SCANNING the news recently, I was confronted by major issues which are vital to the well being of our species. The list includes: genetically modified foods, exploration of the planets, growth of telecommunications, technology-based virus attacks, security, decoding the human genome, possible immortality, laser surgery for correcting impaired vision, artificial intelligence and agents in economic markets, and more.

This was followed by a string of political, economic, social, sporting and advertising features, so I began to reflect on the educational background needed to understand every aspect of these reports.

In particular, I reflected on my own hard science focused education. My initial grounding was in electronics, telecommunications, information technology and systems. Over the past decade, I have been concerned with abstractions such as the biological aspects and inferences for systems based on genetics and sexual reproduction within software-based systems.

So, was I capable of reading all this news and fully comprehending every aspect? I don't think so, and certainly not without reference to some of the seminal works. And were the reports precise, accurate, correct? Certainly not, there were gross errors, misrepresentations and omissions from all of them.

Here we are a rather imperfect society of imperfect individuals, each with a partial knowledge distributed unevenly across a vast and varied population. Looking back at newspapers and journals of 100 years ago, it appears that nothing much has changed. We didn't know and understand much then either.

For sure, things were advancing at an exponential rate then, with inventions, patents, product development and deployment as seemingly frenzied as now. But we are now much further up the curve and far more is happening.

Just 100 years ago, it was possible to understand more and the breadth of education seemed adequate. Today it seems increasingly lacking.

In our late teens, formal education either stops to become training, or a period of real focus is imposed at university. Here the straight jacket really begins to bite. We get focused to attain a depth of understanding. But do we? To have a remotely sensible public debate on the major issues that face us today, and in the future, we all need a far broader grounding.

Suppose we all studied the same curriculum through to pre-degree and degree level, holding off subject specialisation, with everyone studying a broad range of mathematics, science, art, and humanities until some later stage? Would we not cope better with a future of merged silicon and carbon, genetic computing and manipulation?

The human genome has been decoded 25 years earlier than expected due to exponentially growing computing power. On the horizon, we see virtual and real immortality, artificial intelligences and networks far more powerful than our own.

If you want to contemplate and judge the implications of such technologies, it requires a larger percentage of society with a greater depth of understanding. Information technology and online education can go a long way to realising holistic cultures, but we need a greater change in our learning.

All the exceptionally clever people whom I know have gained their depth of understanding and ability from their breadth of knowledge. They could always drill down further and comprehend far more than most because of their ability to crosslink the results of many disciplines. Sadly, I have to observe that the converse is also true.

Peter Cochrane holds the Collier Chair for the Public Understanding of Science & Technology at the University of Bristol. His home page is:
http://cochrane.org.uk