Sana Kardar
There is a particular confidence that comes with believing we have found the answer. History, however, teaches us to be cautious. Some of humanity’s greatest advances began when someone looked at what others accepted as settled and asked a simple question: what if there is more to discover?
Science depends on precisely this instinct. Knowledge is not weakened when it is questioned; it advances because it is questioned. Treatments improve when new evidence emerges, theories are revised when they no longer explain what we observe, and discoveries often create more questions than answers. Curiosity, therefore, is more than an attractive personal quality. It is an intellectual discipline. It requires enough confidence to challenge established thinking and enough humility to recognise the limits of our own knowledge. Politics does not always reward the same approach. We expect political leaders to appear certain. Changing a position can be portrayed as weakness, while acknowledging that new evidence has changed our thinking may invite accusations of inconsistency. Yet there is an important difference between abandoning principles and allowing new knowledge to influence how those principles are pursued.
Labour’s enduring values of fairness, opportunity and social justice remain relevant, but the world in which they must be applied is constantly changing. The industrial society that shaped the early Labour movement could scarcely have imagined artificial intelligence, genomic medicine or technologies capable of transforming entire professions. If politics is to shape progress rather than simply react to it, curiosity must sit alongside conviction. Labour has people who demonstrate the value of bringing scientific and technological experience into public service. Dame Chi Onwurah brought a career in engineering and technology to Parliament, while Dr Lauren Sullivan entered politics following experience in scientific research and teaching. This does not mean scientists automatically make better politicians. Rather, it demonstrates how politics can benefit from habits familiar to science: examining evidence, questioning assumptions and recognising that yesterday’s solutions may not answer tomorrow’s challenges.
For young people, this approach is particularly important. They are entering a world in which careers may span five decades while technology, industries and required skills change repeatedly. Education can no longer be regarded as something completed in youth. Opportunities to learn, retrain and pursue new directions throughout life are increasingly essential to economic security and equality. Crucially, those opportunities must be available to everyone, not simply those who can afford them.
But remaining curious means more than gaining qualifications. It means reading beyond opinions that reassure us, listening to experiences that challenge our assumptions and asking questions without deciding the answer beforehand. For young people entering politics, business, science or public service, that mindset may ultimately prove more valuable than having an immediate opinion on everything. The world will continue to evolve, and many of today’s certainties will inevitably be questioned, refined or replaced by new understanding. The challenge for the next generation is not to know everything. It is to remain curious enough to keep learning, questioning and discovering what we do not yet know.
