users have to download the fixes for themselves. And the reason they can get away with shipping faulty product is because of a lack of competition, because they have become too successful.

Stated by: Peter Gasston on January 5, 2004 1:59 PM

I agree with most of what is said in that article except for the bit about British TV. In my opinion, British sitcoms and dramas are far superior to American ones for the same reason you believe it to be the other way round. I think having only one or two writers is better.
There is currently a debate raging on this issue on alt.comedy.british

Stated by: Paul on January 5, 2004 2:57 PM

Stephen, you are right, the word best used to describe your comment in today's independent is "embarrassing". In your applauding of NASA's wonderful news that they have managed to land on mars and stay in communication with their robot you seem to be forgetting two important points - NASA, and for that matter Russia have made many previous attempts to get to mars which have stalled during the project or failed post-launch, whereas this was a first attempt by a British team. Secondly, just because we have not had the name of the mission commander for NASA's project paraded to us by the media, are you suggesting that such a person does not exist for NASA's Mars project ? Of course he or she does. And just like Prof. Pillinger of course they give most of the credit to the team effort, for such projects could not come about without it. Much of Beagle's mission was paid for by private investment, so it needed a "face" to promote it, without that they surely would have failed. NASA differs to this as far as I am aware because they are government funded, and if they do seek private investment then the NASA name is a big enough advertisement in itself.

You clearly enjoy the US sitcoms that appear on our own TV, but have you ever been to the US and watched the amount of terrible TV shows they also have ? We are lucky living here, our TV channel bosses are able to pick out the few gems from US telly that worked over there and will work over here and we watch it and assume that because we see these shows that everything the US produces for TV is fantastic. Have you ever tried watching a US documentary ? They are generally so "dumbed down" that unless you have not left primary school they will teach you nothing new. Unfortunately this is a trait that some British documentaries seem to be copying of late.

Your opinion of the British psyche seems to me to be more a reflection of your own personal view rather than any reflection of how this country really operates. Perhaps it's your generation, used to the way the British used to be, stiff upper lip being more important than what one achieves. But with more workers doing longer hours than ever before in our country, and careers taking precedence over our social lives as a measure of success we're more driven to our economic and business goals now than ever before.

As for your favourite, Microsoft, Bill G started out with the British spirit you seem so tired of, building his first working computer in a garage with his friends and selling them on to other people in the neighbourhood. But should we now applaud a company which bases itself on the elimination of competition, and is a convicted monopolist, or are these the final useful steps on the road from entrepreneurship to global business ?

Stated by: Richard on January 5, 2004 3:12 PM

Well the US lander has bits of it developed in the UK as well. What I found most amusing is how bummed the BBC presenters in having to report that the American one was working on the Euro was not.

I prefer British sitcoms to US ones as well, but as of late the British ones are pretty poor as well. Sketch shows are still pretty decent in the UK, but sitcoms are pretty poor these days.

Stated by: Andrew Ian Dodge on January 5, 2004 4:07 PM

Richard,

Lack of desire for hosting the Olympics, shows a large degree of common-sense. They can only be held in places where the infrastructure can cope. UK is just so overcrowded, and with such poor transport facilities that hosting them would merely show the UK up for being the rather backward western country that it really is.

Besides - who needs the extra expense, when we have so much else that requires URGENT funding? it is not as though the exercise ever shows a profit, just another Millenium Dome experience. Perhaps Blair should try reversing the Defence spending cuts, for a start.

Couple the above with the decline of the Olympics as having any other purpose than as an statist exercise in corruption and fraud, and you have good reason to not apply.

Just read your last post, your remarks re Microsoft show a somewhat jaundiced viewpoint, as well as a lack of understanding as to how a business actually works.

(quote)"As for your favourite, Microsoft, Bill G started out with the British spirit you seem so tired of, building his first working computer in a garage with his friends and selling them on to other people in the neighbourhood. But should we now applaud a company which bases itself on the elimination of competition, and is a convicted monopolist,"(end quote)

The British spirit you mention, is also very American, difference is in the USA the transistion from garage to a viable business is encouraged, and not sneered into oblivion as per UK.

I need hardly remind you of Radar, the Hovercraft, the Jet engine, and many other examples of good British inventions having to go abroad to realise their potential. Innovation has always been a strongpoint of the English, that they also lack foresight is another matter. Could be that 'optism' thing I mention in my previous comment.

All business competes with the competition, if they can't, they don't survive. Microsoft's so called 'crimes' were no more than politically inspired jealousy, which corporate entity would not try to protect it's best own interest? The fact that Microsoft's detractors were sore losers, who managed to to persaude a politically appointed judiciary to side with them , does not make them criminals in my book.

Do you also condemn UK supermarkets, who, upon opening in a new area, lower their prices to a 'below cost' level in order to drive the existing competition to bankruptcy?. and having done so, raise the prices to higher than previous levels. OK for Sainsbury's, not OK for Microsoft.

Quite amusing really, the way that Microsoft detractors seem to fall into left field, while supporters seem to adopt a 'right ' stance. Can it all be to do with 'globalistion', and love or hatred thereof?

Stated by: ernest young on January 5, 2004 4:56 PM

Ernest, the two Richar's are different people.

Stated by: Richard on January 5, 2004 7:34 PM

Can you name his opposite number at Nasa – the person responsible for the success of Spirit?

Sure. Sean O'Keefe is the bureaucrat, but Pillinger's equivalent is most likely Steve Squyres, the project director. It's pretty cool to see a lot of team members get airtime, though, and I'm particularly pleased that so many of them are women.

I think it's tremendous news that one of Spirit's first assignments is going to be to look for Beagle. I shall, of course, refrain from the obvious comparisons to any British politicians currently acting as lapdogs to any American politicians... ;)

Stated by: Elayne Riggs on January 5, 2004 8:10 PM

Richard (I & II),

Oops!, luckily my comments were not too personalised.

I'm sure you both know just what applies to who, or whom.

First comment #1, second #2, correction, #1, thank you. :-)

Stated by: ernest young on January 5, 2004 9:16 PM

Scientists and Engineers at Universities/Research Institutes involved at some stage in the Beagle 2 project.
link: http://www.beagle2.com/resources/people.htm

Prof Colin Pillinger, PSSRI, Open University
Dr Robert Barber, Daresbury Laboratory
Dr Mark Sims, Space Research Centre, University of Leicester
Dr Andrew Coates, Mullard Space Sciences Laboratory
Andrew Griffiths, Mullard Space Sciences Laboratory
Dr Nick Thomas, Max-Plank Institute fur Aeronomie (MPAe)
Dr John Bridges, Natural History Museum
Prof John Zarnecki, PSSRI, Open University
Prof Helmut Rosenbauer, Max-Plank Institute fur Aeronomie (MPAe), Lindau
Gerhard Paar, Institute of Digital Image Processing, Joanneum Research
Dr Goestar Klingelhoefer, Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz
Dr T C Ng, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Mr Lutz Richter, DLR, Cologne
Dr Jean Luc Josset, Space-X, Neuchatel, Switzerland
Prof Carl Murray, Queen Mary College, University of London
Dr Dave Rothery, Earth Sciences, Open University
Dr Chris Eyles, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham
Dr Apostolos Christou, Armagh Observatory
Dr Dave Barnes, University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Prof Terry Jones, Department of Engineering, Oxford University
Mr Colin Wilson, Department of Atmospheric Physics, Oxford University
Dr S Linkin, Dr E Evlanov, Russian Academy of Sciences

Stated by: denawardah on January 5, 2004 9:56 PM

Looks like a memebership list of the "Flash Gordon Fan Club'.

Stated by: Buzz Lightyear on January 5, 2004 11:36 PM

Eddie the Beagle 2 ?

Stated by: Peter Bocking on January 6, 2004 12:45 AM

"Convicted monopolist" Oh goody a new one."My name is Bill and I'm er...a Monopolist", " Can't look at a garage without wanting to poses it and build computers".

Stated by: Peter Bocking on January 6, 2004 1:05 AM

Actually the West Wing is mostly the work of one writer: Aaron Sorkin. Nice theory though the history of science seems more concerned with individual acheivement than group efforts. Imagine Newton giving credit to Flamsteed, say, or Dawkins to Stephen Jay Gould. In an age where grants are dependent on material acheivement, are individuals likely or willing to share credit?

Stated by: suede on January 6, 2004 10:21 AM

Sorry to be finickity, but you're wrong about the West Wing. It used to be Sorkin - although even in previous series he started to take a back seat - but since the current series started he has had nothing to do with the programme - after he was busted with drugs.

Stated by: Stephen Pollard on January 6, 2004 11:21 AM

Corrected by Stephen, I'm honoured! Fair do's. My observation was drawn from repeated viewings of the first 2 series on dvd, mostly Sorkin's work I believe. And, in migtigation, he did create the show.

Stated by: suede on January 6, 2004 12:14 PM

You had better talk to your Indy co-worker Charles Arthur:

http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/features/story.jsp?story=477004

Some of his comments:

“If you're buying a computer in the coming year, don't get one that uses Windows. It's simply too insecure. (Did you know there's a secret "administrator" account and password on every machine? You didn't? Every hacker does.) Get one with the Linux operating system installed (Evesham does them, for example) or an Apple machine running OSX. Both systems are fast, stable and secure. With Windows XP... well, sometimes two out of three really IS bad.”
“If you're still using Windows, stop using Internet Explorer; instead try Netscape, Mozilla or Opera. IE has too many security holes for comfort.”
“Ditto Outlook Express; try programs such as Eudora or Opera or Mozilla”

Who highlights some of the main reason many people dislike Microsoft, its not particularly that it is a de facto monopoly, it is that though its products are superficially high on convenience they are far too insecure.

Note that it does manage monopoly profiteering
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,2126130,00.htm

I would draw attention to the following
“Profit margins for desktop versions of Windows came in shy of 86 percent”
“Office profit margins were 78 percent”

Given these are products that sell in huge numbers (multi millions), that is rather an obscene profit margin. Even the most ardent free marketeer would hopefully agree - a free market needs competition to really work in the interest of the consumer.
As such, it is interesting to note that some Linux supporters espouse right wing free market views as they see it is in consumers interests to have viable competition, and unlike commercial rivals which MS could destroy by undercutting or buying out, Linux is a competitor that cannot be so easily destroyed and so is useful in giving consumers choice..

Stated by: Dave on January 6, 2004 4:18 PM

Dave,

I like Linux and it is part of the environments I work in together with Microsoft platforms. But it is neither right nor helpful to say that only stupid or duped people buy stuff from Redmond. Eighty six percent of visitors to one of my websites use some flavor of Windows from a sample right across the globe. Most of them bought Microsoft products, because in their considered judgement, it suited their needs and pocketbook best. Ten percent bought Macs and one percent bought Linux for exactly the same reasons. It suited their needs. Microsoft was once a very small company without any power of market coercion at all. Linux was once something Linus T. asked others to help him build. These systems didn't become what they are without merit. Too successful, huh?

Stated by: wretchard on January 8, 2004 10:51 AM

I have to be a little careful what I say here, since my sole interaction with Professor Pillinger involved him screaming down the phone at me with threats of legal action for having had the audacity to criticize something that he had said. Since my comment had been in an e-mail addressed privately to him, it is a little tricky to see how a libel suit would progress far, but it is clear that he is rather sensitive about anything that could be viewed as a criticism. Nonetheless, here goes.

It is my view that the whole "battling against the odds" storyline described above by Stephen Pollard has been deeply counterproductive to the future of space science in the UK. It leaves the general public with the view that:
a) space science is the province of eccentric but essentially harmless hairy boffins (it isn't)
b) this kind of project can be undertaken entirely by an individual (it can't)
c) the scientific establishment did all that it could to thwart said individual (it didn't)

The story that we should be seeing, which got completely lost in this cult-of-personality-one-man-against-the-World approach, is that space science is a highly professional, highly technical field that involves teams of very smart people funded largely at the taxpayer's expense. These scientists work very hard, seeking to obtain interesting discoveries and technological spin-offs, and it is these outputs that provide the justification for spending public money on their work. However, it is not the sort of field to be approached in a half-hearted fashion, as one is likely to invest what are still large sums of money for nugatory returns. There is nothing heroic about this kind of failure at the public expense.

Stated by: Michael Merrifield on February 20, 2004 6:17 PM

Stated by: porn toons on April 18, 2006 6:42 PM

Stated by: Clark Boggart on May 4, 2006 2:15 AM

成人论坛
 成人小说
 黄色论坛
 黄色网站
 黄色小说
 黄色电影
 激情小电影
 三级片
 色情论坛
 色情小说
 色情网站
 成人电影
 色情电影
 性爱电影
 性爱论坛
 自拍
 走光

Stated by: 1188 on June 5, 2006 7:34 AM

成人论坛成人小说
 黄色论坛黄色网站
 黄色小说黄色电影
 激情小电影三级片
 色情论坛色情小说
 色情网站成人电影
 色情电影性爱电影
 性爱论坛自拍
 走光免费三级片
 黄色电影黄色网站
 成人网站性爱电影
 成人论坛成人小说
 成人图片视频聊天免费黄色电影
 免费激情电影激情美女视频
 激情小电影黄色论坛
 色情网站色情图片
 色情小说免费成人电影
 黄色小说色情电影
 性爱电影

Stated by: ppdy on June 8, 2006 2:37 PM

christina asstraffic* christina asstraffic skinny* granny poncho square* granny porter weatherall* linsey dawn mckenzie maximum insertion* linsey ward* simony allinternal* simony allinternal diamond* roundasses tgp movies* asparade* back seat photos* back seat pictures*

Stated by: bundlebox on July 13, 2006 12:35 PM