The right to know needs protection

The vice chancellor of Oxford University is probably not entirely correct in assuming that only a “budgerigar wishing to trace his family tree” would be interested in learning that birds are the only descendants of dinosaurs as evolutionary lines that reduced fastest in size had the best rate of survival. In fact, too many birds getting wind of this factoid could lead to a Hitchcockian situation.

However, Professor Andrew Hamilton’s broader point that ‘useless’ pursuit of knowledge —in this case, research estimating the body mass of 426 species of dinosaurs — can often be surprisingly enriching in general, if not of immediate practical value, needs to be considered. Philosophers, artists, mystics, writers and other genres of free thinkers and creative spirits are allowed the extravagance of letting their minds wander, but not scientists. This is an overdose of ‘two cultures’.

Of course, there is undoubted merit in slogging to pull off a mission to Mars at the lowest cost ever, but there is something to be said for “knowledge without any apparent practical use” or learning for learning’s sake too — the right to know, so to speak. Nor would quizmasters and aficionados of Trivial Pursuit be the only ones enthused by the establishment of such a right. After all, “fruits of intellectual curiosity”, as Hamilton puts it, often have commercial value too.