spiked's E = mc² centenary survey was conceived by, and conducted in collaboration with, science communicator Alom Shaha as part of Einstein Year, and was sponsored by NESTA (the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts). Over 250 renowned scientists, science communicators and educators - including 11 Nobel laureates - were asked what they would teach the world about science and why, if they could pick just one thing.

• Questions

A number of key questions emerge from the survey responses and the differences between them, and seven of these questions are outlined below. They do not necessarily have a definitive answer, but they represent interesting tensions in the way that science is understood and presented, and they are a useful starting point for debating how best to convey the content and worth of scientific endeavour to the general public.

1. Is science an exceptional way of approaching the world?
   
   A number of respondents assert that science is an exceptional way of approaching the world, distinct from and in many respects superior to alternative cultural and religious approaches. Lewis Wolpert argues that 'science is the best way to understand the world', and Timandra Harkness similarly argues that 'science is our best tool for building a workable model of the objective, natural world'. According to Fiona Fox, it is 'harder to bullshit in science than in any other area of public life', and according to Julien Clinton Sprott, 'science offers a method for distinguishing truth from superstition, myth and prejudice'. Henry Joy McCracken explains that 'science is not dogma, but proceeds by trial and error'.
   
   Five respondents - D Keith Bowen, Tracey Brown, Philip Johnson-Laird, Martin Perl and James Trefil - make the case for the exceptional merits of science by emphasising its grounding in empiricism. Five respondents - Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Geoffrey Greenwood, Harold Kroto, Seth Lloyd and Alan McHughen - discuss the universality of science, the fact that it aspires to discover objective truth. Alan McHughen says that 'science is the modern world's lingua franca', while Harold Kroto argues that 'if there is no universal bedrock of global truth upon which to base an answer, then the question is not conceptually valid'.
   
   Peter Cochrane, John Krebs and Lee Silver make a firm distinction between science and faith, Lee Silver arguing forcefully that 'the discipline of science is as far removed from faith as anything can possibly be'. But in other responses to the survey, this distinction is not as clear-cut. According to Mark Lythgoe, 'from the moment you are born, and sometimes before, you place blind faith in the scientific method', while Piet Hut claims that 'science, like most human activities, is based upon a belief - namely, the assumption that nature is understandable'.
   
   Five respondents - Stuart Blackman, Michel Cabanac, JMD Coey, Stevan Harnad and Paul Lauterbur - argue that science is essentially the same thing as common sense. This assumes that science is not exceptional, inasmuch as it coincides with the approach to understanding that prevails in society. Whether this is in fact the case today is an interesting point to consider, as is Michael Fitzpatrick's caveat that 'the evidence of our emotions - indeed, the evidence of our senses - is often misleading'. A related point, raised by Vivienne Parry's argument that 'you do not have to be bright to do science', is whether or not scientific understanding is difficult to achieve.
   
   Even if we accept that science is exceptional, this is not to say that its application is appropriate in every province of human endeavour. Philip Ball argues that 'any attempt to concoct a scientific explanation of what life is will, inevitably, be somewhat arbitrary and incomplete', while Toby Andrew urges us to 'beware the natural scientist who makes generalisations outside their area of expertise'.



2. Is there a scientific method, and if so, what does it consist in?
   
   After the theory of evolution, the scientific method is the most popular survey response. 20 respondents - Jim Al-Khalili, Timothy Ball, Simon Best, Bill Cooke, David Dobson, James Enstrom, Andrew Fabian, Alastair Kent, Stephen Kosslyn, Stephen Ladyman, Chris Lamb, Norman Lewis, Martin Livermore, Mark Lythgoe, Robert Naeye, Claude Roy, Michael Shermer, Simon Singh, Julien Clinton Sprott and John Stachel - say that they would teach the world about the scientific method itself, rather than about a specific scientific concept, principle or discovery.
   
   Despite the popularity of the scientific method as a survey response, few respondents offer an explicit definition of what this method is - which is perhaps understandable, since it is difficult to imagine conveying a method except by example. Harold Kroto argues that 'the scientific method...should actually be called something much more general - like "The Method of Reaching Fundamental Understanding of the Physical World, the Natural World and the Mind of Man"'.
   
   Nonetheless, a number of respondents do identify what they see as key elements of the scientific method - for example, the formulation and experimental testing of falsifiable hypotheses, the independent verification of experimental results to ensure that these results are point-of-view invariant, and the need for theories to predict phenomena accurately before these theories can achieve the standing of laws. Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei and Karl Popper are variously credited by respondents with developing the scientific method as we know it.
   
   But the notion that there is a definitive scientific method is contentious. Christopher Essex, for example, talks disparagingly of those who 'try to embrace scientific thinking as a recipe' and who 'talk of the scientific method, as if there is just one'. Bill Durodié argues that 'understanding the supposed scientific method, without appreciating the driving role of social context, is both limited and limiting'. And Susan Haack urges us to 'stop worrying...about the ever-elusive scientific method'.
   
   The contentiousness of the scientific method is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that it is invoked by respondents to support contrary positions. Stephen Ladyman illustrates the scientific method by arguing that 'it might not be possible to absolutely prove that greenhouse gas emissions cause global warming, but the evidence suggests that they do, and so wise governments act accordingly'. And yet according to Timothy Ball, contemporary thinking about global warming reflects the fact that 'the scientific method is effectively being blocked'.



3. Is the natural world ordered?
   
   While science necessarily assumes that the natural world is intelligible, there is an interesting distinction between those survey responses that suggest that order is intrinsic to the natural world, and those survey responses that suggest that order derives from human engagement with the natural world.
   
   Suggesting that order is intrinsic to the natural world, John Harnad observes that 'nature seems to be governed by laws - it is not random or incomprehensible'. Paul Davies argues that 'there is an actually existing world out there, which is ordered in an intelligible way'. Frank Wilczek says that 'precise mathematical laws govern the behaviour of matter'. And Marcus du Sautoy claims that when the Greeks proved that that there are infinitely many prime numbers, 'humankind realised that, by pure thought alone, it could prove eternal truths of the universe'.
   
   Robin Carrell looks at a different aspect of the natural world in his discussion of entropy, observing that 'nature tends spontaneously to revert to disorder'. And Victor Stenger argues that 'the laws of physics were not handed down from above, nor are they built into the logical structure of the universe - they are human inventions'. The possibility of reconciling these differing views, as to whether and how the natural world is ordered, can be found in the responses of John Gillott, who considers 'the coexistence of a directionless, non-purposive natural world with humans and human societies'; and Peter Martin, who argues that 'nature is simultaneously arbitrary and ordered'.



4. How do we distinguish scientific scepticism from cynicism and from relativism?
   
   A number of survey responses emphasise the tentative, provisional character of scientific knowledge, stressing the importance of doubt and uncertainty. Few respondents go as far as Pallab Ghosh does, with his bald statement that 'nothing is true', or even as far as Monica Grady's assertion that 'science is not right or wrong, is not good or bad, and does not have final answers'.
   
   But a number of respondents do say something along the lines of Kathy Sykes' argument that in science, 'what we have is wrapped in uncertainties, caveats and simplifications'. Others who make similar points include Frances Ashcroft, Mark Brake, Freeman Dyson, Edmond Fischer, Christopher Frith, Paul Harrison, Howard Hayden, Bruce Joyce, Harold Kroto, Leon Lederman, Ian Mills, Robert Moor, Gary Sharp, Peter Tallack and Dick Taverne.
   
   This raises the question of how to distinguish healthy scientific scepticism (the antidote to dogmatism) from cynicism (the jaded mistrust of all authority) and from relativism (the notion that there is no objective, universal truth worth speaking of). John McCarthy suggests that there is a distinction between these things, when he says he would teach the world 'scepticism, but not cynicism'. And William Graeme Laver's exhortation 'do not believe everything you are told' is notably different than if he had said 'do not believe anything you are told'.
   
   Responses that help to distinguish scepticism from cynicism or relativism include those of John Stachel, who explains that 'science has developed methods for providing us with knowledge, that are both fallible and corrigible'; and Barry Schwartz, who argues that 'science, done well, combines a reverence for truth with an appreciation of doubt and uncertainty'. Stephen Senn also offers some useful clarification, explaining that 'the scientific attitude is that it is reasonable to act as if a theory were true, while accepting that it may be false - if it is the best tested theory available so far not found wanting'.



5. How can a layperson tell whether a scientific claim is true?
   
   At a time when scientific controversies are often argued by appeal to scientific authority, it is striking how many survey responses argue that laypersons are capable of assessing competing scientific claims. These responses range from Ben Goldacre's statement that 'science is not about sweeping statements from authority figures in white coats' and Peter Marsh's claim that 'science is not just something that boffins do', to Vivian Moses advising us 'not easily to accept any information, unless you know exactly where it came from, and could check it for yourself'.
   
   Some respondents go even further. David Lane says that 'science can be verified by anyone, of any race or religion', Seth Lloyd says that 'scientific knowledge consists exactly of those results that can be verified by anyone who puts in the effort to check them', and Gerald Jay Sussman quotes Galileo's saying that 'in questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual'.
   
   Christopher Essex goes the furthest on this question, arguing that 'there is no authority in scientific thinking, because it is thinking with your own head instead of thinking with someone else's'. But while the sentiment that scientific reasoning is - at least potentially - available to all seems to be positive and laudable, it is also worth asking where this leaves scientific credentials and expertise.



6. Will the project of scientific advance ever be concluded?
   
   John Horgan argues provocatively in his survey response that 'the quest for knowledge is finite, and may be drawing to a close'. Thomas Deichmann says the precise opposite, arguing that 'science is based upon premises that ensure its permanent and infinite progress'. This raises the question of whether scientific advance is a project that has a conclusion.
   
   John Horgan explains his position by arguing that 'we are unlikely to discover something truly astonishing - like the lost continent of Atlantis, or dinosaurs dwelling inside the Earth'. But Leo Chalupa decries this reasoning, describing his exasperation when a former student of his 'thought that there was a limited cadre of facts that needed to be discovered, and that once this was done, there was no point in carrying on'. Elsewhere, Bob Bloomfield claims that 'science as the search for answers actually generates only more questions', and Matt Ridley says that 'science increases the store of wonder and mystery in the world; it does not erode it'.



7. What is humanity's appropriate role in relation to nature?
   
   Despite respondents such as Timandra Harkness, Bernard Lovell and John Midwinter emphasising the political neutrality of science, one of the most marked distinctions between survey responses is arguably a matter of politics rather than of science - namely, humanity's appropriate role in relation to nature.
   
   On the one hand, several respondents argue that the appropriate stance for humanity is one of humility. Susan Blackmore argues that 'evolution by natural selection is the antidote to human arrogance', Rafael Sorkin says the Copernican principle 'should teach our species a certain humility that it sorely needs with respect to the ecosphere', and Anthony Bradshaw urges us 'to appreciate our origins and our place in the world, and to be humble'. Martin Rees looks beyond humanity's tenure on Earth: 'It will not be humans who watch the Sun's demise, six billion years from now. Any creatures that exist then will be as different from us, as we are from bacteria or amoebae.'
   
   On the other hand, several respondents see science as an endeavour that goes hand in hand with humanism. According to Stuart Derbyshire, 'science is uniquely important because it increases the possibility for human action'. And Ellie Lee argues that 'through the application of science, we can understand better and better what it means to be human, because we can control and manipulate more and more of nature'.
   
   Elsewhere, Philip Ball argues that 'a human-centred view of life - while natural enough - is wholly at odds with a scientific point of view', whereas John Gillott says: 'A human-centred view is neither hubristic, nor foolhardy. Such a view is simply the only meaningful way of thinking about a whole range of questions.'

• Other themes addressed in survey responses

As might be expected, many respondents draw upon Einstein's ideas to illustrate their responses. Surprisingly few respondents, however, say that that they would teach the world something specifically about Einstein. Two exceptions are David Perks, who says that he would teach the world Einstein's two postulates of special relativity; and Quentin Cooper, who cites Einstein's dictum that 'things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler'.

Einstein's ideas are more frequently cited by survey respondents to make broader points about science. For example, six respondents - James Enstrom, Hans Erren, Christopher Llewellyn-Smith, Robert Naeye, Stephen Senn and Lee Silver - describe the way that Isaac Newton's understanding of mechanics was superseded by that of Einstein. This example is used to illustrate the provisional nature of scientific theories, and to make the point that even established theories are open to falsification.

The most popular theme in the survey reponses is the theory of evolution. Twenty-three respondents - Scott Atran, Jesse Bering, James Binney, Susan Blackmore, Walter Bodmer, Anthony Bradshaw, Geoffrey Burnstock, Rita Carter, Vinton Cerf, Brian Charlesworth, Bruce Charlton, Mark Chase, Bill Cooke, Richard Dawkins, Keith Devlin, Mel Greaves, Caspar Hewett, John Krebs, Conrad Lichtenstein, Peter Raven, Jeffrey Shallit, John Sulston and Amotz Zahavi - say that they would teach the world about evolution by natural selection. Four of these respondents emphasise the fact that evolutionary theory is sufficient to account for the existence and attributes of living organisms, eliminating the need to posit a grand designer.

Related to the scientific method, a number of respondents say that they would teach the world something generic about science and the way it proceeds. Such responses include 'science can validate experience, but not deny it' (Ralph Abraham); 'the principle of scientific inference' (Amir Aczel); 'the underdetermination of theory by evidence' (Julian Baggini); 'knowledge of science is fundamental to our quality of life' (Janet Bainbridge); 'scientists fall in love - with experiments' (Simon Baron-Cohen); 'real discoveries in science are unanticipated' (Neil Bartlett); 'why science is thrilling' (Brian Clegg); 'the dose makes the poison' (Gregory Conko); 'how science inspires puzzlement and wonder' (Tana Dineen); and 'scientists start by trying very hard to disprove what they hope is true' (Antony Hoare).

A number of respondents discuss aspects of mathematics, but only one - Norman Levitt - says that he would teach the world mathematics per se. John Ball would teach the world to distinguish between mathematical models and their implementation on computers; John Casti would teach the world about the mathematician and physicist Leonhard Euler's expression, linking five of the key mathematical constants; Paul Cohn would teach the world techniques to facilitate calculation; and Joe Kaplinsky would teach the world Galileo Galilei's account of the role that mathematics plays in science.

Eleven respondents - Branko Babic, Jack Barrett, Deeph Chana, Stanley Feldman, Ian Fells, Liz Frayn, Roald Hoffmann, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Peggy Lemaux, M Mihkel Mathiesen and S Fred Singer - offer some aspect of energy and thermodynamics as their answer to the survey; while four respondents - John Harnad, Chris Isham, Michio Kaku and Frank Tipler - respond with aspects of quantum theory. Nicola Drury and Clifford Pickover use their responses to champion stem-cell research.

Five respondents - Lynne Frostick, Jack Harris, Jeffrey Harvey, Tony Juniper and Charles Kohlhase - offer aspects of ecology and the environment as their answer to the survey, principally discussing the dangers of anthropogenic climate change. And 11 respondents - Simon Best, Jennifer Cunningham, Timothy Gowers, Madhav Khandekar, David Lane, Christopher Llewellyn-Smith, Vivienne Parry, Jack Pridham, Oliver Pybus, Christian Spenger and E Bruce Waygood - say they would teach the world about risk and statistics, so that among other things, we might assess threats to our wellbeing more rationally.

Many respondents nominate particular scientific exemplars - individuals, ideas or discoveries that they claim best represent the merits of science. The American physicist Richard Feynman is cited by eight respondents, four of whom - Colin Atkinson, Sallie Baliunas, Jack Dunitz, and John Gribbin - offer Feynman's concise formulation of the atomic hypothesis, 'all things are made of atoms', as their answer to the survey. Eight people cite Nicolaus Copernicus, of whom two - J Richard Gott III and Rafael Sorkin - offer the Copernican principle, the idea that humanity's location in the universe is unlikely to be special, as their response. The nineteenth-century British biologist Thomas Henry Huxley is cited by six respondents, three of whom - Stuart Blackman, John Brignell and John Burland - offer one of Huxley's precepts as their answer. Tom Addiscott and Robert Maynard cite the philosopher Karl Popper, specifically his formulation of the hypothetico-deductive system.

Ideas and discoveries nominated as exemplars include the molecules known as amphiphiles (Alec Bangham); the periodic table (Peter Borrows); the connection between electricity and magnetism (E Brian Davies); molecular machinery (K Eric Drexler); microbes (Brian Ford); plate tectonics (Richard Fortey and Peter Sammonds); osmosis (Harold Hammel); Pythagoras' theorem (Alan Hudson); the American meteorologist Vern Dvorak's technique for monitoring tropical cyclones (Christopher Landsea); materials science (Mark Miodownik); the combustion engine (Austin Williams); chaos theory (David Wojick); and the principles of nuclear fission and fusion and their role in politics (James Woudhuysen).

Three respondents - Gerardus 't Hooft, Wolfgang Ketterle, and Richard Morris - say that they are unable or unwilling to answer the survey question. Gerardus 't Hooft contends that the survey is a philistine exercise: 'spiked's question sounds exactly like the question often asked by students - "what parts of the text in this book should I learn, to pass my test, and which parts may I skip?" I refuse to answer that.' Wolfgang Ketterle explains that 'science is a network of knowledge, and it is impossible to single out one thing', while Richard Morris argues: 'Principles do not have intrinsic importance. They derive their importance from their relevance to people's lives.'