Irresistible pro's of synthetic meat and finding the con's?

In January 2011 I wrote an article "In vitro meat - is it progress or optimization?" I made careful prediction that if there continues to be a desire to optimize meat production then synthetic meat is inevitably land on our table!

In vitro meat is closer than you think.


The 16th August 2012, the Wired Science wrote about an American firm, Modern Meadows, being backed by the Thiel Foundation in their plans to print meat and sell it.
 
Image: Viewzone

Synthetic meat for human consumption is coming! Assuming it will be as good quality as the one cut from animals that have had a farm life, for better and worse, what are the arguments for taking on this new technology?

Modern Meadows own sales pitch is saying a lot and hard to argue against. Yes, meat production is very wasteful and unsustainable today! Yes, there is a lot of pollution and logistics involved! Yes, there are diseases that can transmit from animals to humans without proper monitoring! Yes, there are very severe animal health and welfare issues that should continuously be reviewed and improved on. Yes, many will certainly give in to the compelling argument: "no animal was harmed in this process!"

In addition to that, presenting it as 3D printing, makes it much more digestible for us already. Printing organs, tools, toys, and candy is an old futuristic dream coming true. We can already experience the benefit of having a custom tool printing for our needs. Who not meat then?


I am sure there will be problems with eating synthetic meat that we have not yet thought of. New diseases, or absence of  exposure to diseases may produce new modern diseases. Patent wars on cell lines and technology. Monopoly of production and markets as seen for corn, etc. But I believe this technology will be received with open arms by many. Some sceptics (possibly rightly so) will insist on eating "real meat" for different reasons, but if somebody will buy the new food product - it will be sold. As it is sold, with years, we will get used to the thought and more will give in. Especially when the price is becoming competitive.

This means agriculture as we know it today may become a technology of the past.

My suggestion: prepare your questions now for synthetic meat and ask how this will change how we live.

Modern Sisyphus - are scientist's smart to publish in academic journals today?

The publishing of academic work is a tightly controlled process, with critical review taking months and sometimes years of work that needs to stand the test of "experts" believing in your work for it to reach print. This is to ensure quality to avoid that bad, or even misleading work, do not get the quality stamp "scientific" and "peer reviewed". The idea is good, but is it fair under current day standards and is it even abused?

Historically

Testing your experiments against the criticism of your equals is an old concept that dates back before the time of natural scientists. In the age of alchemists and early time of the natural scientists it was simply to dangerous to openly speak of your ideas and theories without putting your life and limbs at stake in Europe. So, the ideas and results was coded or secretly sent between trusted individuals within the same field for commenting or simply sharing the progresses. One such network that included historical figures such as Sir Cheney Culpeper, Benjamin Worsley, and Rober Boyle that were possibly members of the Invisible College.

When the work of national philosophers were vindicated by people in power in the 17^th century discussing theories and results became more public accepted. Actually, in the early days of science the researcher had to perform the experiment in front of a live audience, trying to convince them – the predecessor of today's scientific presentation. Eventually the written form went public and commonly the universities provided the press.

Up into our time the published articles has been taken on by a large and increasing number of publishers. Some mastodons almost monopolizing whole sectors and others grass roots and independent publishers. Today publishing is associated with costs for the journal due to staff and printing costs, but it may have gone a bit out of hand.

Exploitation of researchers in publishing

A scientist today can rarely avoid frequent invitations to review articles, publishing in new journals (often for a fee), share their knowledge in book chapters (often for a fee), not to mention a horde of new conferences inviting your to give a presentation (but often for the fee of attending). It is hard to see this as short of exploitation.

This is probably a “natural” development of how we build our academic sector today. Scientists work for free, or pays, to share the most recent advances to the world. The more people you want to reach with the new knowledge – the more expensive it is (such as making your article Open Access in most journals).

For comparison, consider a journalist. Journalists are seen by many scientists as counter productive to progress since the information they provide to the public often is distorted and misleading making the increasing of knowledge so much harder. The journalist has a much wider audience and the journalist get paid to publish! This puts the voice of scientists at a clear disadvantage since damage control within their field is work that is pro bono.

Just, to highlight the main differences, consider the following generalized financial differences...

General perspective on costs and salary in publishing
	Journalist	Scientist
Writer is measured on how much is published and by the popularity of the published paper?	Yes	Yes
Writer is paid to write?	Yes	No
Writer is paid to review?	Yes	Rarely
Costs can be associated with publishing for writer?	No	Yes
If made available for free the writer pays for it?	No	Yes
If made available for free or published in larger quantities the writer is paid more due to extended use of creative material?	Yes	No

... in short the researcher can suck waxed fruit!

In addition there is a long row of similar things about content, such as integrity, thoroughness of background research, spelling and language, speculation on material presented etc. that are very different depending on whether a scientist or journalist is to publish their material (sadly enough).

Looking at this kind of set-up it is difficult to publish an article without getting a bitter taste in the mouth. One do not feel very clever doing so unless you have a huge sense of Utopia (like me). Actually, it is scary how easy it is to earn fair money for your efforts by taking on a journalist-hat and write a science-sounding article (qualified or not) for a pet magazine or the like.

Good journals do exist

One of my favourite journals is Vet Med Zoot. It is free to publish in. It is journal controlled by an university. It has an impact factor (important to bosses of researchers). It has a good editorial board. It is Open Access. Down side is that MedLine has not listed it yet and it is thus not searchable by researchers only using this tool. But, the journal is close to what the original idea of a publication was supposed to be. More of that please!

Doctor of Philosophy - Wanted: Philosophical King

After listening to the Danish radio program Agenda's questioning Europa's democracy and transformation into technocracies I felt there was cause for reflection on one of the institutions most eagerly morphing to become reflections of the government - the university.



Or, as the Estonian president Toomas Hendrik Ilves would put it (for the Estonian readers):

Vaid optimaalsus ja efektiivsus ei saa olla eesmärgiks. Olemise mõte ja ideed pole aga arvepidamises. Ma tõesti soovin, et dialoog Eesti Ühiskonnas ei algaks ega lõpeks maksejõulisuse argumentidega. Palju olulisem on meie elujõulisus.

Philosopher king wanted
The radio program starts wisely with Plato's "The State" - the philosophical work on what an ideal government should be. According to Plato governing should not fall in the hands of democracy (which he found the least suited form) and not to be governed by soldiers or craftsmen. His reason was that these rulers would be to narrow minded. Or in other words too technocratic and too obsessed on fitting everything into the narrow field of world view they had mastered. Thus being incapable of the most important skills a ruler needs: reason and wisdom. The ruler should have a learned and flexible mind and with an Utopian vision (an ideal). Or in other words: a philosopher king.

Plato put it in these words:

Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and adequately philosophise, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from evils,... nor, I think, will the human race. (Republic 473c-d)

Technocracy and the strangulation of innovation
The philosophers interviewed in the radio program Agenda were highlighting that we currently stand at a tipping point where democracy is turning into a paper shuffling technocracy. In some countries, such as Italy, this is currently a last resort to a dire crisis.
The victory march of the technocratic approach is inevitably resulting in the strangulation of innovative thoughts, the rejection of responsibility, and a system that is turning on itself. This is shown very well in the bewilderment of governments that puzzled and desperately are trying to give adrenalin boosts to the national innovation (assuming this is their life boat) and getting nowhere fast.

Though Plato's ideas probably are not applicable today where the systems currently are so complex that no one man can get the full overview, there are many good points to pull out from his early warning and the cards we have been dealt today.


The philosophy void of present day
Today philosophy is something most would think of as a specialization choice - even by most who have a degree saying "Doctor of Philosophy" like myself. But from the time of Plato up to present time, philosophers keep repeating that everybody should be capable of philosophy. Our kids should be spoon fed this skill in kinder garden!

For those who think philosophy ranks lower than mathematics, reading, and music skills, here is a reminder:
Philosophy is the study of problems connected with our foundation as human beings such as: existence, knowledge, mind, language, and values.
How can you choose what is a good research project, the direction of a university, or how to explain what is right to your children if the skill (philosophy) is never taught, or at best considered a past time curiosity?

When the degree of Ph.D. came into existence the existing possible curriculum at that time still allowed a student to know a broad range of subjects - including philosophy. Today the title remains, but if the vision extend past the listed target keywords of funding even the best innovative ideas may not be understood. Such researchers may have to look for a different job.

Self-reflection
I miss the visibility of philosophy and vision in leadership today. Everybody should be able to define "what is value?" or "what is knowledge?" before they get a position in a university - not least a Ph.D! And at the same time the leaders could re-evaluate the real cost-benefit of educating people to become highly independent and abstract thinkers in the pursuit of breaking the bonds of the possible and then force them to spend the majority of the the time filling forms correctly.  

Image: CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY