Alchemy, Science, Innovation... and the Paradoxes

Industry Interest in Science or Science Interest in Industry?

2011-12-10T03:15:00.000-08:00

Birute Miskiniene from the Lithuanian Ministry of Education and Research spoke to me and a group of university heads and education coordinators of the Baltic States yesterday (BOVA University). We were there to comment on the future strategy of collaboration of higher education between the Baltic States.
Miskiniene spoke about the future and the policy of education in Lithuania. She highlighted in bold and repeated over and over again was that universities and scientists had to be find a connection to the industry in every way (teaching, research, Ph.D.-students...)! The retorics was no longer a polite encouragement, but for once a specific political finger on the sore spot.

We see that everywhere now - it is being forced down on the education. But when listening to this (there was no oppotunity of asking questions) the feeling of dispair turned to optimism when I turned things on their head. I will explain.

The case in a nutshell:
Politicians and industry point of view.
They want bangs for their bucks! They thus think the best strategy is to combine academic work with industry in a total makeover of the academic world. The responsebility is put on the academic world as an obligation to feed the industry with useful products and tailored students for positions in the industry. I would say the logic makes sense practically a long way, if the academic world only produced engineers (and engineers are very useful people I think).

Academics point of view
Academics want to do science! Science is not product engineering! It is discovery! It is partly intuitive and spring from the freedom of pursuing ideas and understanding in depth! Bold risky ideas - test - fail/succeed. At best, science is a discipline guided by moral and ethics - and this often does not harmonize with dancing to the pipe of industry. The forced model makes it more difficult to pursue basic understanding of say the intestinal system of an animal, because they can only get money for drug design and testing by collaboration with the industry. The intellectual property rights is another tragedy of this shotgun marriage that further paralyze important information from benefiting people on a wider scale.

But why is it scientists and the university has to chase industrial collaborators and funds? Why not the other way around?

The more I thought about this the crazier this seemed. I will here boldly claim that:

It is the industry and politicians lack of imagination and will to seek opportunities that stops them from taking advantage of basic research already being done - and there for the taking!

What am I talking about? Example:
Let us say I make a basic study of the most basic form of epidemiology: estimating how common a virus is in a population. Let us say I find it in 20% of the population where it cause illness in a modest 0.2% of the population. Especially children and immunocompromised people would be in danger. What could industry and politicians do with that knowledge if the really wished to make us of it?

Diagnostic Laboratories - development of accurate methods to detect the disease and sell the diagnostics
Doctors - Possibility to detect disease, avoid some deaths and reduce the days people have to be sick
Population - More people diagnosed, treated, surviving, and prevented from infections = more working people.
Politics - Showing awareness to health of the population. Meeting future international demands before they arrive (lowering costs for fast implementation).
Food industry - If the food is transmitted by food, and they connect to voluntary control programs, or see the need to begin them (with government perhaps) to be able to safely export products that can transmit the disease.
Medical industry - higher sale of products for treatment of disease. New markets.
Tourism - Documentation of a disease decline or raise is important to what people will eat or trust in the country. Avoiding getting a bad reputation for being a disease hub on the map by being proactive and giving accurate advice.
Journalism - Misinterpretation of scientific information and misguiding the public (sorry, I really think these people do a lot of harm) - or perhaps in the future it may be possible: to educate the public soberly about relevant preventive measures.
Insurance companies - Who are in the risk group? Does it influence work performance, death, personal risks?
Schools and nurseries - how to prevent spread and detect symptoms before an outbreak.
Lawyers - well they are basically everywhere from rights, safety regulations, politics regulations, contracts etc.
and so on...

Any of these examples of groups that could and would benefit from just looking into what universities are actually doing already in the name of science only requires a phone call from the group to the scientist saying: "Hey, we can use what you wrote in your article what would it cost to explore/present/write on aspect X?"

In my head, industry is there to know how ideas are sell-able and have to be pro-active. Scientists should (continue) to test ideas and concentrate on expanding their insight in depth in areas that would otherwise remain uncharted. Not the other way around.

Voting with a Green Frog - Renewable Energy in Estonia

2011-12-01T02:24:00.000-08:00

Estonian Energy has launched a very interesting new initiative in the pursuit of being more green named Green Energy (Roheline Energia). Though the terms and conditions mainly is protection of the trademark (a green frog, thus the illustration) the actual idea is very good!

This is the deal: You choose to buy electricity from Eesti Energia at a slightly higher price (example: heating package: 10.86 EUR/kwh daytime and 6.83 EUR/kwh night time Green Energy versus standard 9.92 EUR/kwh daytime and 5.79 EUR/kwh night time for the same package, 1st November 2011). For the 9-15% extra on the bill Eesti Energia obligate itself to provide this amount of energy to your household using renewable energy sources (not including the trick of including firewood in that equation):

4. ORGANISATION OF GREEN ENERGY SALES
4.1 The Seller sells to the Buyer Green Energy, which is electricity generated in the Republic of Estonia from wind and hydro energy. Where the local generation capacity fluctuates or changes the Seller may sell renewable energy from other sources or generated in other countries as Green Energy

4.2 If the sales of Green Energy exceed the volumes of wind and hydro energy generated and purchased, the Seller shall not sign any new Green Energy contracts until additional wind and hydro energy sources become available.

OK, so a company is (finally) making renewable energy and selling it - so what?

The great thing is that you, the consumer, can choose! Basically you get the chance to vote with your electrical bill how important this is to you (if you can afford it). To me this is a door opened by Eesti Energia to see what people want and sell it. Clever!

I think these initiatives could and should spread to other sectors too - give the consumer a choice. If the balance tilt in favor of the majority demanding Green Energy (or other trademarks) then the politicians might one day even put on the needed penalties on polluting energy sources and reverse the funding picture presented above.

Reinventing Science - From Journals to Open Science

2011-11-27T09:30:00.000-08:00

Michael Nielsen gives a very nice historical overview on the culture of sharing scientific information at his TED presentation in Waterloo.

As also stated here in the blog, the scientist are generally not rewarded by sharing their information openly. This seems to be a main inhibitor for data and ideas reaching their full potential. The systems financing scientists are simply not geared to welcome sharing discoveries openly. Scientists "jobs" are basically to mass produce articles in quantity as it is a demand in many universities - not to let their ideas have sex with others and advance knowledge faster. This is also turned by the Scientific American in an article from October.

One of my favorite references on the failure of the reward system is Daniel Pinks summarizing of 50 years of research on the subject. And the result is deafening: rewards impair the cognitive abilities! Or, a carrot on a stick makes you dumber.

Nielsen excel in his talk by making a sucker punch to the sceptics when describing how one of the greatest human monuments, The Human Genome Project. This effort would have been an absolute failure had the idea of Open Science not eventually been forced upon the researchers by grant providers. Researchers were simply too busy "doing science" (publishing) to have time to upload genome sequences. These sequences now uploaded and publicly accessible are feeding hundreds of new science projects just by existing.

It takes bravery, especially by young scientists, to openly embrace and promote Open Science (flattered). But we have to if we are to change the rewarding system of scientists so the scientific community (an others) can benefit openly by the research.

And to those who have not read the previous posts on Open Science I answer "no" in advance to the inevitable referring to journals as already embodying Open Science. Peer reviewed journals are not "open" even when offering the "Open Access" option! Open Access is restricted by people having enough finances to publish for everybody to access the publication. And rarely data sets follow a publication.

Lots of work to be done!

Michael Nielsen on Open Science and his book on the subject Reinventing Science:

Open Scource Teaching Platforms - The Post-Gutenberg Era

2011-11-27T03:40:00.000-08:00

Since my university joined the "University of Life"-wave it has kind of been in the cards that the language of teaching should be English and open to a wider group of international students. Higher education has since been continuously forced to find new sources of income to replace budget cuts. This it is difficult without compromising the integrity. Or as the engineer joke goes: "You can get the job done fast, cheap, and well done - but you can only choose two of the options!" This principle however evades quite a few management systems - and I suspect there could be a moral loophole to sort of get all 3 (such as thinning down the integrity).

One quite obvious movement towards meeting these budget cuts is that universities and even students put their heads and resources together across the borders to create the tools that are too heavy to design alone. The especially true for small universities like my own. Creating free teaching materials seems to be an powerful way of meeting both lecturers, students, and the universities limited resources.

Before I continue I wish to share a small anecdote from reality related to what I wrote previously: "Change must come through the barrel of a gun!" - when push comes to shove, the creative mind kicks in.
A female acquaintance working in the military as a programmer was invited to play a war game with the officers some years ago. She was put in charge of a country and set to handle the simulated conflicts. The officers were unaware that she was a very experienced role-player and played to win - with a twist. Before she won the war game she was presented with the dilemma: "Your motorized transports have stopped their progress due to unforeseen technical complications caused by weather conditions in the enemy territory." To this she answered her adviser: "My Brother, shoot one of the engineers and tell the rest they got one hour to solve the problem, or the next one will be shot. Continue to do so until the problem is solved! Live Magnolia, home of peace and harmony!"
The will to survive is a hard point to argue with, regardless if it is your desire to breathe or your accumulated academic efforts.

So, what have people come up with to solve the designing of teaching materials in collaboration and openly accessible to students?

One well known platform is the Wikibooks, which I briefly mentioned previously. One critiqued element of this platform is that anyone can edit it. This can be considered a problem if you wish to ensure a specific integrity of the material - or there are specific points where the scientific community is polarized about ("creation" just to take an obvious one). Another problem is the static book-form of the material. The linear setup of a normal book is replicated in the Wikibooks. This can be a problem if you want to pick-and-choose elements for your specific course.

Recently I found the Connexions website through a presentation by Richard Baraniuk. This platform seems a bit more advanced for university teachings. It is also open-source and the material is creative commons. Students can read online or order books that are published on demand (thus 1/5 of the normal price of an education book). Writers can add material as modules which allow flexibility when teachers are putting together text material particularly for your course. And best of all, you can create a so called "lens" that fits your institution for quality control. The lens is a predefined peer-review process of people and institutions that checks the content of the material.

A final observation is that if we are to meet students where they learn today, not even reading is sufficient alone. Visualisation is imperative especially to children and especially now when we have a generation accustomed to have high density information taken visually.
Visual Learning Systems (AKA Kahn Academy) has taken this full step. Making the module based step by step learning from the lowest grades to high school/college. This is unfortunately a commercial platform so only the financially privileged can use it. Other sporadic initiatives are springing up globally, but still fairly unorganized. In Estonia, Chemicum is already working similar concepts in chemistry on its own (thanks Tõiv), but we need a way to build it in a modular form on an open platform. Frankly this is where the universities should be already - an open source visual learning platform!

I think creating and using online education material, for free, is a necessary step for higher education. Also to attract students to the university. Educated mentors will still be needed. They need to free their hands from paper shuffling and do what they should do with the students - learn!
I love holding and reading books as the next geek, but in reality the era of books being the only source is already past. As written before this is also needed if we really wish to lift education in developing countries. This is the fastest and cheapest way to get the knowledge there!

Now I just hope our university will choose one, and just one, platform. Have spine to force it into action, educate its staff to use it and stick with it!

Richard Baraniuk on open-source learning:

Immortallity and adding to Seven Billion

2011-08-07T02:39:00.000-07:00

Seven billion, and growing. Our global population and its growth is cause of much just concern. The fear of numbers is being abused as vague justification for needing new technologies like GMO in countries who can not afford them (Collapse, Jared Diamonds). But there is also real concerns to take seriously such as water shortage, migrations, wars, and so on that history has repeatedly show follow in unstable regions.

When I was a kid I was seriously concerned about overpopulation of the world. At one point it concerned me so much that I thought it would be irresponsible to bring children into this world and was ready to go the length to avoid it from happening. I now know many who worry about or world also have these thoughts, but I am glad now I did not follow through. Here is my explanation why I now think it can be sensible to have children in a 7 billion rich world:

Immortality
Improved health care and focus on longevity has had the consequences of our exploding population not because we multiply more (on the contrary) - but we stopped dying! We become a lot better at surviving longer the last 150 years. Medical science is really doing a smashing job in solving those things that kills us off. Whether if this is a good thing ethically, even if it is a good longer life, it certainly will affect us on a mental and socially level. It is already happening as seen with the concerns of a growing elderly population with an expanding pension lifespan.
I thought about the search for immortality and found we are already in possession of it it! Having children IS immortality! Not just by passing your DNA to a new generation, but what you feed to their brains from yourself. Kids are incredible copycats. I was quite stunned when my oldest son began to speak like I did when I was his age. I had not told him to "save the world" - but explained him the wonders and problems in it when we encountered questions or discussed together. With his passion and interest I might give him a few clues to where I went wrong and prepare him on finding his own way to accomplish his own purpose. To me this is immortality!

Adding to seven billion people
Is it responsible to put 1 child into the world during these troubled times? Is keeping the number even, not giving or taking, with 2 children OK? Or can you allow yourself to statistically be lifting the growth curve of our population? In Western countries the population numbers are dropping; we are not reproducing fast enough - should that be affecting the choice?
To me I came to a surprising conclusion to myself very recently:

The amount of children doesn't matter on a global scale! What DOES matter (I believe) is what kind of world citizens you nourish to grow!

Will I inspire, through example, for my children to be good moral people who will fight for their rights and against self-destruction and injustice? Do we need more or less of those kind of people today? I think more! If somebody who do not care, or are too busy surviving, to show their own children a future - this will not help our common future very much. But it will make good cannon fodder or drones since they will be hungry for something to aspire too and take what is fed to them. The same would go if the kids who grow up in a relationshit rather than relationship.
This is not just a theory. My brother and his wife just returned from Thailand where they guested an American couple who began an orphanage from scratch. Two people respecting each other and with the surplus to show life as a gift to over 20 children makes all the difference. The same children could have been left on the streets to sell morals and ethics to get through the day.
So, I think it does not matter how many "new futures" (AKA children) you create, but what direction you point them. This places the responsibility on the person having them to be a person worth aspiring to - you!

I know many will disagree on the above. This is largely philosophical and not converted into hard numbers and statistics. However, I hope it will give some thought to people with the same worries as I.

Where is the passion (in science and education)?

2011-07-30T05:50:00.000-07:00

I recently had the pleasure to speak with one of my old course mates from university. He took the path of a high profiled career, working in several countries and continents under top-researchers in cutting edge micro-biology. I took a path of a different country too, but settled with a very modest income, work on my own a lot of the time, but with huge freedom to persue interesting subjects with relevance.

It was thus surprising to hear from him that he felt that his work was, indeed cutting edge and just what politicians and industry are singing about, but dull and unsatisfactory on the personal level due to the hollow feeling of: yes, this was interesting, but probably no living thing improved their life from those millions invested. I have been left with that question in my head too when reading high profiled articles: "OK, scientific approach, but so what?" But hearing the same coming from the horses mouth is interesting. Often I felt a bit off the track myself because my research often feels very low tech when I try to solve a practical problem or fill a large gap in the basic knowledge. I feel like I am slowing myself down since the top dogs scream for so called "cutting edge" research. As if complexity or more expensive studies per default makes better results.

I can not myself understand why I need to build a skyscraper with a hovercraft when the foundation is obviously missing and requires a shovel.

My friend and I began a discussion of how come it is that so few of us (molecular biologists) actually become researchers (only 5 to my knowledge of our group of our year.) What was it that made us want to become researchers?
It was not a specific course we could conclude. It was not because there was particular interested supervisors for our 2 year research project in the M.Sc. program. It was not the prospects of finding a dictated Ph.d.-project or an interesting job (those were bleak.) But it was our sense of "we can make a difference" and passionate teachers - THAT made a difference! Or in short just "passion!"

It seems so obvious but I was a bit surprised anyhow.

It is about individuals caring about what they do, and do it.

It is because it is not what is in the universities or what is valued among research most places. No wonder the industry or society as a whole do not get problem solving academics if they are demotivated and basically looking for something else to do when they are finally through the university.

So, perhaps it is not very useful to measure in (number of) articles published, pages read, the skill to take written exams, and number of passed students per year. Perhaps students finding and trying to solve projects they care about within the frame of their education with motivated and flexible teachers would get different results.

Just an idea.

I am at the point where I teach a bit. Perhaps I can help breaking the cycle a bit by being an interested supervisor inspiring the next generation feeling they can make a difference. Gotta try!

One major funding agency that seems to have understood the above is Welcome Trust (UK) who states:

We believe passionately that breakthroughs emerge when the most talented researchers are given the resources and freedom they need to pursue their goals.

In addition to funding people rather than projects they fully and openly support Open Access and data sharing of research as a policy!

Bravo.

(I leave you with Black Eyed Peas similar question of do you practice what you teach: "Where is the Love?")

Open Source Ecology

2011-04-22T05:01:00.000-07:00

Another amazing initiative relating to Open Science popped up on my radar this week.
Marcin Jakubowski was as hardcore scientist as it gets with a Ph.D. in physics who had the courage of following his heart and redefine his purpose. From scarcity he had to experiment and design his own agricultural tools and machines to succeed in farming. He published his ideas and designs though the internet, attracting supporters for the idea.

Eventually the idea grew into a project, and the project into a purpose they named Open Source Ecology. Here they publish and continue to improve on a fixed set of machines needed to start and improve a sustainable village from scratch. They named this The Global Village Construction Set.

Why is this a really good idea?
Here are my 5 cents:
a) it is a powerful incentive to poor farmers in "third"- and "second"-world countries (and elsewhere) to upgrade and help themselves. Especially considering the combination with micro-loans like Kiva.
b) it gives a cheaper and real alternative to commercial products
c) considering point b) sustainability is a corner stone in the project, and thus incorporated into the design. It does not have to consider profit from gradual improvements, but start at the best and most efficient design.
d) it is a feedback process that allow users to return user knowledge and improve the design.
e) if gives "first"-world farmers a real alternative, who is in a constant race of becoming ever more efficient to scoop a little profit from repaying debt.
f) the idea is community based! Meaning responsibility and ownership of creating tools to sustain the community becomes a public privilege not a private industrial enterprise (but I can be too).
g) the design ideas on the drawing board are by no means just primitive tools (3D scanner, 3D printer, aluminum extractor, CNC circuit mill etc.). The group are serious when they aim at creating a kit that can make people get modern comforts.
h) the idea is to make the machines modular. Simple parts, easy to understand and exchange. This is a huge thing since an item is only good as long as it has spare parts and can be fixed, unlike most modern machines that requires special tools and mechanics - making them useless when placed on a savanna far from infrastructure.

I am proud of people like Jakubowski and his supporters! Especially because he is a scientist! To me they have succeeded in combining heart and mind into what needs to be done. I know "hero" is a strong word, but they are providing what the world really needs, not for fame or money (yes, they ask for volunteering donations). I do not claiming we all should follow this example, but giving it a thought would be healthy.

And you do not need to be a scientist to do a real noticeable difference! The Let's Do It campaign started in Estonia is a perfect example. Cleaning up a country from garbage in one day is certainly possible!

Links:
Open Source Ecology
Open Source Ecology Wiki
Let's Do It World

Science based science based education (and work)

2011-02-17T13:30:00.000-08:00

Recently my exposure to studies about how education, work, ideas, and a successful life seems to work studied by serious and recognized researchers, seems to me to collide head on with the basic university concept many in that field are currently dwelling in.

Most higher educations got it written down in their vision somewhere that the education should be "science based". For those not in this kind of environment that means teaching should continuously be up to date and backed up by relevant research. Scientists are also encouraged to be "inter-disciplinary" to "network" (especially to the industrial sector) and be goal orientated. Especially the last has become thé driver for what you are worth as a scientist or teacher and in many universities and release a bag of money every time a benchmark is met or a student graduate. Teachers have to measure and weigh every step the student takes to satisfy somebody in the administration.

But we are supposed to be guided by culminated scientific efforts to continuously excel our academic sanctuaries, right?

So, how come studies by people like Sugata Mitra can show education without teachers can work very well. That groups can be liquid and that less computers (sharing) increases learning?
I tested Prof. Mitras ideas in 3 groups of 4th year veterinary students last year. After a series of practical lectures on parasitology I told them "You got 1 hour to solve the problem: what is the 20% that causes 80% of parasitic problems in modern livestock farming? You can use any means of help, ask anybody, look anywhere, but you must work in groups. You can however change groups as you like." Most students acted like they were on a treasure hunt and were moving around on the campus a lot. And the discussions we had afterwards were amazing!

Daniel Pink gave me another blow to what I thought was acknowledged throughout the academic system: the classic carrot on a stick. Apparently if you actually study the science performed the last few decades the connection between incentive and cognitive skills shows the carrot on a stick basically makes you "dummer". The motivation for original ideas and performing them faster do not come from getting a reward!

Where do the good ideas come from? According to Steven Berlin Johnson good ideas come from groups with different backgrounds letting ideas have sex. Again - liquid networks. In his studies he credit the enlightenment to first coffee houses around 1650 where people could replace the dulling traditional beer-drinking with mental stimuli like coffee and tea in a mixed community of backgrounds. In short: the coffee table! Inter-disciplinary projects sprung from those tables.
If you ever been to a conference or a symposium, you probably know the real brainstorming is done in the breaks between presentations juggling you cup and papers. In my work place our best chance of a cup of coffee with colleagues is a small (newly renovated) room without windows, currently filled with plant seeds from some research group. My kids kinder garden have a more successful coffee club (no pun)! Where we are now basically everybody is isolated to their own room with their own ideas, and coffee.

And where do we normally get our own good ideas to share with others? At our work? No - everywhere but there apparently. According to Jason Fried we work much more intensively when not at work - mainly because we are not constantly disturbed by more or (frequently) less important interruptions that is to fill a work day. One of the great traps of the traditional work place is not how well or efficiently you can use your skills, but whether you fill a certain gap in time with your presence. But to be frank - does it really matter how much or when you work if what you do is really good?

Because, what makes us happy? According to Nic Marks groups research on what increasing well-being and happiness list the top 5 things: connecting (social relationships), being active (use body), taking time to take notice (be aware), keep learning (be curios), and to give (generosity).
Oddly enough it seems to support the other things written above. And it gets really curious when adding National Geographic writer Dan Buettners groups studies on what gives a long life: eat wisely (only 80% full, lots of plant), move (nudge yourself into physical activeness, less conveniences), have the right outlook (slow down, ikigai - find a sense of purpose), connect (family first, right tribe - don't surround yourself with negative people).

Many of the things that makes us happy and live long seems to overlap - and also move into what seems to work (tested) also in a work place like an university.

It makes you wonder if we couldn't do it better doesn't it?

Further reading

In vitro meat - is it progress or optimization?

2011-01-21T11:18:00.000-08:00

Lots have been written about in vitro meat (meat cells artificially grown for the purpose of food consumption). Mostly the debate orbit the same topics as other new technologies entering our home: Is it safe? Would I use it? Do we need it? Will it be the answer to our problems (growing population, disease, global warming)? If it is good business, is there any way it is humanly possible to avoid it if you do not want it?

I would like to review this new technology from the standpoint of veterinary science and my personal opinion.

I think everyone can understand that we have gone through many steps in livestock production through the previous hundreds of years. And with the industrial revolution the intensity of the production has increased. And it keeps increasing, though problems increase with higher densities of animals, designed foods for maximal growth, animals outgrowing their environment and their carrying capacity, infertility, more diseases to them and us, and so on. But why would a herd owner take on all those pains if a less industrialized production would lessen the headaches and improve the health (and often quality of the product)?

Jared Diamonds gives a decent explanation to this in his book Collapse: optimize or perish. When in the business, and liking your job, you often have to invest to survive, at the same time increasing your dependence on having to continue. Since meat and milk prices have not followed the rest of the economic development, the farmer gets the same, while expenses increase - roughly said. The popular way of dealing with this is by optimizing in facilities and machinery to reduce the increasing production costs. It actually makes sense if you imagine yourself as the farmer desiring not to see his family investments and life work go down the drain.

But optimization has the dark side of not considering the animals as much more than a simple asset eventually. Output is all that matters when it comes down to regulations, quotas, and expenses. But problems with the animals (infertility, diseases, mortalities or culling due to unsatisfactory production, motoric disorders, behavioural disorders, stress and the list goes on) also lead to expenses either through treatment or losses through poorer performing animals. It is a ugly dilemma that does not seem to be turning around any time in sight.

Some farmers try to break free of this maelstrom. Ecological and organic farming is one example.

But imagine how farming would look like if you want to keep optimizing your meat production! What if you could optimize it so far you could get rid of the animals, the large buildings, manure problems, diseases, army of staff... what would it look like? In vitro meat would not be a bad guess!

But wouldn't we object? I don't think so. Some, off course. There will always be some who have a taste for quality and nutrition. But the average consumer in the supermarket has tasted lower and lower quality meat over the last decades, no. And the skill of knowing what is good meat is long lost in the generation shift.

Thus, the question remains. Do you want to eat substitute meat? Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is good for the industry. Unless you believe more industrial food needs to "save" a growing population (rather than distribute it fairly - to me a contradiction in terms), then I would call in vitro meat, the next thing in livestock optimization - goodbye animals. That said - it may still have many important roles in the future. Tissue growth will be medically incredibly important. And even food grown in a petri dish may have its purpose if we decide to reach for the stars or mine the depths of the oceans.

I think the final remark to this should be a quote from a dark vision of the future, the movie Judge Dredd:

"Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you."

Popular science sources

Meat grown in laboratory in world first, Telegraph, 29th November 2009.

Artificial Meat May Feed the Planet, Scientists Say, Fox News, 16th August 2010

In Vitro Meat, Wikipedia

Protocol Online - in virto meat

Selected articles

Effects of a combined mechanical stimulation protocol: Value for skeletal muscle tissue engineering.

Boonen et al.J Biomech. 2010, 43(8):1514-21.

Advanced maturation by electrical stimulation: Differences in response between C2C12 and primary muscle progenitor cells. Langelaan et al.J Tissue Eng Regen Med. 2010 (ahead of print)

Learn more:

Joule - a value for sustainable choices?

2010-06-05T15:35:00.001-07:00

If you care about a sustainable future and questions like how to feed 6 billion people, then you are likely to discover vast amounts of waste. Our food waste in the industrial countries accounts for up to 50% of the food we produce (1, 2, 3). It is therefore really odd to me why some scientists advertise research to meet the potentially growing food demand when population grows. Especially if the scientists support basic ecology: more food for a species = increased numbers of that species = more demand for food etc. The food for growth is often a key argument for sustainability and gene modified organisms (GMO).

But why do we waste so much, purposefully? Why do products travel several times around the world before we can buy it in the shop, throw it in the garbage within a few days to years, and sometimes never even use it.

Well, money from what I can tell. It is sensible because the driver for sense is economy. If you can sell something cheaper and gain profit - you have to for the sake of competitors and stake holders. Same for buying. People buy what they can afford. Makes sense.

Not really.

It makes sense only as long as you think of currency as a value. If you compare a choice with "what resources do I have to consume to get item A versus getting it locally or making it myself" then it often makes little sense. Examples: growing/making your own food, making your own clothes, using certain transportation's.

As a scientists I have been thinking hard of how to expose this lack of logic - how to measure it. Currency is a common denominator for work time, transport, fuel, materials etc. but how can you compare this with something that is not using money Example: milking by hand rather than by machine is reflected in differences in time used, but do not account for the building and use of the machine.

My best shot so far is: joules. Human labor, extracting and shaping raw materials, transportation, heating, etc. can all be added a joule value and compared.

I think experiments that would examine these traditions and habits using joule consumption we have could have a strong impact on peoples mentality and choices. Your choice would suddenly have number of waste. Imagine you standing in the supermarket and on your banana you have a total number of joules used to make and bring it there for you (and it is not a small number).

Yes - yes I know, the work places. If people do not buy things, other people will be out of a job. And if you do not have to transport things 4-10 times to get it to you, it means even less work and jobs. But is it smart? Could peoples time and money be saved for more useful things than shuffling papers and moving things? Would both mom and dad have to work at the same time if you do not need so much money to spend? More physical work wouldn't hurt most peoples health would it? Would it be better for the family - for life in general?

In a week I attend a course on how to construct models that examine and predict sociological-ecological interactions in farming. The course is aiming at finding solutions within the existing framework of agriculture. Let us see how my colleagues will like my new proposal.

Examples of how joules (in some cases as calories) can be counted:
Physical activity
Social study of connection between food and money
Example of study using calories to estimate agricultural practices in Pakistan

Books on the subject

Facts - until proven otherwise (repost)

2010-05-29T23:27:00.000-07:00

It is a fact! This sentence gives me the shivers. Not the word fact itself, but the use of it. The description of a fact is not so permanent as it sounds: something that can be verified according to established standard of evaluation.

Especially scientists like the use of this word when describing fundamentals. Politicians use it when they do not wish to discuss something in further detail. But once I heard a very good definition of a ph.d.-student studying constants from a philosophical science dissertation. He spoke of the gravity constant, defined as 9.81 m/s(squared), is a fact. This is true, he said, on Earth... from a human perspective... under normal conditions... at current gravitational conditions... at ground level... ignoring air resistance... and so on. This opened my eyes in the way of not viewing constants as holy numbers or facts, but status quo indicators.

It was a fact the Earth was flat until proven otherwise by Copernicus. Flight was impossible (unless you were a bird) until the beginning of the 20th century, thanks to a couple of persistent bicycle mechanics. The atom was the smallest particle (defined by its name) in existence, until the quarks saw the light of day in 1961. The abandonment of previous facts for new are easily forgotten, because it becomes the next status quo and fact.

My most recent eye opener is the book "1421 - the year China discovered the world" by Gavin Menzies. After reading this I am sadly disapointed in western history education. If I could ask a high school class a question in History today it would not be "who discovered America?", but "was Columbus the third, fourth or later explorer to come to the American continent?" Even though it is fairly accepted that Leif Erikson was fist European to the continent, Columbus still gets credit for this feat. The knowledge of Chinese presence, even settlements, in America is overwhelming prior to Columbus, at least to Asian and local scholars, but the facts remain unchanged. Why? Because it is fact? Is is so provoking to debate a topic stamped as "fact" if there exist evidence of other options?

In my opinion facts are only good estimates for status quo until new data is uncovered - they are not truth, holy, or hammered in stone.

Further reading

25th January 2010
An expansion to this post: Beginning this year the Dutch physicist Erik Verlinde did what I described with the fact of gravity - redefining it. Perhaps he is right in his theory, perhaps not, but it illustrates the fluid concept of "facts".

3rd February 2010
Another fine example of "facts - until proven otherwise". Diamant is the hardest material - or it was - because looking into meteorites something IS harder than a diamant.

2010 Year of Biodiversity - allow something to live

2010-05-26T01:27:00.000-07:00

United Nations has announced 2010 is the year of biodiversity. Today the area I live in is cutting the grass on uninhabited lots around the inhabited lots in suburbia. In the process killing who knows how many birds and their offspring, for the holy sake of not getting the cursed dandelions and other non-grass seed spread to the sterile lawns.

Arguing (by my wife) that the timing was horrible for such an action did not change anything. Last year neighbors already complained about other neighbors if "weeds" were allowed to spread to their lawn. Well, you will get fined if you do not cut your own lawn, no matter how much you like wild flowers.

When I moved from Denmark I prayed I had escaped this madness of millimeter-democracy. But no.

Yes, I understand most people have been raised to think a lawn has to be flat and contain only the desired and approved plants (to remind them of nature... mastered). Everything else must die! Some find this pretty - I can understand this too, I just don't. Personally I appreciate finding an orchid growing wild in my back yard (or the un-occupied neighboring lot). Watching ferrets hunt game around the house. Or having wild swallows nesting in a hill in the yard. That gives me a lot more pleasure to me than a plain green lawn. Watching the kids, they do not know what to do with such a boring lawn – they run off to climb a hill in the uninhabited lots or go exploring in the rich fauna there. Here land owners even cut down birch trees fighting to get out of the ground, just to buy one in a shop and plant it a few meters to the left.

In the name of the Year of Biodiversity, I send out a plea to my fellow humans: how long it will take us to break the habit of killing everything in our surrounding and replace it with exotic plants we often have to fight for to keep alive or overtaking the local plants?

UN Secretary General Welcome Message for the 2010 International Year of Biodiversity from CBD on Vimeo.

2010 International Year of Biodiversity

Further reading

The dishwasher dilemma

2010-05-25T05:07:00.000-07:00

Often I hear the argument that using a dishwasher reduce the use of water when replacing washing in the hand. We often calculate the better choice from a small scale perspective. If I do X now, I will reduce my use of Y. But does it really make sense if taking more than the water use into account?

I think we severely lack studies that undertake taking into perspective the total consumption of resources in our habits and production, from concept until it is implemented.

It takes 2.900 gallons (10.991 liters) of water to produce 1 pair of jeans (National Geographic, April 2010). I would modestly argue a dishwasher probably consume a bit more than a pair of jeans to produce when taking into account: extracting raw materials, shaping materials into parts, transport of parts, combining parts, packing parts, shipping parts, running the machine in use, etc. Additionally, advertising, packing materials, design & development, etc. should also be part of this equation.

A thought experiment.
For modesty sake let us say it takes a only equal to 1 pair of jeans (10.991 liters of water) to all aspects of making and buying a dishwasher. Let us also be large and assume the machine gets a life of 15 years. If you waste 1 liters daily from washing your dishes in the hand rather than in a dishwasher you would have "wasted": 365 liters x 15 years = 10.950 liters of water. Still less than the savings gained from buying a washing machine. The truth is probably closer to 1000 jeans, which would require a good 180 years of hand washing wasting of water to balance out.

It is the same thought experiment Daniel Quinns sketch in his book "Ishmael" asking: "What takes more resources to produce? A can of tomatoes, or getting it in the wild?" When stating something like that it also raises the question of how to feed the large population in our current situation without industry. And how about all the people whos work is dependent on continous consuming resources?
My suggestion is that we scientists and economists pay attention to these kinds of calculations to explore if there is sense in our current industry. My field of agriculture and livestock production could benefit from such studies. For example, is it really more efficient to farm livestock in high densities rather than on permanent grazing areas? Or, is plowing necessary when all the side effects is taken into account?

Manley P. Halls lecture on "Value" kind of sums it up. If the time you save on buying a modern convenience such as a dishwasher is used for something without value, such as watching television, the time washing dishes is better invested.

Further reading

What I learned as a scientist from the 7 steps in alchemical transformation

2010-05-09T07:37:00.001-07:00

I am a scientist, and I use the current method that applies for investigating theories. It is my opinion that I would be an arrogant scientist if I think previous students of nature such as Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, Issac Newton, and Nicolaus Copernicus could not teach me thing of two about learning new things. Since they studied by the Alchemical method of Transmutation, I looked into this and tried to understand how this mutated into the modern scientific method, and how I could perhaps improve my own approach to understanding a subject.
Apparently I am not the first scientists to look back on this old philosophy. People like Albert Einstein and Ernest Rutherford also spent their later years studying these principles.

In the alchemical transmutation the seven steps are: Calcination, Dissolution, Separation, Conjunction, Fermentation, Distillation, and Coagulation.

Before we begin I must make a note that these steps not only applied to the study subject in this method, but also the investigator. The understanding of the study subject was also to change (transmute) the mental and physical aspects (as close to perfection as possible) of the alchemist.

Calcination
Basically this means to destroy the substance. Normally by burning it to ashes. Mentally it is the destruction of the ego.
Scientifically we still do this. Breaking down something into components we can understand. Dissecting and describing. Testing endurance and limitations. Fundamental in understanding something as the components. Sometimes this knowledge seems to boost the ego in those who study, rather than humble it, and can be worth a thought. I think this step is supposed to give the impression of how little we actually know, or can hope to know.

Dissolution
This is an extension of the calcination (as are the rest of the steps). This is the process of getting the calcinated ashes dissolved and create a solution. Mentally this is a process of flow, and accessing parts that is normally restrained or inaccessible.
In scientific work this could be understood as finding the relations to which the essential parts connect (dissolve) by attributes. The mental part, the lesson to be learned, is kind of rediscovering playing, or removing the boundaries (such as ego or prejudices) that allow us to make discoveries. This is basically what my kid do in the kitchen sink every time I turn my back - mixing everything he can find, just to see what happens. Or, what we do in cooking, pulling on experiences from what happens when the contents in the pot mixes together. For example, it is not irrelevant when the milk goes in or at any temperature. It is one of my most favorite activities.

Separation
At this step the dissolved material is processed by filtering and removing the unwanted materials. Mentally it is the exercise of discovery. Finding the essence and looking beyond rationality.
Here science begin to fall a little short. Or, rather this is the end for most modern studies. We want to find the important and surprising discovery nobody thought of, or was just at our nose tip. Physics is probably the best metaphor, since it uses imaginary models such as quantum theory, which works very well in practice too. But though finding this beautiful simplistic model of understanding something like matter, we still know we are not quite there yet. I understand this part as being able to understand when you reached something of quality. Really good evidence or model of your subject, and know what to ignore/reject (probably the latter is the hardest part).

Conjunction
Now knowing what is of quality/essence from the previous steps the experimentation continues as combining them into something else. Something new. Merging experiences and parts of the investigator into intuition and freeing himself from previous constraints on his perceptions such as social and programmed morals.
If we as scientists ever reach a point like this, where accumulated wisdom is allowed to correlate and come to word, it may often contradict with the established norm, data, and moral status quo. I would say only the bravest of our scientists speak aloud if they have such insight. And often we probably are likely to think of them as arrogant or nuts (especially if we have not passed step 1 ourselves). In other words, a scientist reaches a point where the freedom and flow of his mind makes new unexpected connections that he previously would not even consider of find possible. I think it is this kind of insight that has led our great physicists to conjure the amazing theories of our time - and often succeed in proving them too within their lifetime.

Fermentation

Alchemically this is a two-step progression of the Conjuction step above. Firstly the subject is broken down, not by chemicals, but by living things (yeast, fungi, bacteria etc.) Secondly, it is adding of new life into the subject. Mentally this is a spiritual awakening that the alchemist is now intellectually ready for. The miracle of life and its diversity unfolds like a "Peacocks Tail".
I think this is to be understood that this is the step where it is possible to understand the life of the subject in its natural life (death and rekindling of itself) since the connections are now understood (Conjuction). I can understand many scientist split at this point. Some being reductionists in their beliefs would not be likely to accept elements beyond control. But we do hear scientists being awe of the never ending source of inspiration something as simple as a drop of water can be to them. Interestingly the difference between yoga-masters and such scientists begins being a matter of titles.

Distillation
The fermented subject is now distilled to remove impurities and obtain the pure version possible for the last step following. The process of evaporation and condensation is as if letting it go and creating the conditions of it to return in its pure form. Mentally the alchemist also seek to remove the final elements of his ego and attitudes that hinder his true understanding. This is to raise the power of his psyche to the highest level possible.
As a researcher I choose to interpret this as a humbling of one-self. Knowing so much, only having more questions, could or should lead to a state of acceptance that ones study subject is beyond you. And that you will only be allowed a glimpse of what might be its place in everything. Truth or facts do not exist, but something can be experienced as an almost disillusioned state.

Coagulation
The final state is the control over matter. The subject comes into existence in its purest form with perfect attributes. Its existence itself allow it to transmute other elements/subjects. This is also known as the Philosophers Stone. The mental aspects of the alchemist is now reborn. A threshold has been reached where he can leave his old life behind and redefine himself in existence (the phoenix metaphor). The aim of all experiments was the wisdom of a God: the ability to differ good from evil, right from wrong. The alchemists knew that is an unachievable goal, but the Coagulation is the closest man could hope to aspire.
As scientists we aspire to control matter and life too. Nanotechnology, chemistry, gene-modifications, cloning, etc. However, I see an important lesson from the 7 steps of transmutation. In alchemy it is imperative that the researchers undergo a mental development that lead to a humbling and redefinition of himself and his morals. Without this purification, science can be Thor's hammer in the hands of ignorance - or worse, arrogance. Not a merry picture.

Learning is not a 9-5 job - it is an experience we are supposed to constantly change ourselves with. Adaptation according to wisdom accumulated. I think we scientist have to a large degree lost this most fundamental power of all. We got the know-how, but not the know-why.

A field study in changing the mind of a scientific community

2010-05-06T15:09:00.001-07:00

The great thing about being a mad scientist is that when organizers invite you to give a talk - the audience have listen to you ramble. And I feel that I am obliged to! The last 3 days I attended the NJF symposium "Climate Change and Agricultural Production in the Baltic Sea Region" in Uppsula, Sweden. And let me first say: it was a good seminar!

But the outcome of 300 scientists from 15 countries, and the 70 presentations (incl. mine) had a very predictable outcome of how to go about the climate change from a agricultural / livestock perspective - "More!" More networking, more production, more research, more diagnostics, more risk assessment, more lobbying etc.

We had discussions, which I think were the highlights of this seminar. Both in my presentation and the following discussion I felt I actually succeeded in presenting some views that "shook things up" with my colleagues, who may be a little stuck in the framework we are expected to work in.

Some points I put up for discussion:
- there is a huge gap between scientists and those who is supposed to use and benefit from know-how (farmers) in many countries. Should we continue ignoring that?
- how can a farmer take up new management or technology when his only chance of obtaining an economical buffer to do so is by constantly optimizing production (more, more, more)? Farmers have got the same dump price for many years for their products (or produce at a losses).
- would the impact of existing solutions not be bigger by finding passionate individuals or groups willing to go forward with them (ownership) in contrast to hoping governments will consider scientific knowledge?
- perhaps increasing complexity of our production systems is not the way forward with the only focus on more production. I pointed at grass roots have had good success looking backwards and simplifying production by attempting new/re-adapting old technologies that can give the same (or better) outputs, but with less impact on climate, animal health, and farmer economy.
- I suggested feeding down-up (farmer grass roots) networks rather than only top-down (policy driven), epathizing passionate people have proven incredibly effective in integrating methods through beliefs. If we could work with such people (to assure we do not jump in a harmful direction) we might accomplish a lot very quickly.

It is not that we lack technology to solve problems - it is just so hard to change course with such a large machinery as global economy. Some scientists pointed out they did not think it is our (scientists) role to make sure science is used - that is up to policy makers. I disagree - especially considering how science is often abused.

After getting time to explain these points in details I experienced most my colleagues could agree on points, at least on the ideology level. Interestingly, full support and additional insight, was added by collegues with long experience in 3rd world countries - who point at these things as crucial for the most fundamental kind of success in applying science to improve conditions locally and nationally. Similar signals came from scientists with practical experience and contact with farmers. We had representatives from the Swedish Agricultural Ministry present, and they surprisingly showed interest in some of these points during discussion. However, those who were at higher decision making levels, such as EU level, or national risk management, were not so interested in these points - and more focused on survailance, and how to secure current production status. I frankly asked "Why are we (in disease control) doing our job?". The question was not understood, but when I added "Are we supposed to be a shield while we wait for something better to happen?" Then everybody agreed. I did not persue this, but I think this professional passiveness is not in the common interest of the creatures in the ecosystem.

One orginizations initiatives, LRF (the Swedish farmers association), presented by the charismatic Elisabeth Gauffin, who gave an impressive talk. This orginazation and sharing of experience would without a doubt benefit Baltic States if they took up such an initiative with similar passions. Sharing videos on the website of methods to increase energy efficiency on the farms and other experiences I think is especially brilliant. Imagine if scientists could tap into such an information channel!

I was also happy to see Biochar (Terra Preta) on the agenda. Apparently, the last 2 years research in Sweden and many other places has focused on this promising (ancient) carbon sink and soil cultivator with very promising results. But... it is "going backwards" in some peoples eyes (was used by indians in the Amazonas). A short list of the (long term: hundreds to thousands of years) benefits are increases in: nutrient retention, moisture, soil microlife and metabolism, shelter for microorganisms, pH buffering and stability etc. Besides the plant benefits, on the climate side, experiments show the presence of Biochar can reduce greenhouse gas emissions (N2O and methane) with up to 90%, according to the researchers present. A good point was made in the presentation: halting CO2 emissions is useless (will not halt effects) if we not actively also remove carbon in an intelligent way. Wood, and biomass in general, can be made to Biochar (which is much like charcoal), reducing carbon by putting it into the earth (with no measurable side effects). One kg burried equals to 3.67 kg CO2 removed. A very profitable buisness for a farmer if CO2-taxes become fair. At the same time producting Biochar taking care of garbage (organic) and producing energy (the burning is about 70% of burning all the organic material instead of making Biochar).
Abstract on the presentation should be available here in the future (NJF Report Vol. 6 (1) p. 103)
Obviously, I have to try spreading 1 g charcoal per square meter of my land to see what happens.

A very interesting exercise for me. I learned a lot. And perhaps others learned something from my ideas. I conclude from my "provokations" to the scientific community that people exist out there who are willing to think differently, but the framework most scientists have worked in for so long is binding most from straying from a one-way-road.

For the critics. Yes, scientific reasoning should be the drive for convincing a scientific community. This exercise hopefully show that taking a direction as a community deserves more than one point of view. Especially if the point of view is the status quo in a debate discussing an unsustainable culture. There are scientificly strong alternatives that is hard to see in the debate, and areas that should be examined more closely (such as social factors) that bring forward a scinece based change.

Further reading

Political blocks - targeted funding. Funding of products.

2010-04-22T23:14:00.000-07:00

Funding of research is not supporting the scientific community. Politiken brought reflected on an anaylsis of the Danish funding of science the 22nd April 2010. As a scientist the result is not surprising, but it may shock those who pay tax money in the hope education and development of the future is for the common good... or at least logical. Between 2001-2006 20% of the total sum of funding for research (7 billion DKR) in Denmark went to 56 people (0.7% of applicants). And as the study empathize that it is not the lack of applicants or their qualifications, because they apply within the frames set for them.
As a scientist you currently need to have the right buzz-words in your application to get a chance for funding. Nano-"something", "food-safety"-something, "biofuel"-something etc. If you have the cure for cancer and it involves methods non-cutting edge technology you do not stand much of a chance. And the irony is that many scientists spend 1/3 of their time on applying for funds or other paperwork.

So why?

I got a few suggestions:
The evaluation system
Universities are rated much like individual scientists: graduating students, publications, and patents. In that order. You better spit out articles like a madman, and preferably have some patents. Then you are a "good" scientist. Output is what counts.

High-tech.
The best solutions are not necessarily high-tech or cutting-edge as demanded by funding. But it employs more people, and moves more money.

Targeted funding.
The largest funding program in Europe, the Framework Program, decide the next periods "target areas" (buzz-words) in triad between industry, governments, and universities. Universities having the smallest voice. So the chance of scientists having in say in what is good science is really insignificant, good science, or important. In addition you need to attach industrial enterprises to you application. Independence is not an option.

A good example: biofuels.

Why do we need biofuels? They take up vast amounts of space, output is not very high and laborsome, can do ecological damage to the area as industrial plantations, and could be used (if willing) to feed people who need it. Because - it is a good transition from fossil fuels where industry can earn a good buck before we take the full logical step to electricity. And, to make matters worse biofules also release more CO2 than normal fossile fule. Really, what is the point?

Second example: gene-modified crops (GMO).

Why invent a super sonic car if a wheel do the same job? GMO seems to be a powerful tool with many applications. I do not doubt that. Personally I also think that concerns about "power-weeds" or out-of-control spreading of seeds etc. are a bit over-empathized speculations. GMO is often preached to be the solution to food safety, feeding a hungry population, and sustainability. But to me it seems to be another billion dollar patch-solution to a system that do not work. Our agriculture the last 50 years have destroyed and consumed resources what "primitive" but sustainable (but laborious) methods worked for thousands of years to build up. Examples are biochar, sustainable desert farming, and more recent experiments of "do-nothing" agriculture". In stead of fixing broken systems, we might as well try to learn a little from how things have been done the last few millenia in nature. It is not a question of if it can be done, but choosing to do it and admit that we might sometimes be on the wrong track with our glorious technology. But how do you find funding for showing more primitive farming is just as good as cutting-edge?

The funding system supports products! Not basic research or answering fundamental questions.

I say it again. Scientists need to find a new source of funding or cut out the middle men (fund holders) - and go directly to the users for support (you). That is why I so strongly support Open Science. Otherwise scientists are becoming paid workers that produce the product ordered.

Further reading:

Open Access - rich can publish, poor can read

2010-04-20T03:23:00.000-07:00

Nature News published an article "US seeks to make science free for all" by Declan Butler explaining how Open Access publishing of scientific journals is marching forward. Actually it is doing so well that US politicians are pushing forward to make it mandatory.

This is, in my opinion, a step forward towards Open Science. But as stated before, there is a large drawback with Open Access (other scientists may have more): rich can publish, but poor can only read. It is very expensive to publish as Open Access, that it is not even an option to many universities, including my own. So the published science is not "free" to all. It is accessible to read by anyone with an Internet, but it is open universally for the authors.

The big trouble is how to publish and read free of charge, and retain the credibility of peer-reviews.

I hope for better platforms in the future.

Further reading

Disease control... bridge under construction, please wait

2010-04-07T23:50:00.000-07:00

The conclusion of my PhD-work was that despite 20 years of published knowledge about the parasites I work with and the damage caused by them, almost nothing has happened to prevent it! The cattle farmers are unaware of its presence, though every single farm got it, or ignores the symptoms. The disease symptoms have become a tree in the forest - the status quo. But why?

This massive "?" was a puzzle I have to solve. Not because it is my duty, but what is the point of ANY research if those who benefit from it will never hear about it or rejects it on default? Doing my background research for the Baltic states and onwards to Scandinavia, the pattern was similar - the flow of information that would benefit farmer and/or animals just stop dead somewhere for whatever reason. When asking for opinions from veterinarians of why this is so, many have opinions about farmer mentality: they do not know, they do not want to know, they know better than veterinarians/scientists, they give up and return to old routines, they do not care etc. But nobody really knows. Research on the area is amazingly sparse, but do exist (1, 2, 3)
It seems like two different worlds: University and Agriculture.

Is it the scientists fault? Should they be better at informing? Is the medical staff too poorly educated, insecure, powerless? Is it the farmers tradition, routine, focus, staff? What?

It is therefore easy to estimate that the majority of those research billions put into improving anything in agriculture is just oil for the machinery (accumulating know-how). Or in other words: not very well invested money.

We see the same problem in specialist research fields. The high tech awe-inspiring new genetic tool that can do anything... except apply itself to any valid interpretation that leads to a practical use. I begun as a ultra-specialist in biochemistry (one molecule). But gradually I felt I had to keep scaling up and up to get any sense out of my results. A "what is the point?"-search has lead me into immunology, to epidemiology, and now into the hands of social science.

Standing next to the agricultural monster and analyzing, it is scary to see how unorganized it is, in some cases narrow minded, but most importantly in self-awe. It sounds so much like politics/economics rhetoric's - growth, growth, growth - at any cost! From our epidemiological studies in cattle, it looks like not-doing many things would solve many problems in the industrial farms, in-stead of adding new things to do to prevent things happening (the patching-technique). And if I may come with a bold hypothesis: allowing the cattle to live as cattle naturally would have - is very likely to limit most diseases, leg disorders, reproductive problems, and mortality's dramatically!

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” – Isaac Asimov

Image: Bo Secher

I found the answers to what we are looking for, unfortunately.

2010-03-12T00:00:00.000-08:00

"Money is the root to all evil" - I stated on Christmas Eve when I was five years old, ruining it for everyone. And I meant it. Already at this age, it seemed obvious that all the "unexplainable" evils had common roots. The following 30 years I have been indoctrinated with the religion of capitalism like everyone else. So I have been looking for other explanations to all the evil and illnesses of our world, as this blog works with. When we can fix our problems - then why not?

I did not expect to find answers for this in a clear form any time soon. And in truth, I wanted to be wrong in my assumption about our worlds mental and cultural condition. But if you look, you will find! One day a friend tipped me on The Zeitgeist Movement and their videos.

By watching and reading the movements material I found most of my answers to why our world look like it do today. Also, why good ideas do not find implementation even though it solves problems.
I guess I should be happy to find my answers, but I am not. I was very depressed after obtaining this information. A very uncommon feeling to me - I am an optimist. The statements of The Zeitgeist Movement is bold, chocking, and... unfortunately true to any extent I can comprehend. Many of the points made by the movement, I have experienced first hand, and can confirm by contracts I have been asked to sign. The truth, my perception of truth, is ugly - really horrible!

But self pity and pessimism are still useless attitudes. I am a do'er. The Zeitgeist Movement seems unique in my opinion by being not only sober and clear in their analysis, but the also have a vision of an alternative - and they are implementing it right now. They are working already today on building an alternative to corruption, slavery, and war.

I have joined the movement myself because I personally believe the culture I live in is broken beyond repair (to put it mildly) and our culture needs a totally new platform. I encourage ANYONE and EVERYONE to watch the Zeitgeist Movements material - even if you end up disagreeing with it. If you disagree - try find hard evidence to reject the statements! It is may be the most important time you have spent on anything.

Please, evolve! Not my way - find your way!

The Venus Project
The Zeigeist Movement

One final act in life

2010-02-19T04:17:00.000-08:00

Yesterday Andrew Joseph Stack piloted his plane into a local tax office in Austin, Texas - deliberately. People killing themselves, and others these in the process, are not uncommon these days. Especially USA and Europe seems to be hit hard by these disturbed people, but we also see violent acts elsewhere. Statistics on educational institutions alone list 13 killings, 7 in Europe and 5 in USA, and 1 in Canada over the last 20 years.

The Department of Homeland Security have according to the news classified Stacks suicide has nothing to do with terrorism. I bothered to look up Stacks suicide note and read it in The New York Times. From what I understand Stack had enough of being abused by the law and so called justice, and in a act of desperation tried to strike a blow to the corruption that had damaged his life thus far. Stack writes as final words:

I saw it written once that the definition of insanity is repeating the same process over and over and expecting the outcome to suddenly be different. I am finally ready to stop this insanity. Well, Mr. Big Brother IRS man, let’s try something different; take my pound of flesh and sleep well.

Is that not terrorism? Or is it not terror when a country's own citizens attack its own country and its systems out of desperation of its monstrosity? But our governments highly peculiar and selective investigations of terrorist acts at 9/11, and mostly criminal and unethical actions that followed by that event, is supported by real terrorism then or what? Hmmm. I have read some comments from people on this already outdated news event. Oddly enough people do not disagree with Stacks perception leading to his actions, but rather his conscious taking of other peoples lives and some strange assumptions of political orientation. The latter seems to be exactly what we (The Coalition countries) seem to do in counter-terrorism. It is a very vague and foggy business who gets to do terror apparently.

One can agree or disagree with Stacks actions, but it made me think: What would you do if you knew your life was over? Terminal cancer, suicide, starvation, death of your loved ones, a future in slavery... would you lie down and take it, or would you do something with that last breath? Was this what Stack was thinking?

I know abuse and injustice makes most non-masochistic people angry. How we deal with that anger varies individually. I was angry, very very angry, already when I was 5 years old - because at that age I could already perceive something was insanely wrong with the way humans acted just because. Adults could not answer me the most fundamental questions: "What is evil? Why do money make people do bad things? Why do we tell people in Africa how to behave? etc." My son now answer the same kind of questions, and not because I ask him to, but I can at least attempt to answer them from my best ability.
At the age of 15 I was ready too follow Stacks example, and I can at least imagine I understand why peoples anger grow into terror to get YOUR attention - because governments can not afford to sway at one mans sacrifice! Georgians: "Help us - they are slaughtering us and stealing our country!", Uganda: "They are mutilating and raping our women and children and enslaving our sons as brainwashed soldiers!", Kosovo: "We are dumped in mass-graves in your back yard!" and so on. But those kind of cries drown in headlines like "Norweigan clown trousers are a hit in Canada" and "After plus degrees the frost returns". Luckily my fate allowed me to enslave my anger and transform it into something more constructive, as you are reading about it now.

My final act in life is raising my children with open answers to their questions and nourish a critical attitude to seek out meaning and answers in their world. For as long as I can remain free in thought I can guide my work towards finding smarter ways for us all and expose the wasteful ones. And with a little luck I may keep evolving and learning something new every day.

Doctor of Philosophy - Egypt and Thoth

2010-02-04T05:31:00.001-08:00

When it comes to the wheels of religion, secret societies, science, and civilization, Dan Brown has to eat his heart out when it comes to how Egyptian thinking has rippled our culture. Gospel editing is just a tiny aspect from what lies beneath. Most who write or talk on the origins of science begin with the natural philosophers. But where did they get the idea from to study methodically and why? The alchemists! But where did they get the ideas from? The Greeks philosophers (among others)! And where did they get it from... the Egyptians! Perhaps the thread goes further back, but I have seen no references.

As introduction I think most need to get an insight into what purpose icons or pictures of deity's could mean. This is important because when you start to examine it, everything in our systems are based on symbols from cave paintings, religion, quantum physics, to commercial logos. Even reading these symbols right now gives meaning to you as sounds unlocking the ability to read and write. Example: "A" is a bulls head (Aries) turned upside down, you know as the phonetic sound "A". Icons are concentrations of symbols. I was introduced to this insight through martial arts where I was shown how some icons once banned by law in Japan and thus were hidden. Often the picture of a deity, prophet, angel, demon, etc. is filled with symbols that have powerful meanings in the context of those who live in that icons culture. It would give you guidance and purpose in how to live your life - and could thus be dangerous to those who disagree with the ideology. Just have a closer look at Virgin Mary for example or the 12 disciples and see what they are carrying. Thoth pictured here have the head of the ibis, which also was associated with the phoenix legend, which will make sense later. Above Thoths head is the sun, connecting him to the main deity Ra. He is counting or measuring showing his association with science. And so on. Keep this in mind, because symbols are the language which both science and religion are explained the interpretations and misunderstandings are many. And which interpretation is closest to the original meaning, and which one is more sensible?

What did the Egyptians believe about perceptions of science? Their deity Thoth embodied the heart and the tongue of the sun god Ra. The heart in Egyptian mythology was the vessel of the mind and intelligence, and Thoth was so to say the "mind" and the "voice" of Ra, or God if you like. He (Thoth is pictured as a male) was associated with functions that involved magic, writing, science, and the judging in disputes and fate of the dead. He had these functions because of the mastery in physical (science) and moral (divine) law.

First I skipped through that last sentence without thinking, but later learned it was very important. Science, was meant to be the workings with matter, while religion was the workings of the right and wrong (good and evil) - what to do with science. It is kind of simple and logic once you think of it: what good is knowledge if you have no good use of it? Often people make the quick assumption that these things as defined or fixed (such as facts or laws), but for mortal man the understanding of these two dualities was a work in progress - also known as life or learning. Egyptians was aware of a duality, a balance, in things and was symbolized in Thoth carrying a staff which later became the winged staff crowned with a sun and two coiling snakes - the Caduceus or Staff of Hermes. "Duality" is in my interpretation another word for "balance".

Thoths judgement of the dead as described in The Book of the Dead, carries a lot of information as to what originally may have been the idea of a good life. As the dead was brought before Thoth, Anubis would weigh the heart of the dead on the scales of Maat against the Feather of Truth. If the heart was too heavy, the chimera Ammut would tear the person to pieces. If the person was vindicated the person was raised to assume power in the universe as one of the gods (chapters 130-189). I think this description hold a lot of information to what happened later in our history and thought.
My first note, though a theory since I can not find evidence of a direct link, is that Maat and the scale (the female counterpart of Thoth of justice and law) could have been the original concept of justice (Lady Justice). She commonly assigned to originate from the Greek goddess Dike. But as I will write later - Greeks borrowed heavily from the older Egyptian civilization. Or as Herodotus would write in The Histories (book II), that Egyptians knew of the old gods and were the older culture (meaning there were similarities between Greek and Egyptian pantheon). If this is of interest to you, I suggest having a look at the Zeitgeist movie (first half).
Secondly, the judgment of the heart against the soul is fascinating once you put things into context. The heart was according to Egyptians the vessel of the intellect and the soul. This had to be lighter than the Feather of Truth (or in other words probably light). What does that mean? I understand this as if you had been living an immoral or abused your intellect you would be burdened by this on this final day of judgment Now, if there is no difference between intellect and moral (both hosted by the heart), and a good life was a pursuit of both moral (the divine) and physical intellect (science), this could explain the development that followed in Greek philosophy, alchemy, and some of the earliest science. But somewhere something went off this track, for I dare say that the present day science is not driven by a moral pursuit to any great extent today!
Thirdly, a successful vindication would give the person would assume power in the universe as one of the gods. Gods ultimate power was the ability to differ good from evil, right from wrong. This would later be the goal of the alchemists, a goal never reached, refined through experimentation, but pivoting around a perfection of the person himself. The alchemists call this the search for the Philosophers Stone. Today we call this pursuit the Grand Unified Theory.

Another interesting observation mentioned in Manley Palmer Halls lectures on alchemy, is the way knowledge was probably passed in this culture. Egyptians knew mathematics, accounting, astronomy etc. but there were not schools for common people. You had to be accepted into an order that would eventually give you this knowledge, bit by bit as trade for your dedication to the order. These were religiously orientated. Belief and logic mixed into a ritualistic entity. We know of these kind of organizations still because they became guilds, the strongest and most famous known as Freemasons as we know today. There is nothing occult or weird about this really. Sharing knowledge makes it vulnerable to criticism and evolution. In suppressive regimes knowledge makes you a target. Large companies do the same today regarding their strategies and know-how, binding employees best they can they higher they go in the hierarchy.

This was stray thoughts on the Egyptians at the root of science, among many other things affecting us today. Later I wish to take this to the next phase of what I learned about the Greek philosophers involvement.

Doctor of Philosophy - without the philosophy please!

2010-02-04T04:59:00.000-08:00

Science. People who have an opinion about science, and what it is, are not in shortage. But how many have bothered to try and find the roots and the original purpose of science?

When I did my Ph.D. I asked myself: What is a Doctor of Philosophy? Apparently one that teaches philosophy. Besides some rudimentary course in "Philosophy of Science" that mainly focused on how to write a science application, "philosophy" was an alien word during my work. I love philosophy and thought I could easily discuss this topic with my ph.d. colleagues and students. Alas, I found few such people interested in training their minds on the basis of science. To some it even looked like I suggested heresy.

So, if I wanted to know anything on the topic "what is science?" and "what is the purpose of science?" I had to find some answers myself. I found this part very important part of my work since I was/am dealing with disease control in livestock farming, and frankly, there is no control despite decades of research in the field. So something must be off target, I thought.

The essence of what my research in the roots of science was baffling and eye opening to me to put it mildly. Not only could I find a purpose for myself in science, it also gave me many answers to questions on religion, esoteric disciplines, politics, human behaviour, and history. When I defended my thesis I spent half of my time presenting this research which I will elaborate on in this blog. Speaking of Egyptian religion, alchemy, and the art of transformation in a modern doctoral defense felt like a big risk - but one I had to take to be honest to myself and my colleagues. Luckily the commission I defended in was open (mentally) enough to accept this (or ignore it), and a few even gave a positive feedback on the topic.

I must strongly recommend anyone who has any passion in science (please note that I did not write: "interest" or "carreer wishes") to do their own studies into what makes science.

Please follow the topic line ("Doctor of Philosophy").

University budget - copy+paste+pray... or WAKE UP!

2010-02-01T12:04:00.000-08:00

University budget cuts while the obligatory short sightedness continues - I had enough and had to put my head on the chopping block! We are experiencing severe budget cuts to an extent where there literally is no money for research after (some of) the payrolls have been secured. I am submitting the article below to the university newspaper where I work (Estonian University of Life Sciences, aka EMÜ) in Estonian.

I know I do not have The Truth and the Glorious Facts which others might have, but at least I am making honest attempts of finding a way out. I thought the article fit the topic of the blog and added the English version here.

Crisis?

It is easy to cut down on budgets. It is perhaps easier to make savings into continuous profit. I would like to suggest EMÜ directors several strategies that can do that.

I work with parasites at EMÜ. To me it is obvious to see the same general survival strategies are used by cooperate firms as seen in the biological world. We have to live with them because we are too weak and starved to expel them. Just like getting rid of a parasite infection will give you surpluses in health and economy, so will independences from licences and resources.

Here are 4 ideas EMÜ can apply to save vast amounts of money.

Replace expensive licences with open source.
Make internet telephony standard
Become an ~~green~~ independent university.
Make savings self-perpetuate in the budget.

The software licenses are expensive and almost without exception, unnecessary. Open source programs such as Open Office can replace most tools used on the computer, for free. Though it is mainly myth that licensed programs can do more and are safer than open source, individual exceptions can be made to satisfy sceptics or specialists – opposite of the current strategy.

Skype is already standard many major firms because it is free and ridiculous cheap use compared to standard telephony. A headset and web cam cost less than most of us pay for a phone bill each month. A hand held phone that can use Skype through the WiFi network cost less than 2200 EEK. It does not take much imagination to manage a credit system for those calling non-Skype networks, and for monthly unlimited world wide use of landlines cost less than a meal in the university cafeteria for 3 persons. Why pay for both internet and telephone when you only need to pay for one?

Being "green" looks good. Being "independent" works! EMÜ has all the facilities to implement technology that provide free heat and electricity. Already working radiator systems, water tanks, and flat roofs (even south facing tilted roofs) are begging for solar heaters and sun cells. The university has several hectares of land for pipes that could provide buildings with heat through ground pipes and heat pumps. These technologies can easily be rejected as options when buying them from firms who sell and install each of the items for around 100.000-150.000 EEK at household size. However, most items can, and is, easily made by untrained hands at a quarter of the price or less. I would love to share my knowledge and be part of such a project at EMÜ – because it is fun and it makes a lot of sense.

Most of us do not make use of the above methods regardless of their obvious and proven benefits. It can be difficult convince oneself to find that extra financing to invest in a method that will save you money. So, if you succeed making the first baby step and save something on your budget after the initial investment is paid back, immediately invest it again! The second step is much easier when there is nothing to loose any more - your overall expenses are the same with the savings reinvested. The self-perpetuating strategy can makes the progress possible. Normal strategy would be to put the savings into the bag of money, look at the minus on the bottom line, and say "sorry, there is no finances for it this week/month/year". In stead of staff taking extra holidays, perhaps they should build sun panels?

We got the tools, let us grow the will!

Further reading

Consumers Paradox - Buying Locally is not Always Best

2010-01-10T00:18:00.000-08:00

Buying locally does make good sense as a concept if you wish to do your part in being a sensible consumer. For example, why buy garlic from China when they grow like weed in the back yard without you even caring for them and easy to store (and taste a lot better).

On the other hand every evening I look out my window I see the city of Tartu lit up like it is on fire. The cause is not due to excessive street lighting (yet) but the green houses growing cucumbers - all year round. Since I am aware of this (I am reminded every evening) I can not make myself buy these cucumbers in the shop even if it does not get more local. I am fairly certain that the energy used to grow these things in -10 to -20 degrees Celsius outside temperature takes more fuel than transporting cucumbers from Netherlands or Spain (where they also grown the with aid). In the end I decided not to eat cucumbers out of season, unless we really needed them for something. I wonder how many think these things through in Estonia.

This is not unique off course. It is really difficult to understand where your items come from. My veterinary colleagues in Finland tells me animals are transported very long distances to be slaughtered and then back again to be processed as meat. Closer slaughter houses exist, but it is still cheaper to transport the animals hundreds of kilometers. This information rarely reach a consumer, and even rarer affects the consumer mentally. I am not surprised if the same happens to groceries.

We need one independent place where people can look up information about these things (transportation, pesticides used, slaughtering technique...) and other qualities (taste, independence of food chains, success in complying with food and production safety, fair price...) to a product other than just price. If not the conscious consumer will not see the real product choice behind coupons, client cards and different sales strategies every half year. Much like it is impossible to get a clear idea of the best choice of bank, insurance, gas station etc. If we do not have transparent choice then we need to gather information.

Green Living - Confessions of a Preacher

2009-09-01T06:06:00.000-07:00

OK time to confess. What have I done to improve our predicament here on earth? There are thousands of blogs like mine, preaching greener living and "we should...", but am I doing anything myself?

I try. I am my own worst enemy, and if I do not live up to my own moral code I can not see myself in the mirror. But I am no saint either, and my choice of living is not to be glued on others.

Living
We (my wife and I) set to build a house together. And... if a million people do something stupid, it is still stupid - sorry no pun intended. So I insisted on doing it different than the traditional shoe box with triangular roof. I ultimate goal is a house that is not only self-sufficient - but producing! Still, I want a house that is fun to live in for me and my family. We hired a couple of architects and they came up with "The Shrimp"-design. The design was based on an idea I explained of using the path of the sun on a hyperbole. In the process the architects also made the whole process almost entirely ecological. Materials are mainly untreated wood, natural tar paint, paper for insulation, walls and ceilings of clay and mainly bamboo or cork floors. And no, it does not cost more this way that a traditional house. The house materials should have spent minimum energy to produce and easily break down again (when disposed of) leaving few or no toxins.
The surface area is not optimized to minimize surface area as in a low-energy house. We wanted the large surface areas and no roof overhang so we get the maximum out of the sun (and it works). As a bonus you can stand in the living room and enjoy the starlit night. We may use slightly more energy in the end, but it boosts the living quality tremendously.
We decided to use a Danish heating system from Sabetoflex called a Combi System. It is a combined sun panel and ground pipes working with a heat pump, and heat exchanger ventilation system. The clever about this system is that it is connected so if the sun is producing just a little more heat than the steady ground temperature (which it does down to -15 degrees Celsius on a sunny winter day), the heat pump uses the hottest fluid and less energy.
The goal is now to reduce the electricity, which is around 600 kWh/month to zero. Wind and perhaps sun power are the easiest options but I am still looking for smarter solutions.
Then comes growing vegetables, sewage treatment, collecting of water etc.

Consuming
Habits can be changed, and it does not take that long to do it. I refuse to buy things in unnecessary wrappings, especially Styrofoam. I buy locally when I can. We recycle all our organic waste and sort the rest. We pay attention to what brands we buy, that it is a sound and fair production, and do not just aim for the cheapest. A personal disgust is aimed at perfumed products or "anti-germ" cleaning materials (having the germs is healthier). We grow and preserve as much of our own food as we can. What we can not use ourselves any more we give to friends or those who can use it (especially clothes). We are not afraid of taking in used items, such as furniture or clothes, and find it kind of recreational to put it back in shape.

Transportation
We suck at transportation from a green perspective! We use car, and go together as planned as possible. Still the public transportation in Estonia, besides between major cities, is terrible. So there are few other alternatives present. I bicycle when I can, and enjoy it.

Work
I am a scientist by trade. I work with parasites. Parasites are not especially "green". But I found a way to twist my work in the direction of creating a wiser civilization. I am blessed with a lot of autonomy - which allow creativity. I design and perform projects that do my work (creating knowledge of and how to control parasites) using the path of least effort/energy. Such as the sun to control parasites. Actually it is very easy - nature already designed what works - I just have to find a way of examining it scientifically and encourage industrial production towards healthy production. The last part is the challenging part and economic arguments are inevitable.

Still lots to do. And raising my kids to think ahead is probably the most effective approach.

Mental Blocks - Apathy Despite the Contrary

2009-08-29T08:11:00.000-07:00

I viewed Michael Pritchards TED presentation of his amazingly efficient portable filter for creating sterile water the other day. It is yet another story of one guy who had enough of misery fed through the media. In this case that even a super industrialized country were not even able to help its own people with clean drinking water after hurricane Katrina in 2004. He literally went into his workshop and fairly quick came up with a tool that could solve the problem, the Lifesaver bottle.

Michaels story is amazing, but from my continuous search in these matters, not unique. There is a problem that would improve or save hundred thousands of lives, we have a solution (at least one), but we just choose not to act to solve it - against what may seem logical or humane. As Michael points out, the foreign aid for one EU country could actually give clean drinking water to everyone who needed it. For a single person like me, it is off course difficult to imagine why this would not be attractive to a government. Imagine the PR value of such sponsorship. Almost anyone who had such a bottle would be grateful.

Apathy, "same-procedure-as-last-year", or "more-of-the-same" seems to be the only 3 options I can see in work now. It seems like a loop without end. Michael Pritchard mentioned it as well; at one point you just shut off mentally. The brain can not handle all the misery and the things you feel you "should" act on as a decent human being. It is easier to turn away. You stay sane. Personally I believe this is the most dangerous disease of human kind - apathy. We can ride our way to extinction in a sofa.

Dalai Lamas book "How to see yourself as you really are" gave me a clue how to deal with this myself (because I do not believe it is in any ones right to tell others how to live). The book confirms that it is not possible to act on all the misery on your own. Global issues should be handled by the leaders. One can act by improving, first one self (probably the hardest part), then the near surroundings, local community etc. Not through force, but by example. Curiously, this kind of thinking is also reflected in martial arts (not referring to sport): if you can not save yourself, you can not save your family. If your family is not safe, you can not worry about your friends safety. And so on.
I live by this. It works, for me. I do not create miracles, but it rubs off on others from time to time. I will write more about this later - what I have done.

Further reading and related items:

Thank you Johnny Chung Lee for The Interactive Whiteboard

2009-05-04T03:08:00.000-07:00

Jackpot it becoming more frequent when looking for Open Science. Today I found the TED talk with Johnny Chung Lees hacks for the Wii Remote Controller. Amazing how one man playing around in his laboratory can create revolutionary technology for a percent of professional equipment. But the best part is - he share it! And better yet, according to himself, what fascinates him even more than the actual inventions is how quickly people pick up an invention through the internet and improve it when offered it freely.

So, thank you Johnny Chung Lee for not only being an outstanding inventor, but also allowing your inventions to benefit us all!

If you wish to create $14 dollar steady cams, virtual whiteboards, interactive touch screens, 3D eye wear for graphical contents with material even poor people may afford - go see what is on Lees website.

Johnny Chung Lees project website
TED talk

Tools and further reading

Modus Vivendi - waiting for an outcome

2009-04-19T04:51:00.000-07:00

When I chose the blogs original name, modus vivendi (now changed to "Alchemy, Science, Innovation...") it was because initially for other reasons than I would today. But I consider it a very well chosen title. Modus vivendi is Latin and means: way of living (modus: mode/way, vivendi: of living).

Politically the term is used as temporary arrangement that allows life to go on. Modus vivendi can be use about territorial disputes (eg. Israel), lay down of arms (eg. North Ireland), ethnic minority problems (eg. Gypsies) and so on. So, in no way a final solution, but an unstable agreement that allow everyone to have a life while waiting for something better.

Another way of looking at the term is as a philosophy (way of life). Life never settles or concludes. It is dynamic and can be governed by principles. I have practiced such a path for years now through the understanding of Budô. Bu means the path relating to conflicts such as war or survival, and dô: way of life.

Now, choosing a path normally means you seek some level of enlightenment. It does not mean you will reach it - it is the journey (improvement) that is the purpose. For the first kind of conflicts mentioned that is often solved with a modus vivendi, enlightenment is probably one of the few ways out of a crisis. It is slow, painful, and difficult, but rewards of the process can be rewarding.

The conflict I see, between alchemical thought and modern science is the focus of my thoughts and this blog. I do not know how I knew that modus vivendi would nail the problem to the wall for me. Both of these philosophies have a common root, but diverged, much like we see ideologies part people in other conflicts. Alchemy exist today as a minority, but it is growing stronger, louder, and more aggressive in the absence of answers from the dominant path (modern science) in providing the what really matters to most of us: our a way of life... or perhaps just living.

I am almost ready with my research in how the two philosophies are intertwined and why it is all accumulating these years. I am not going to give you another 2012 doomsday prophecy, but attempt to give a sober overview that make good sense in my world.

Aphorism

2009-03-13T01:00:00.000-07:00

In Paul Mollers TED talk on his development of the Skycar, he finished with a beautiful statement on how a visionary invention is received. I believe that his quote fits the conflict between different ways of using knowledge in this blog very nicely.

First, it is ridiculed by those ignorant of its potential.
Next, it is subverted by those threatened by its potential.
Finally, it is considered self-evident.

Links:
Paul Mollers TED talk

Further reading:

Explosion of idealistic firms in Denmark

2009-03-11T00:07:00.000-07:00

Michael Lund writes in the Danish newspaper Politikken today that new firms with idealistic concepts are sprouting from The Economic Crisis as never before in Denmark. While most traditional firms goes bankrupt, firms giving their surplus to charity, or aim to put employ socially challenged individuals, are reviving the support and attention of their customers, multiply in numbers over the last 6 months.

I know that once your mind is set up for something, it sees it everywhere. Like I would like to see people beginning to throw away their prejudices, take matters into our own hands, and accept the responsibility. So, I admit I may just be noticing trees in the forest. But it make my day happier to believe that we (people in the industrial world) are perhaps slowly waking up from decades of apathy.

Original article in Politikken

2009-03-06T03:36:00.000-08:00

About the time of last post the media are escalating in attacks of anyone to blame for the apparent economic crisis (except the leaders). As the crisis is described as worse and worse, people being sacked in large numbers, the pockets getting shallow, I just can not help thinking: "What happens if the impossible happens in the time of great despair?"

I see the private initiative of reaching space as such an event. Could it not give us a focus when being desperate? If They can fly into space, I can take care of my family without a job - to create an example. Perhaps we will begin to learn that we actually CAN take care of ourselves and each other to great extend, and don't really have to be dependant on many of the things we think we have to depend on.

I really look forward to this event, and I hope it will be a wake up call for the world.

A dream of space

2009-02-10T23:29:00.000-08:00

One of the main drives for this blog is a dream. A vivid one. One of those dreams that works as a wake up call. In short, I dreamt that doubters (established scientists and government) literally one day had to wake up one morning looking up into the sky and see creative engineers, who did not care "what is possible", blasting off towards their dream: space.

After that dream I have been able to see these people in everyday life doing amazing things, everywhere, and struggling to be heard. And after writing my last blog entry, I realize, just I now realize how close this dream is to become reality. Scaled Composites is just one private initiative creating space crafts for human flight, right now! But other, even bolder initiatives, are currently testing their rockets for manned flight these days. In my own home country, Denmark, Copenhagen Suborbitals are getting ready to launch their first rocket (currently unmanned). They are quite serious about going to space. But the Suborbital group are ignoring/challenging at least two existing dogma of space travel: it has to be expensive and that it is difficult. I am fairly sure that more private or non-government projects launched by enthusiasts out there, wanting to reach for the sky no matter what.

If this happens, I think we will enter a new age. An age where people will (more readily) accept the impossible to spring from a garage (or a converted boat - as for the Copenhagen Suborbitals), rather than a billion dollar research institution. In my own mind I named this The Age of the Alchemists (has a nice ring to it).

Link: Interview with Copenhagen Suborbitals (in Danish)

World finest minds: our science is not superior

2009-02-04T23:35:00.000-08:00

I decided to put up a list of quotes from alchemists/engineers/inventors/scientists who are all icons and fathers of the leaps that advanced our technical capabilities to where they are today. The point with these quotes is that is seems to me that intellectuals, including myself, seems to pass through 3 phases that come with age and accumulation of knowledge: idealism, scepticism, and wisdom. The first and last are open for imagination and boldness in the pursuit of the limits. The middle one, which is the dominant one today, prevails as "common sense" in most of us. The quotes below are from people who, in my opinion, has something to show for being labeled among "our world finest minds" - but aware that boundless minds and risking the impossible are required to reach for the sky.

“I was like a boy playing on the sea-shore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.”

“We build too many walls and not enough bridges.”

Isaac Newton, physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, and theologian

“An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field.”

“The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth.”

Niels Bohr, physicist. Nobel Prize winner.

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”

Albert Einstein, theoretical physicist. Nobel Prize winner

“We haven't got the money, so we've got to think!”

“If your result needs a statistician then you should design a better experiment”

"The energy produced by the breaking down of the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine." (great minds don't see everything)

"For Christ's sake, Soddy, don't call it transmutation. They'll have our heads off as alchemists."

Ernest Rutherford, the "father of nuclear physics", 1908 Nobel Prize winner

“You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him discover it in himself.”

“Doubt is the father of invention.”

Galileo Galilei, physicist, mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher

“The man of science is a poor philosopher.”

“Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it.”

Arthur C. Clarke, inventor. Nobel Prize nominated.

“Breakthroughs are what define our species. They come about because we are threatened.”

“If you don't have a consensus that it's nonsense, you don't have a breakthrough.”

"Testing leads to failure, and failure leads to understanding.”

“We have a lot of openings for people...not just engineers, but people that can help us build research spaceships and production spaceships.”

“Our success proves without question that manned space flight does not require mammoth government expenditures...it can be done by a small company operating with limited resources and a few dozen dedicated employees.” (so "alchemists" launched into space)

Burt Rutan, legendary aerospace engineer, and driving force in Scaled Composities.

Open University, half way to Open Science

2009-02-04T00:03:00.000-08:00

Open Science seems to be on the fast track. Several initiatives are now promoting university education for even the poorest in the world (Open University). If you have Internet and speak English, you can join. Distance teaching has been used for a long time in traditional universities, but now professionals specialists in their fields are spending their time and money to educate those who are willing, regardless of background. A neat idea if you believe that bringing education to the uneducated will help calming the world - I do.

I see Open University as one leg inside the traditional universities for the concept of Open Science. I hope that if the universities realize it is possible to convey teaching as an open media, the golden egg, science, may follow faster in the footsteps. In my opinion to the benefit of most, on the contrary to

Links:
Article in New York Times
Article in The Guardian
University of the People
Open Course Ware Consortium
Open University on iTunes

Further reading:

Eesti Energia - a wiggly green line

2009-01-26T03:38:00.000-08:00

When examining the conditions for storing excess electricity from personal renewable energies on the local net in Estonia I got quite a shock. Eesti Energia has the (unofficial) monopoly on electricity in Estonia. But luckily, I thought, Eesti Energia is really proactive for becoming green. They won the Energy Globe award in 2008 for their efforts in renewable energy, they sponsor the largest windmill park in the Baltic region, and even included a raise in energy prices directed directly towards funding renewable energy projects in Estonia. My plan of selling green energy I should be as good as home.

The reply was discouraging though. It seems like lip service had been paid to legislation regarding purchasing green energy from consumers. In short, you could sell your electricity to Eesti Energia, but on the conditions: you HAVE to produce an minimum average intake of 1800 kWh for the net yearly (pretty hard if the sun does not shine) - or you would be fined, and pay a "certification fee" of 1020 EEK/y. In return you would get 1200 kWh back every year.

So, I would pay them 600 kWh/y and 1020 EEK/y - and I would be paid in kWh only? And if I did not meet demands I would get penalties? Pardon? Why can I not sell my excess electricity and buy when I needed it? From the information I got, a simple "no thank you, we are not interested" would have been more polite. But I wrote back to specify if I had understood correctly.

The reply I got was polite and said:

In case if You want to produce electricity by yourself and for your own household, You should to construct your own electricity system for power supplying.

...nobody would stop me if I choose this option. I took the hint: you can build, but you can not sell under fair conditions.

In December 2009 I wrote Eesti Energia to check if conditions had improved. The reply was:

Conditions, requirements and a considerable expense for selling surplus
electricity to our grid have stayed same as they were.

Using the grid in Estonia is NOT an option under the current conditions! So I have set the goal to go off the grid totally, and give my excess electricity away if I can.

Please read Eesti Energias ethos and their support strategy and decide yourself if it harmonize with what I described above.

Sad! Being a "Green" company is often just PR.

Links:
Renewable energy tax in Estonia
Energy Globe award 2008

Garage alchemists work with Open Science

2009-01-25T23:51:00.000-08:00

I will present a good example how Open Science is becoming the result of the paradox that old unused efficient technologies are improved by the common person understands, and an industry/academic reinventing the wheel at the expense of billions - and with less to show for it.

Alchemists were supposed to transform lead to gold (more metaphorically rather than physically though). Today people are replacing fuel for water using really cheap parts from the local hardware store. An achievement billion dollar car manufacturers so far have been incapable of, or a at best produced expensive hybrid cars that might replace standard cars in the far future. In short, people with two hands and high school physics can catalyse water using a battery and put it the carburetor, reducing fuel consumption 40-70%.

So much for the paradox of such a simple solution to one of our most serious problems. But the setup of these firms selling their know how, is that you pay a symbolic one time fee (donation for their efforts?) for access to knowledge AND a network of users giving feedback to improve the technology. The firms also encourage people to share the technology and know how with others, without any ties. Open Science - a forum working on an invention/innovation together, and total freedom to share it.

The more firms I find of these (YouTube is a good place to search), whether they teach you how to construct windmills, sun cells, sterling engines, magnetic engines, etc., they nearly beg you to grab the knowledge for yourself and are happy to get input from others.

I can not help wonder if this is a growing phenomenon. I just give it a name: Open Science. Is the impatience of people waiting for their wise men and leaders solving their problems run out, and taking matters into their own hands? I would like to think so, but scepticism is hard to overcome. I have learned that you can not expect people to follow you when you serve these "too-good-to-be-true" solutions - not even those you love and trust the most. They will take a bullit for you, but if you want to half their gasoline bill, they hit the brake on you. There is only one way (in my opinion) - be brave enough to show the way! Take a risk once in a while. Jump in. Get wet. And if the water looks nice, others might follow.

Links:
http://www.cargoh2o.com/earth4energyspecial.html
http://water4gas.com/2books.htm?hop=aussiejon
http://www.earth4energy.com/index.php
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YluZO9RuHA

To Grid or not to Grid

2008-12-05T04:55:00.000-08:00

I write a lot about renewable energy because it seems to attract inventors, engineers, and scientists alike. It thus is a good focus point for the paradoxes these problem solvers meet when trying to solve what seems to be in every ones interest (global warming, energy supply, pollution). The topic of this blog.

The New Scientists brought an article the 3rd of December 2008 on an increasing trend of people becoming independent of the power grid suppliers (How to unplug from the grid). More and more people apparently seems to dump the high cost of establishing new grid connections, or just sleep with clearer consciousness at night, and become self-sufficient with heat and electricity. I felt this myself as am building a house now. Just getting permission to use an existing connection to the house cost me over 1000 Euro ("connection fee"), and once again for using extra amps.

Prices are dropping and efficiency on equipment (sun cells/panels, wind mills, electricity storage devices etc.) is improving (see previous blog entries). It is becoming affordable and doable to replace outdated heating/power systems in your own home.
These days it seems that we, the people, are taking or demanding more and more independence at the same time the governments are tightening the control. Whether it is named "Web 2.0", "civil disobedience", "anarchists", "activists", "interest groups" or whatever - we are organizing and not waiting for our leaders to solve the problems. And the firms can smell the profits to be earned from this new movement. From my chair these changes in mindset is causing many clashes in our world today.

In our case of independence of the grid the conflict of interests, the paradox, seems to become apparent in the problem of producing too much energy as a private, independent, energy supplier. In Germany and the previous blog entry on Ota City, the private power generates are allowed to channel their excess electricity into the power grid, and take out electricity when unable to sustain themselves with power (see picture). The power grid functions as a "battery" so to say. Simple, easy to calculate, manage, and beneficial for all parts (the power company sets the prices). But it is very few countries who use this option. Why? Perhaps it the existence of a monopoly situation on energy supply as it is now. Letting go of some of this control may be difficult. However, it does not lead to non-fossil energy anytime soon if the power companies are expected to become "green" anytime soon. The companies has billions invested in power plants that are not easily rebuilt for new energy scources. So economically it is not rent able.

So, we can easily supply energy clean an efficiently from the sun or wind, but storing the electricity is a problem. The solution is simple, and already existing and working in places, but requires acceptance of power companies. Sad but true.

Perhaps we will see independent power suppliers organizing alternative grid networks in the future. Teslas wireless transfer of electricity is currently only use ind tooth brushes and art installations - but potentially could become a new grid network ("Change must come through the barrel of a gun").

Article in the New Scientist
Picture: http://www.greenlineenergy.com/solarbasics.shtml

Sun cells running a Japanese city

2008-11-13T02:57:00.000-08:00

Sun power is the absolute largest known source of continous free power on earth, but we are currently quite bad at harvesting it.

The Danish news channel, Politiken, presented a news reel today (by Clavs Sylvest) on the Japanese Ota City that is being fully self sufficient in sun powered electricity.

This is a goverment sponsored program including about 500 homes. Each home has been given sun cells. The project is a national experiment testing how to avoid power cuts with the use of sun power. The house owners are allowed to sell the electricity back to the power compagny when producing excess electricity. This amounts to about 50 US dollars/month per house, on top of the electricity saved. However, sun cells are still expensive to produce and buy, and not using the electricity optimally due to reflection.

Good news though, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (US, also source of foto) has figured out how to coat the sun cells with tiny hairs that capture the otherwise reflected sunlight, much like hairs on a polar bear. The improvement allows the cells to harvest close to 100% of incoming rays, in contrast to about 67% now. So let us hope this will arrive on the market one day, that goverments will support people buying them, and that power compagnies will buy surpluss energy.

The video on Ota City can be watched here: http://politiken.tv/nyheder/udland/article597272.ece (in Danish)
The article on the new sun cells: http://ing.dk/artikel/92983-beklaed-nutidens-solceller-med-nanohaar-og-faa-50-procent-ekstra-energi (in Danish)

The Back Shed - Open Science in use

2008-11-07T01:35:00.000-08:00

Looking for sources of information on initiatives that involved other people I entered The Back Shed. This website is very close to my idea of Open Science in practice. I will try to break down into parts how.

Summary: The Back Shed is a channel for "publishing" how a few windmill enthusiasts building effective windmills, improvements, and expansions, mostly from spare parts. But not only that - they involve others in projects through their website, and allow them to give ideas to solving problems - returning the result on the website.

Economy: The website use Goggles AdSense and thus gives a little project money in return for people using the listed suggestions for windmill parts by Google.

Blue prints: the site offer detailed, step by step instructions how to replicate their results.

Forum: An open forum for discussing various projects and concepts is present.

Control: The site is run and maintained by the group.

Alchemist or Scientists: These are enthusiasts, making improvements to industrial designs as well as from scrap. They supply technical information and prints, but the method is trail and error, not so much scientific. So though they are not green stamped representatives of intellectual property But they do make things work - cheap, easy, and better for anyone it seems.

Interactivity: The linkage to a global idea network is lacking.

Ultraviolet light in the environment of domestic animals as method of limiting infection with parasites eggs (a defensive publication)

2008-11-05T04:27:00.000-08:00

What is a defensive publication? It is a publication of an idea, or method, that prevents other from claiming the intellectual rights to it (such as a patent), because the idea no longer is "original".

Background: Ultraviolet light (UV) is harmful to living organisms. Our atmosphere and clouds, protects us from the major exposure produced by the sun. Besides being burned by the rays, the light can also penetrate tissue, enter cells, and damage DNA ("nicking" it), making survival of organisms difficult (eg. skin-cancer). Basically, what it takes to kill or weaken an organism with UV-light depends on the intensity, exposure time, and the spectrum used of the light. The smaller the organism, the less UV-exposure necessary to kill it. This is well known, and is widely used in many fields as a sterilizing procedures. It is also applied to water borne parasites such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium with great success. UV-light is a natural limiting factor of egg shedding parasites, who in most cases require shade, moisture, and normal temperatures to develop and survive.

Parasite eggs: Many parasites, both protozoan (one celled) and helminths (worms), have a part of their life cycle outside the animal, either as a worm or egg. The success of a parasite depends on whether new animals pick up these eggs and get infected. Good hygiene can limit these eggs in the environment, but it is often difficult or neglected, especially in animal production.

Method: The novelty of this idea is to use UV-light directly on the environment (in the farm) of the animals (not on the animals), either killing or weakening the infection potential of parasites picked up from surfaces. The tool is simply identical to a flashlight with UV-light bulb of the right intensity, held over the surfaces the animal comes in contact with.

Limitations: UV-light does not penetrate deeply into for example faces on the ground. The effect is therefore limited to surfaces.

Extra benefits: Parasites with damaged DNA, will cause a weaker infection than normal, and possibly increase the chance of the animal acquiring immunity to it. Works on other free living pathogens too such as fungus, virus, and bacteria.

Warnings: UV-light is harmful to the eyes, and skin under longer exposures! Small amounts of ozone (O3) is created when using UV-light, but quickly (minutes) reconverts to oxygen (O2). Ozone creates radicals that could act on the environment. Realistically, in a place like a farm, with air flow, this most likely will not cause any problems.

Economic Logic of Open Science

2008-05-22T13:43:00.000-07:00

In my search for fellow thinkers in the line of Open Science I might have hit the jackpot with Professor Paul A. David at Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Prof. David apparently has been working with the concept of Open Science, not as an invention, but as a real factor in the scientific and commercial sphere of economics. From what I can read in his references the concept is hatched around 1998. The report brings forth (in Davids words) similar arguments in how Open Science works in favor of both scientific/commercial interests.

The paper has many eloquently phrased points, and I will not give them here except one on intellectual property rights: "...it can be said that a good bit of intellectual ingenuity and entrepreneurial energy is being directed towards the goal of neutralizing the achievements of information scientists and engineers by creating new legally sanctioned monopolies."

The Economic Logic of "Open Science" and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and Information. SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 02-30, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

Sterling Denmark - but why the biofules?

2008-05-18T01:44:00.000-07:00

One of the machines with greatest potential for supplying electrical power is the 200 year old invention of the Sterling Engine. It is basically a closed bicycle pump that moves a piston, turning a wheel or generator, when being heated or cooled. The clever part is that it is one of the engines that can work at moderate temperatures and make it into power. And another attempt of putting it to use is made in Denmark.

Stirling Denmark has announced the launch of their working Sterling Engine for biofuel producing an impressive 9 kW and 35 kW of power. The 9 kW model is however not for purchase before 2009. Cogratulations to the inventors who spent 15 years on making a commercial model! I sincerely hope you will succeed in selling it!

At first I was wondering why someone would use biofuels to power a Sterling engine when other cheaper options were available (sun, ground heat, composting, and potentially cooling sources as well...). There are no doubt technical reasons to the choice, but putting things in to context, biofuels do make sense. Biofuel is a hot new buzz-word that politicians love, and love to throw funding at. And scientists must adapt the science to what a handful of people with the money think are important. Biofuels currently seems to be the transition phase from fossil fuels to the better existing technologies (at continental pace), allowing a dilution of the fossil fuels into something renewable.

I also noticed in the product synopsis on Sterling Denmark’s website that the product description had a clever "Designed for biofuels etc." It is probably clever not to state too much of the actual potential of a working Sterling Engine in producing electricity from various sources to avoid too hard opposition. Clever, very clever Sterling Denmark! Keep going.

Economical Blocks - Tiny Steps Max the Income

2008-05-12T22:45:00.000-07:00

When you look at your coffee machine and wonder why it is spending energy to keep the coffee warm, instead of just entering a thermo canister directly, one may wonder what went wrong in the evolution. Actually, we (the consumers) can already buy a better model that waste less energy (and undrinkable coffee), but do not buy it, or do not see it in the shop.

It is painfully common to find clever designs on the shelves, or abroad, but only to see them disappear again next year, or never reach Europe. Another ridiculously simple and ingenious design by the Japanese company Toto is the combination of a water tap on the cistern of a toilet. Beautifully, the space of a sink is taken away, the main water line and the cistern is even better separated, and you save about a deciliter of water (if you wash hands) every time a person flushes. The catch? You can't buy it if you are not living in Asia or US!

So why do we as consumers invest fortunes in cappuccino machines, but leave the strangely intelligent design (not to confuse with fancy design by the same name)? I have come to the belief that xenophobia could be part of the answer - better take the safe choice (my wife strongly opposes me for not doing the latter).This off course is not very progressive in an evolutionary process.

Engineers still allow heat conducting pot handles in the 21st century, apparently ignoring common sense. I am not an engineer, so I hope the otherwise (assumingly) bright engineers parry orders rather than try to push the limit in their work.

So lastly, but most importantly, I think it could distill down to the mindset that if you can produce infinite variations on the same design until the demand for something better is too great you release the next model; it will maximize the company income. We all know Microsofts bad rumor of fixing deliberate program bugs. It is a logical capitalist approach, and not wrong for the dominating market powers. A tiny step ("now with enzyme X", "upgrade 2.3.4.1", "innovative design") keeps you buying the same product, because you know it will do the same (at least), but a totally different approach (and perhaps better) to solving your daily needs, gets less room in the consumers home.

CO2 free electricity in 2010?

2008-03-28T01:17:00.000-07:00

My stomach turns when I read these news about the coming of the CO2 free car driving on electricity as announced in Politikken today. Is the electricity produced by the electricity company CO2-free when the car us due to launch in 2010? I think it is a vulgar management trick to claim a car propelled by electricity CO2-free, when only a tiny fraction of the energy provided by power companies produce is just that!

If the electric car is producing the electricity itself (eg. by sun, water or other), the story is different. But when I read Shai Agassis (promoter of the car) blog, his vision for Denmark is that windmills nightly output could, and would, supply the energy to power the cars in Denmark. Now that is visionary! However the article by Poltikken does not mention this.

So, cars driven by electricity - no thank you! Cars driven by continuous and pollutant free energy sources - yes thank you!

Hypocrits or users of an unvisonary system?

2008-03-13T23:58:00.000-07:00

Politikken (DK) writes today that Eurobarometer shows 65% of Danes are worried about global warming, but the CO2 production is still rising according to recent data from Energistyrelsen (Danish Energy Authority). A paradox indeed, but the article does not indicate if the increased CO2 is caused by private or industry, and how the CO2 is calculated. So from all we know, we may change our habits, but it could be diluted in the big production line interacting with each other.

I raised this problem in my blog on the conference of Renewable Energy Resources. I see two problems with the CO2 in the mentioned article.
First, why make people responsible for the CO2 production, when you can easily improve the situation with simple political adjustments? People don't stop smoking because it kills them, or buy less exotic wood for the floors and furniture because it wipes out wild life, do they? A recent example is that now all new houses built in Denmark has to be consuming a minimum amount of energy. Good, but it could be much more concrete than that!
Secondly, as I wrote in the blog entry on renewable energy, CO2 can also be a new puff of good intentions. Meaning, switching to renewable energy as "cleaner" energy, also includes firewood that produce CO2. And if you turn off your oil furnace and install a heat pump without changing insulation of the house - you still use electricity - made by power suppliers burning for example coal. But in your mind you have switched to a greener solution. It is as narrow sighted as buying an electrical car and thinking it automatically makes the world greener. There electricity comes from somewhere, and only a fraction from clean sources such as windmills!

Would a vision like all new houses by 2018 has to be self supplying with non-polluting heat and electricity, not be slightly more visionary, and create new jobs and markets? There are many examples of people doing this already on their own (look up the books in Amazon), without goverment support, by their own initiative and brain power. Also in the urban areas.

Denmark is going to host the Copenhagen Climate Conference in 2009, but the vision of being a host country with vision and a source for inspiration is doubtful as best these days (not just my words). I do not envy Connie Hedegaard, the Minister of Climate and Energy.

Yesterdays Frontier

2008-03-10T01:59:00.000-07:00

August last year I wrote about stopping light in my entry Science Fiction, or the next frontier that Lene Vetergaard stopped light and created a new frontier in what is possible. Today the Danish newspaper Politikken announced Vestergaards team newest budge to the border of what is possible. Experiments in Boston Harvard University show that it is also possible, not to just bend, but to move the path of the light. So I repeat, can your ego define the boundaries of what is possible by defending facts that are constantly altered?

Change must come through the barrel of a gun

2008-02-19T10:59:00.000-08:00

No, I am not a Communist, Maoist or environmental activist, that is not the reason for this quote from Mao Tse-tung. Change must come through the barrel of a gun is in this context meant, not as a slogan for a revolution, but a way that seems to work when change is needed. Or, it is a reversal of the saying if there is a will there is a way, becoming: if there is a way, there is a will.

In this article I will claim this mindset has been diverted to a needed change, both literally during wartime, but also in recent times, with success. And the reason for bringing this up is that political actions can actually can solve problems (hard to believe is it not), but the action has to be radical - in the constructive sense.

If we are faced, or think we are faced, with obstacles that resemble the barrel of a gun, we are most prone to change our habits and act out of united wisdom rather than fast economical gain (though one does not exclude the other, rather the opposite).

First example, second world war. In the mist of all the global horror the war race accelerated technological innovation up to the bombing of Hiroshima with a nuclear bomb, simply because governments thought they had too to meet the threat of the enemy (the barrel). But the knowledge accumulated in the years of the war continued and launched us into space (also in record time) and introduced technologies we still develop today. I will argue the threat was the primed the willingness to find fast intelligent solutions. Much like global warming is beginning to feel as a (real) threat, the willingness to take intelligent actions increase.

Like I have written in previous entries, intelligent solutions exist to most of our current problems already, in raw or developed form. If we wanted it, we could build cars that did not exceed certain speed limits. If builders were faced with a legal demand that 50-100 % of a new house has to be self-sufficient on heat and energy, it would be fairly easy to optimize existing techologies to meet this demand. Removing personal wate products could have a demand of breakdown to neutral and non-infectious components in soil by 2025 for all households, and firms would meet the demand. But if there is no barrel, and the pocket is full of money, why change a habit? Well, just see how the imaginary terror threats has boomed the inventiveness on monitoring and security measures. But as a new thing, compagnies does seem to be picking up on the greener mindset in their consumers (helped by the danger-loving news press). People want greener, smarter, safter, and more flexible solutions - and not just in buzz-word form on the wrapping. Tor Nørretrander cover this possible 360 degree change in trend in his new book Civilization 2.0. In short, the producers may have delveloped smelling senses to detect the money in sustainable development.

The Danish health sector, where everyone can get treatment when needed with no or at a symbolic cost, is a good example of when an ambitious project of visionary change pays off. Providing quality care for everyone in society spawned a wide spectra of new technologies and inventions to meet an efficient health system, that Denmark has living itself fat on for decades. This is an example, not of a threat, but that change does not have mean a sacrifice, but a change with gain.

It is doubtful that politicians risk anything these days, but for a minor adjustment to existing legislation. But if the risk is cataclysmic enough, maybe it can bring around bold enough politicians to inspire use of practical and easy development changes with effect on our habits. But it is probably more likely that our current solutiouns come from down and up to the political level. Yes, my faith in real boldness of politicians is rather small I am afraid. So good initiatives that has a long history of working might be safe enough for a politician to support, rather than demanding development through new ambitious goals.

Don't give up brilliant people - everything will change when we get ourselves scared enough!

Never mind the basics

2008-02-13T06:24:00.000-08:00

These days science has a cancer. It is political, but not necessarily lethal – just resulting in some needless overspending. Buzz-words/newspeak drives the funding today, and thus forces the research in the same direction (nano-anything, multi-platform-anything, global-warming, CO2, food safety etc.) It is a bit like helping the third world countries: catastrophe = money = satisfied voters = base of problems remain unchanged.

At a recent lecture on pathology a researcher put this in crystal clear perspective in an example of salmon farming. We are intensely investigating vaccines for fish, but nobody has looked at even grossly describing the intestine. How absurd is that? This kind of research is probably sound by method, but I would claim it also contain a fair amount of guessing and assumptions. Are we falling over our own legs and getting ahead of ourselves because we have to be cutting-edge to get funding? I know in my own field the general feeling these days are that it is not real science if it is not molecular biology (where I started).

If we dared looking backwards a little we would discover that many of our clever inventions are copying older knowledge as David Edgerton described in his book The Shock of the Old.

Here is an example. I am the lucky to be in possession of a replica of one of the seven surviving imperial seals from the Ming dynasty. This bronze mirror looks like the common mirrors of this age, but was so intelligently crafted that the atomic structure was altered in the bronze at the cooling process, that it would reflect an detailed image of the blank mirror onto a wall when exposed to strong light. It was not until last century a smith discovered the key to replicate this amazing craft. Still I have seen no applications of this amazing knowledge, though I could imagine quite a few.

The mirror is a nice metaphor (for me) of science today. We are studying the applications of atomic structures, but the possibilities of metal working elude us on more basic levels.

Geothermal Air-Conditioner

2007-11-19T22:29:00.000-08:00

When my wife agreed to building a house that was a little out of the ordinary our architects did some interesting research on alternative methods of heating. A local initiative by an Estonian inventor, Heiki Jüris, is the Geothermal Air-Conditioner. This is not the device we decided to use for our house, but it is in use elsewhere and working. Dr. V. Viljasoo of Estonian University of Life Sciences is collaborating with Mr. Jüris on the testing of the device.

The principle is simple. Two "boxes" are built under, or in extension of the foundation of the house and connected with several sloped tubes. The device is then covered with earth, or built upon. In principle the circulation of the air through a heat pump (much like normal ground heating using a liquid to absorb the heat) the air in this device obtain the ground temperature (around 7 degrees), and returning to normal atmospheric electrostatic air and humidity before pumping it back into the house.

The Geothermal Air-Conditioner seems to be a cheap way to create a healthy air conditioning and heat for the house. It potentially takes up a less space than normal ground heating (if placed under the house), and the space can still be used for storage to some extent. The backside is that is best to include in the initial building phase (though it can be added later as well) and that it is still in (final) experimental phase. The device requires a little manual cleaning every year.

Now, this is not all advertising. The reason for entering this into my blog is that Mr. Jüris seems to be fitting my archetype of a local "alchemist". From what I am told he is a pleasant and modest person who does not do much advertise himself and his invention. He is not a scientist per se I understand (but collaborate with local ones). The pricple of the device is simple, clever and cheap (mainly if put into building of a house foundation). Mr. Jüris is one of many brilliant inventors with better solutions to status quo, but chance is that his invention will suffer the same fate as most other of our solutions: little or no impact. The reason? Well, if you read about the conference in the last blog entry you might find one answer. If the focus of government, and thus the scientists (funding is needed by the governments), is on heating with biofules or wood/plant materials ("renewable energy source") then that is what people will use in the future. If the perspective is small in the leadership, and the small man (Mr. Jüris) is not raising massive public awareness on his own, I would sadly predict his invention to become a another future note in the patent office.

I am not trying to be negative, but it seems to be the common mentality to "go with the safe bet". To this particular device I thanked no myself, not because I think it is a bad device, but because we had already begun plans for the foundation of our house and I did not believe the cost-benefit of this device, compared to my other planned "alternative" heating forms (sun-earth-wind-synergy), could outweigh them. But if there are any brave souls who do not like to work hard to pay energy/heat bills or value healthy indoor environment, go ahead and contact the inventor!

Interview with inventor (Estonian)

Power Point presentation of the Geothermal Air-Conditioner

Further reading:

Renewable Energy Sources Conference

2007-11-18T05:30:00.000-08:00

The 15th November Estonian University of Life Sciences held their 9th coference on "Investigation and Usage of Renewable Energy Sources" in Tartu. I attended as part of the university, but mostly out of curiosity.

The conference had leading researchers in renewable energy from serveral countries and officials of the Estonian ministries. There seemed to be a strong focus on the countrys vast unused biomass and its applications. Estonia have a lot of unused agricultural land after U.S.S.R. occupation (3 hectar per inhabitant of which 200.000 hectar is abandoned), and a though they are not raping their huge resources of trees, firewood is a common heating source, and has been for hundreds of years. I could not help noticing that firewood is part of the term "renewable energy", but I did not notice references to the enviromental implications, only the economical rentability.

The goverment did, not supprisingly, bring out that they wished to focus their funding, and welcomed researchers who volunteered to state outdated or fields with too low cost-benefit. They also asked for more structured or exact research, since the last 30 years in some fields had given little clarity of the situation regarding renewable energy. On the other hand researchers gave an official plea to the goverment for guidelines to what they should do. Little news there I guess.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications gave some interesting data on the status of different renewable energies, but focused on the use of forest resources (biomass conversion, direct energy production and waste uses). I could not help raising a few questions on heat pumps. I asked if they had considered using deep sea water for heating Tallin like the plan in Stockholm? It had not been considered, but they had noticed that the last 5-10 years the sales and use of heat pumps were doubling every year in Estonia. They could not answer why most of the deep ground energy heat pumps were rejected in most cases in Estonia, but speculated it could be due to protection of ground water ressources.

I know that Tartu already has a great initiative that makes heat and ventilation to a house - basically ground heat that does not use electricity. But it is one of these initiatives that has an modest inventor with humble ambitions. So I think very few will see this technology - like others. I will write about the Geothermal Air-conditioner later.

Several fine initiatives were presented at the conference. The best in my opinion was a German initiative by Michael Wachendorf and his team, who focus on using the increasingly abandoned German farm lands. The abandonment is against EU regulations (which is worth a thought), but the farming is no longer financially sound in some areas. So in their initiative they harvest the wild plants growing and converted them into biofuel. I liked this project because it not only tries to produce sounder energy, but also invoveld a growing problem caused by a changing culture.

Estonia is third in Europe (following Lithuania and Finland) in use of renewable energy resources (including firewood) with a set goal of 5.1 % for 2010; a goal that has already been surpassed. Unfortunately this kind of statistics, I think, probably would not change the fact that Estonia is also one of the most polluting countries in EU. So I left with the feeling that the focus was on "renewable" rather that "greener" or perhaps just "sounder" energy. No leaping for Estonia, but small safe steps with the crowd.

Further reading:

WorldWideScience - A Step towards Open Science?

2007-08-08T01:20:00.000-07:00

The 22nd of June 2007 the Department of Energy (USA) and The British Library of the United States of America opened the new search portal www.worldwidescience.org which has a Declaration of Intention that moves in the direction of Open Science.

The portal has ambitions of becoming a similar gateway as I suggested in my manifest the 29th July, the need for releasing the holds on Science is needed for a dynamic development. This is clearly also the intent of WorldWideScience:

WorldWideScience.org is the prototype for a global science gateway connecting you to national and international scientific databases. WorldWideScience.org accelerates scientific discovery and progress by providing one-stop searching (see advanced search) of global science sources.

Though I welcome this initiative as a step in the right direction, it is still just a collection of databases, made searchable, containing existing information. It undoubtedly (if used) will bring project partners closer to each other in their field of interest, but not necessarily improve or accelerate scientific discovery in its present form.

I wish their project the best and hope to see it develop.

Science Fiction, or the next Frontier

2007-08-01T06:23:00.000-07:00

I thought it important to bring a little personal flashback on recent technological jumps I, and many others, never thought to meet in their lifetime. This is important because we easily forget yesterdays breakthrough when it flickers off the TV screen and just how far we are able to push the limit for what is possible these days.

Space Exploration

Remember the saying "the sky is the limit?", well, that limit was broken when landing on the Moon marked possibly the most fantastic achievement of the 20th century. It was a realization of one of mankind's oldest science fiction dreams. But who actually believed a manned mission to the mythical planet Mars would be executed within a lifetime after that? We now have permanent space stations, orbital telescopes reaching far into space and plans of using satellites in grid technology.

From the indivisible atom, to something smaller

When I was a student of biochemistry and learned quantum mechanics, the atom (meaning indivisible) was about to loose its status as the smallest element materials could be broken down to. Quarks were the new buzz word of physics back then (though it was introduced in 1961). So though I was taught that atoms was the smallest "thing" everything was build out of, it is now fairly accepted that we have something called quarks, and that we can build of atoms (nanotechnology). You may even heard about the theory of vibrating strings that is supposed to make even smaller building blocks (still theoretic science). So the smallest thing in the world seems to shrink as the perception and knowledge increases.

Stopping light

One of the most undebateable constants from last century is Albert Einsteins speed of light. Though I have heard claims of people arguing for something travelling faster than light, I have seen no proof of such yet. But it was an eye opener for me when the news brought the news of the Dane Lene Haus teams efforts in slowing down light beams. They later announced they could totally stop and restart light in its path. I think this is a good example of how "constants" may be dangerous (in the perspective of progress) to view as taboos that has been carved into our civilizations history. The only truth I know is that there are no single truth.

Teleportation

Moving objects over great distances, broken down into elementary particles, must have been a technology found in the far future for the most of us, if ever possible. I must have been as ridiculous to think of these technologies as a possibility a few years ago - as it must have seemed to build machines of atoms and altering humans on gene level must have been to a scientist 50 years ago. Never the less, last year (2006) professor Eugene Polzik and his team at Niels Bohr, Denmark, published the results of their teleportation experiments in Nature. This is a technology in its infancy, but no less a reality. Remember than nanotechnology is only 20 years old as an active science, but you can now buy products in the shop today where nanotechnology is used to manifacture it.

Industrial Diamonds
Alchemy was a special mix of philosophy, nature, and spiritual aspects. The chemical aspects in some alchemist studies involved the search for the Philosophers Stone, a legendary substance that was supposed to produce silver and gold from other substances. But if someone today say they can produce diamonds most would shrug and say "off course". Well now days we can make diamonds of our pets or lost family members if desired as a matter of fact. So, maybe the claim that "one can not create gold" should be added a "... , yet".

As you can read here, I do not make this up, it is actual technologies in development. Sometimes I have even given up on convincing people some of these technologies exist, even though they have the luxury of being acknowledged by the science community and media. This is another plea for people to keep their minds open when encountering crazy technology that defies what you know and have learned. I doubt all people are crooks and frauds who want to decieve you.

Fiction is just the next limit our imagination can push our abilities! There ARE people working on time machines (on theoretical level mostly) - but whether they will succeed (or should) can depend on whether people can accept it.

Open Science - Free Inventions for Everyone

2007-07-29T10:31:00.000-07:00

This is the first time I suggest the concept Open Science directly. I have been working on this concept for some months, and it is not finished, but please comment!

Open Science my suggestion to a concept that is thought to get around many of hindrances of the technological advances discussed in this blog, by making it free and available for everyone (indicated by this blog that it is currently not).

The Main Concept:
The prime objective of Open Science is that the inventions reach the users who can benefit from them and not get blocked in the process by third parties (inventors being first and users second parties).

Open Science is to be similar to Open Source, but developing openly on inventions rather than text code. A forum is needed for this development, and I imagine a net database would be best suited for this. The inventor/scientist uploads his blueprints, supportive investigation reports, comments, guides and other supportive information to the forum, thus giving up the idea as a protected patented and make it free to use and alter for all.

Money!
The forefitted claim to hypothetical financial gains from an expensive patent can be gained by voluntary donation economy, consultant work and product specific advertisement (like Googles ads) that can help interested builders to get parts from dealers through the forum. If people get into the habit that they can get the best technology, free, it may be hard to pay for unnecessarily high priced products (energy for example).

The social advantages:
Making inventions and build-yourself-guides available without restrictions on the net, potentially makes it accessible for anyone with Internet access; even third world countries. Hopefully, more people with similar ideas and input for a good invention can feed the project to improve making more people involved in developing (and accepting) important technologies, regardless of their background.

The disadvantages:
Third parties may have an interest in stopping an initiative as Open Science. Governments may find it dangerous that technology is globally available, since every technology can be abused as well as bring the civilization a step up the ladder. Companies with competing products will most likely feel threatened by free (and perhaps better) alternatives and attempt lawsuits. This is one of the reasons for keeping the concept free is crucial. If none are selling, there is no physical product and the know-how is free and documented (and thus unpatentable) - it should be difficult to build a case.

Other Open Science projects:
On the net an Open Science project already exist creating open source software (for free) for science applications. However this is not open science, but applications, and since I have not found a better term for this idea, I will stick with Open Science until a better alternative present itself. Journals also use the term for scientists publishing for a larger fee making it free to download in contrast to subscribing to journals. This is the opposite of open science in my opinion. The closest thing I found to my own idea so far is the Open Notebook Science (idea by Jean-Claude Bradley) that simply lets anyone read your science notes, not just the publications.

Warning:
Many have given me the feedback that they think I want to start a movement or change the world. Not really. Too many have tried and failed in getting people to do more than nod politely in consent from the arm chair. My idea with Open Science is to appeal to the industrial countries national sport: apathy. The idea is like Wiki books, that gives the knowledge directly to those who are willing to receive it, around economical interests and politics (I don't even want to fight them). People can get the solutions to what they need, if they can get out of their arm chair. If western countries don't - then let the Chinese take initiative, or someone else. In the end things are what we make of them. I can not predict what a successful outcome looks like for Open Science to the world.

Educational Blocks - Amazing what We do not Know

2007-07-24T01:25:00.000-07:00

In my highschool advanced physics class of my final year, I asked my physics teacher while working with thermodynamics: "Aren't there a device that can make electricity of heat (explaining that I did not mean heating something, but heat itself)?" I never forget the look on my teaches face, I could see he struggled with himself to put his words in a way where he would not wound me in my ignorance (I liked my physics teacher, he is a good person). He told me kindly that if anyone would ever invent such a device they would be filthy rich. I naturally interperted this answer as a "no".

It is not until now, during my investigations for this blog, I know that this device were invented years earlier than my question to my teacher. This device was developed by Dennis Lee and his team and went into production in 1984 originally ass a low temperature phase change system (any weather) for producing heat. It was named The Alternative and is one of the technologies that actaully came into production and use in USA, and as it claimed. It was a little later that is device was discovered to produce energy as well with some modifications involving a modified Sterling engine, originally invented by Dr Robert Stirling in 1816. The device however went out of production in a competitive struggle with athoroties and cooperations that I will let the reader investigate themselves, since it is hard to present it objectivly. Read for yourselves (1, 2) about this product. The short story is that the inventor had to go to jail for selling the device on some very odd charges (if any).

As I wrote previously, my teacher and others teachers, have a lot of responsebility in molding our minds to be able to believe in greater advances. I am certain they do not do it intentionally. But I also had an opposite statement, to the skeptism I got in school, from a professor in the university, that opened my eyes again. When I asked him supportive questions to the class that had ended, he suprisingly said "we don't know!" I was in the begining of my studies and professors were like small gods of knowledge - how could they not know? I was curious and asked him to speculate. To this he replied: "It is amazing what we scientists do not know! That is what makes it so fun!" I can only wish more scientists, teachers and people were like him. If we do not know, it does not mean it can not exist - just that we have not discovered why it can work!

Movement Blocks - The road the Hell; a bridge of good intentions

2007-07-23T05:13:00.000-07:00

During my biochemical studies I followed a course in Environmental Chemistry instructed by lector Søren Toxsværd (Copenhagen University, Department of Chemistry). During his lectures he often shared his vast knowledge of chemical history. This story he told us when explaining the chemical properties of cement.

As most people now know, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), also known as Freon, are bad for the environment but a good refrigerant. It is a odorless, nontoxic, colorless and nonflammable gas that makes it very safe to be around. But in 1972 F. Sherwood Rowland and Mary Jose discovered that once the released CFCs reached the stratosphere the ultraviolet light could release chlorine. The chlorine has a long term effect on the atmoshperic chemistry in breaking down ozone. But what we probably remember before the bans of CFCs was that freon is bad!

But once the bans were in place, a lot of existing equipment were left with CFCs and nobody knew where to put them. Releasing them would mean destroying the ozone. Clever engineers came up with a solution. The CFCs could be chemically bound in common cement, would chemically be altered and not released as harmful CFCs again. Easy solution to a big problem. But the inventors were too ambitious. They wanted to make the factory that would inactivate the CFCs and produce cement in Africa - giving the country an unique technological advantage. Unfortunately, the intention was misunderstood as exploiting a third world country with a western country chemical waste problem. Media had been pounding the message that Freon is bad into our heads - so the activists saw the initiative as exposing the Africans to a directly harmful chemical to humans (which is untrue).

The movement succeeded in closing the African factory initiative before it was completed, moving the solving of the problem back to square one. A paradox; a brilliant solution to pollution was smothered by the most people who most passionately wanted a solution.

I love this story because it shows how good intentions can turn against ourselves if we do not keep an open mind.

Educational Blocks - If it is so amazing, why is it not used by someone?

2007-07-07T13:25:00.000-07:00

When I discuss the existence of great unused inventions and the contents of this blog with people I am often met with the statement: "If it is so amazing, why is it not used by someone?" This phrase is so common that it almost seems like a response running on default, like the memes I wrote about earlier.

Where does this instant rejection of the amazing possibility of a breakthrough for mankind come from? If you were drowning, would you not least attempt to reach a floating object? It does not seem to be the case with long term hazards caused by pollution, wasteful energy sources, overproduction, hunger etc. When I attempt to dig in why my (of different backgrounds) debaters are sceptical towards investigating the integrity of claims on great breakthroughs, and I usually get a school/high school quote of sorts. Examples could be "my physics teacher always said engines can never produce more energy than they can consume and that it is simply impossible" or " it is against the laws of science - so I can not be". I was told these things too, and in a discussion they are statements that are hardly open for discussion. When I try to list some of the problems a good invention might meet before it is on the supermarket shelf, the most difficult to believe is the inventions design - not the problems it faces. I do not like conspiracy theories (though this blog might be labeled as one), but is it not scary that individual thoughts can get one tracked like this? Should we curiosity not be allowed to overcome scepticism in the case of need?

In my own opinion I did rather poorly in school until I realized that I was complicating things by taking too many variables into account at the same time when solving an assignment. My teachers, who I respect, did not want my interpretation or creativity so much as they wanted the correct answer. All through my education, up to doctoral level, I have been schooled in searching for answers that fit the mental box called facts. I agree this reality works very well per default - but it may restrain you and me from even accepting the existence of a revolutionary technological breakthrough. And how do you approach that as an inventor? It works, you can show it works, but people deny it because they have been taught I can not exist. If that is the case perhaps technological breakthroughs are left to be investigated by believers who can accept humanity might not know everything, but can hit a lucky strike when trying to reach for the sky.

The blog joins Technorati.com

2007-06-17T01:41:00.000-07:00

Technorati Profile

Political Blocks - Big Boss Says No!

2007-05-16T01:00:00.000-07:00

The Danish newspaper Politikken wrote today on their website about how the Danish gas compagny DONG attempts to hinder plans of green energy in local areas. Decades ago the Danish goverment invested billions (DKR) in establishing a national gas network (DONG), and planned whole regions to be gas dependant to make it rentable. This now clash with the current reality and initiatives of Danish counties that wish to build houses with greener energies such as sun and biomass fuel. These initiatives have lately grown forward to meet the goals of reducing CO2 and protecting the environment, also specified by the goverment. It is another dillemma, or Catch-22, of a goverments long term planning including law regulation that now disharmonize with new regulations of reducing the use of energy and the effects on the environment.

I post this example because it is a good example of how strongly govermental planning, both short term and long term, blocks what I like to think of as more stable development and generally innovative thinking. One could think of the goverments compagny, DONG, thinking as backward thinking.
As an example we already know that we use enormous amounts of energy building and maintaining houses (it is a good sales pitch for selling more products), but law often hinders the possibility of developing and using alternatives. Examples of these are isolation - where a there are minimum demands for new houses, but there are also strong regulation on using only existing materials. Using collected water for flushing toilets are regulated by demands as well in Denmark. And in Estonia using a circulating system to the ground water beneath the house as a heating is rejected in about 90% of the cases because of theoretical possebility of damaging the ground water. But the same system is very common in Swedish houses. Naturally these regulations and laws are often to protect from damage or harm, but a general manipulation with what is possible have side effects that stops more intelligent alternatives. And as long as money is involved the process of altering the laws is slow - just look at how fast the alternative to the car is regulated.

So, depending on the contry, the political law regulations seems to work as breaks on on innovative development initiatives in general. Laws could work the opposite way, but unfortunatly they are normally designed to be protective rather than progressive.

Mental Blocks - Memes as Denial

2007-04-09T07:32:00.000-07:00

Memes can be described as unit of cultural information passed on from human to human. Dawkins gave examples like jingles, tunes, beliefs, trends etc. In short memes can be considered bits of information (not nesscarily true) passed on between individuals like a virus or a gene, altering itself slightly over time. We all know commercials by heart like "Just do it!" (Nike) or our politicians ("Axis of terror") that uses memes to change minds by changing habits through repetition or spin.

I bring on memes because science, and the way we approach the rationale as the truth, could have become a meme. It has become commonplace to hear phrases in the news like "Statistically more....", "Experts in....", "Surveys indicate that..." and so on. It seems to me that science is used by news and politicians as undeniable tools, or weapons, for facts and correct standpoints. Odd, since journalists and politicians does not seem to communicate very well with scientists and vice verse. And because journalists and politicians speak about research results as if they were their own, they become memes by repetition.

Have you ever instinctively denied a child's fantasies? For example, if your kid would run up to you, excited, telling you there is a tiger in the yard - would you not feel urged to tell the kid there is no tiger in the yard without looking first? Kids have a good imagination by default, and we adults often do our best to dampen these tall tales with common sense. Common sense, that if we think about it, often is guided by what we have been told - memes. A little curiosity or sense of adventure might make us look for the tiger, but the inner voice often win over the instinct of curiosity.
So if I replace the kid with an garage inventor who excited enter the public forum with a new high yielding energy source running on water, the integrity does not increase much because of his years of age. I would claim the same mechanisms kick in. We are sceptical and normally categorically deny the validity of the invention due lack of documentation or conflicts with scientific "laws" (memes) - in stead of being curious and look into it with the mindset of "what if the inventor is right?".

In summary, my point here is that memes based on how the world looks like is a serious mental barrier in all of us if one innovative revolution stares us in the face, and we all help sustaining it.

Financial Blocks - The best inventions are free!

2007-03-15T03:30:00.000-07:00

If a combination of brilliant inventors and wealth occurred in history it is rarely the case modern times. If there ever were a time where currency is crucial for an invention to rise through the cement floors of documentation, risk assessments, patents, marketing, laws, and safety reports (that all exist for our benefits we might argue), it is the present time. But time could be at a changing point, circling around the dominating investors dictating what inventions are needed!

Many idealistic inventors have had the idea of free applications of discoveries should benefit humanity. Nikola Teslas (1856-1943) dream of free energy is just one of these. He believed so intensively in this idea that he tore up the patent contract that entitled him to royalties on the all the electricity we now take for granted, possibly making him the richest man on earth.
So far the wall every inventor meets is raising enough finances to do research, build and improve. Competition is tough, and money is often earmarked in narrow fields (designed on demand by industry, universities and politicians) like the EU framework program. It may be tough for a totally original idea to be considered in such a context. So what to do when there are no money from the investors?

The current revolution of the IT-era could open a possibility: free innovation. Or perhaps innovation paid directly by the users rather than investors.
Look at the approach of Wikibooks in helping to solve the knot of how to educate people in developing countries. One plan is to write 1000 books of education by qualified people though Wikipedias online tools, and make them available for free. The project is driven, on a book level, by sponsors who wish to be associated with the developing markets. With one new approach, greedy bureaucrats, international politics, and outdated books, are elegantly chess mated.

Independent programmers increasingly release programs, many of them open source, for free use on the internet, and live off voluntary donations. The debated peer to peer internet technology, BitTorrent (by Bram Cohen) is just one example. A technology that is just at its beginning of its applications, and has lead to inventions such as free telecommunication (Skype). Voluntary donations have already spread into many internet based projects from pop culture (comic books, independent music artists) to humanitarian movements (The Hunger Site).

Individuals donating finances to projects rather than big interest based money tanks is probably a trend born from our ego centered culture and the new web technologies, but a powerful trend none the less. It would loosen some of the organized control and allow more chaos and creativity – evolution, in short. Firms also seem to have discovered that paying for exposure (commercials) is a way to finance projects on the internet (eg. The Hunger Site). If the trend develops over the years one can hope that at least some of the international resources could be redirected to help home inventors and great ideas on their feet. Perhaps free for everyone.

General introduction - Catch-22 of Innovation

2007-03-14T06:32:00.000-07:00

When I entered the natural sciences I could not get the thought out of my head: How many amazing, perhaps revolutionary, inventions continuously are lost due to habits and rules of society, and why?

To give a little introduction, I would like to give an example of such an invention.

When I was 19 years old a local Danish TV program showed a short documentary on Erik Skaarups wave energy converter, he named “Bølgehøvlen” (now named WavePlane). The program planted the first seed of doubt in me whether truly innovative achievements are getting a place in our time.
Erik Skaarup explanation how he as a home inventor came up with the idea of harvesting wave energy in his bathtub made me smile, but it was the opposition his idea met at the most obvious investors (like the Danish government) that dazzled me! The depressing story of how he went from door to door of the investors was long, even with self financed test proofs of pilot models. The potential investor I remember the best was the Danish Ministry of the Environment who argued they did not find it necessary to invest in wave technology since they had wind power technology well developed. A paradoxal statement considering Danish politic has preached green energy and innovative solutions as part of up-keeping the national welfare and work places for decades. The story have not changed over the last 13 years from what I can read from the company website (www.WavePlane.com) who now has most investors in Norway and bases in Australia, Japan and USA. Time will tell if Danish investors made fools of themselves.

Now I have found that hundreds of incredible inventions and inventors, through news but also first hand, who never get to change the world for the better. And why? Is it the patent laws? Eccentric behavior? Lack of scientific proof? Lack of economic understanding from the inventor? Lack of understanding of the impact of the invention of the investor? Or is it because we, as civilization, just can not handle more than one revolution at a time (currently being the IT era)? I think it is all of the above. And in this blog I will try to give examples of these points of view.

To make myself understand this paradox, I created two groups of inventors: the Alchemist and the Scientist. I may be a son to a father of the first category, but am officially working as (and by the rules of) the latter. An Alchemist is a term I use in lack of better because it best fits the personal approach of discovery (home inventors, but more) in lack of better, not to mix up with the medieval magician. It is my opinion that these two groups approach inventions from opposite angles. The Scientist has to skeptically build all his discoveries on theories already established. Theories that are our best bet at describing reality, but far from do so.
An Alchemist plays around, discovers something works, believes in the invention, but then meets the modern age demand of nearly anal demands for documentation. Often this creates a catch-22, that few normal people have time or temper to satisfy. The result is that the invention dies with the owner, in the patent office or in the drawer.

If innovation and miracles are what we need to solve the 21st Century’s challenges, maybe we need to reevaluate our approach to discovery and the space we allow true originality. Welcome to my blog!