A new old currency

I was just thinking about all the problems we now face due to the rogue economics in play. Then I realised that there is in fact a currency that do not obey the same rules as yen, dollars, or euro.

• It is a currency used in all countries.
• The interests of the currency increase the worse the economy is.
• The more of the currency you have, the more you want to save.
• The more of the currency you have the less distractions affect you from accumulating more.
• The more of the currency you save the more likely you are to get meaningful long term employment. 
• The more of the currency you save the more excellence appear in the work you produce. The more excellence in your work the more valuable a product you produce. 
• The exchange rate depends on how much the person you exchange also possess of the currency. The more he/she has, the cheaper it is.
• It has a security feature built into it that makes it more difficult to steal. I consist of something you possess, something you know, and to a large extent something that is uniquely you.
• Some say the currency is the formula for real success. 
• It is contagious.

The currency is integrity.

Own it!

Also read:
Challenging the integrity of research

Teaching the Traumatised

Everybody has felt how a headache affects the ability to think straight. Perhaps you have even felt how much energy and mental effort a bad injury or long term illness demand of you. If you have had the unpleasant experience of being bullied you know it will be on your mind months and years. If you had a death in the family, sudden or otherwise, you may have experienced how this can consume your waking and sleeping hours. I think most can relate to these different events as different levels of life's unpleasant surprises that are acknowledged to impact on our ability to get though the day and not least – to learn.  

                                                                                              
Image: demotivationalposters

But what if you are a student and you grew up with an alcoholic parent? What if the your partner beats and threatens you regularly? What if you are a survivor of rape or systematic abuse? What if the thought of suicide is crossing your mind regularly?

If we are not accepting that these kinds of trauma are sure to affect the long term ability to learn, we are ignoring what may be the single most important reason why some students cannot function (Chen et al. 2006, Knox 2010, Basch 2011a, Basch 2011b, Coohey et al. 2011, Karande and Kuril 2011, Krishnakumar et al. 2011, Makrill and Hesse 2011, Afifi et al. 2012, Snyder et al. 2013, Swanston et al. 2013)! Failing to respond when being exposed to individuals caught in such abuse would not only be to fail as teachers, but also as human beings.

In January 2013 I participated in the international conference “Higher Education – Higher Level Learning?” in Tallinn with national and internationally renowned experts in educational development. There was not one word on the importance of social issues in affecting learning outcomes. So, not being an expert, I raised the question myself – several times. In all forums, it was considered important – and that it should be addressed. 

At least I was confirmed that my wonder was justified. But the silence on the matter was deafening.  

Image: Arizona Department of Public Safety

In other institutions, like the military, a stable person is recognized as being of importance for the success of the mission, unit, and the function of the organ as a whole. I was once told that the elite forces in Denmark, and elsewhere, are expected to “clean up” at home before going on a mission. This means that you go home and solve your private problems: settle arguments, say your goodbyes, get issues out in the open, discussed, and closed. A person on a military mission with issues at home is considered unable to function optimally and may be a serious liability to the whole group.

Young persons entering the military and academia are about the same age – but it is not my impression the young adults are helped in academia to address these imperative skills for success.

I currently teach veterinary students in Estonia. So, if I look at my classroom of 100 apparently normal students as a statistical representation of Estonia the group would roughly contain the following:

- around 17 of the females would have been physically attacked by the person they have chosen as partner within the last year (Laanpere et al. 2012). The numbers for males being attacked are unavailable, but likely similar.

- around 4 of the females would have been exposed to sexual violence (rape or attempt of rape) within the last year (Laanpere et al. 2012). The numbers for males are unavailable.

- as the European country with most alcohol-related deaths, many of the students would either have experience with alcoholism themselves or in their network (EUROSTAT, 2013).

- One would have HIV/AIDS (Laisaar et al. 2012)

- With the second highest age adjusted suicide rate in Europe, at least one is likely to have considered suicide or know a person in their network that did commit suicide (Schneider et al. 2009, EUROSTAT 2013). 

- Currently ranking third place in homicides in Europe, there is also a chance of a person having lost somebody to violence (EUROSTAT, 2013).

Or in other words, several of my students are likely to carry some kind of severe trauma that no human should have to endure. Should I as a teacher be aware of that when evaluating my student’s performance or just chase the thought out of my head as somebody else's problem?

Image: triplehelixblog.com

The problems is, that if it is somebody else’s problem in Estonia, finding that person who will actually do something is very hard; at least to my personal intensive experience on the subject. And those persons I have been in contact with have a very high acceptance towards violence (“that is just how it is”), and a much looser view on upholding the country’s laws that I used to think were instated to protect people from harm.  

There is a strong rhetoric from many governments that we need to educate skilled young people with our educational system. My point is: is that possible without addressing the crushing social issues openly and actively in an effort to reshape the culture from its current status of silently accepting abuse? How fragile is your country if you build it on ignoring broken people and only pay lip service to your laws?

I am sick and saddened to my core every time I hear about a child witnessing their parent beat or kill the other, or themselves getting beaten or tortured! I hear some teachers and social service workers almost casually play it down to a “the child also have problems at home and have good days and bad days in school”. It has appeared to be impossible to make psychiatrists, psychotherapists or social services even blink when repeatedly asking if they have considered domestic violence in such a case (I have personal experience of this).   

I was presented with an interesting viewpoint when writing this article. Perhaps education is also a welcome escape to persons who carry a trauma! Schools and university may be a place where they get a feeling of worth to counter a feeling of less-worth that may be imposed by abusive peers or self-inflicted. Or, education may be a physical escape option in life from a secret treadmill of violence. These points may very likely be the case for some individuals. On the flip-side, then are very tough educations, like the veterinary education I am involved with. The pressure of high expectations could amount to an enormous personal stress from both personal and educational life.

TED: Pearl Arredondo: My story, from gangland daughter to star teacher

Improving on the situation will take decades, perhaps generations – certainly longer if we do not address this problem openly.

I can accept that there are finite resources to address the many problems of a country and specifically education. What I personally cannot accept is the silence that allows the problems to continue generation after generation and impair personal development and the society as a whole.

TED: Ken Robinson: How to escape education's death valley

Various traumatic experiences are a natural part of life whether inflicted or naturally occurring. Being silent about the life-long trauma students may experience, such as violence, is also stigmatizing them – even if they are far from alone with their problems. In such an environment, the survivors have to endure two types of attackers: the actual person attacking them and those who cover for the attacker with the silence. In my personal experience, the latter is the one that I find the hardest to accept.

If you are a teacher I urge you to be brave enough to talk about the importance of a stable and violence-free social environment as a perquisite for successful learning. I hope this can be done without falling into the rhetoric’s of only accepting conservative family concepts (a good background can be many things) or accept labeling people as non-fitting as self-explanatory for learning difficulties - which may cause more damage than good if placing these above the need of the persons in question.

Good luck working on your morals and your courage!

More food for thoughts:

Estonian Ombudsman for Children

    

WAVE Country report 2012, REALITY CHECK ON DATA COLLECTION AND EUROPEAN SERVICES FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN SURVIVORS OF VIOLENCE, A Right for Protection and Support?

Is livestock production prepared for an electrically paralysed world?

Last Thursday I had the pleasure to stand in front of the elite of agricultural sciences and say “We are all going to die!”

After a short pause I continued with “... what we do with the time before we die does matter!”

This was my introduction to the invited talk at Tervise loom ja tervislik toit 2013 [Healthy animals and healthy food 2013] on how livestock production might prepare for an electrical paralysed period. 
August last year I published an opinion on the subject in the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture that seemed to create quite a lot of publicity nationally and internationally. To my surprise I had suddenly become an "expert" on something I had meant to be a concerned comment for those wiser than me. Apparently few others had given this topic a thought - what happens to our food production in an all out power shortage.

I was very moved by the massive positive feedback following the talk I gave, from students to professors. It was a feeling of actually moving a thought or two, perhaps even moving a single opinion even.

I decided to put up the article and the presentation here on the blog for those who could not attend or people interested in the subject. And to those that listened - thank you!

Presentation [English] [Estonian]

Article 
LassenB. 2012 Is livestock production prepared for an electrically paralysedworld? J Sci Food Agric. Oct 19. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.5939. [Epub ahead of print]

Other sources (not given in the article above)
Grigas, A. 2012. Legacies, Coercion and Soft Power: Russian Influence in the Baltic States. Chatham House, London, UK, 16 pp.
Solar storms on National Geographic Magazine.

Mindset of an martial artist in academic teaching

Students teaching each other

Learning is not just a skill, but also an attitude. 

The mindset of a teacher in an evolving martial art is that of a relationship where both student and instructor are venturing in a common effort to excel. The training place, the dojo, is a safe place to make mistakes and the instructor-student relationship is based on creating independence by learning how to learn. The Asian-influenced philosophy that is nourishing mindfullness in learning, with the aim to improve skills, can seem somewhat reversed compared to Western thinking that dominates in academia.

A typical class room or dojo

In academia, a lot of time is spent on adsorbing a lot of information with a presumption that students know how to process this raw information. This stands in contrast to the thinking in martial arts, where possessing a text with an important technique would be considered useless or misleading without a moral understanding. The written information of a technique in martial arts cannot be grasped unless one is able, with assistance of a teacher, to contextualize and animate it and appreciate its synergy with one’s present moral and intellectual understanding. With age and experience, the understanding continues to grow. Though the Asian-inspired thinking in teaching is hundreds of yeas old it is only now beginning to gain popularity in Western academia. Alvin Toffler and Roy Leighton are among a few who strongly speak in favour of replacing the overall understanding of education in a modern society from an obsolete form based on memorization, were information is available to anyone anywhere, with the ability of applying the knowledge available.

Wonderful teacher-student interaction when teaching in Japan

As an university teacher with a background in martial arts, the academic education seems incomplete by allowing students to pass a higher education by displaying a mere ability to answer written or oral tests as expected, without simultaneously educating the person how to apply the knowledge for something good.

To become a good instructor in martial arts, the teacher needs to be a leader among equals: respecting the students while destroying his or hers own ego. Developing skills in academia to a higher level (as it is the goal in martial arts) is possible if the teacher embodies the passion for the subject and insists on communication with students. This contact is based on a mutual respect and striving for excellence by example. 

A thought example. Imagine attending a martial art class where you for 45 minutes listened to a power point presentation of a teacher explaining how you should move and behave. Would you come back for the next lesson? Now imagine a university lecturer who takes the students somewhere relevant and interesting for the subject, shows and explains about the subject as examples appear or in response to questions, insist student explore and use their senses. Would you come back for that next lesson? Perhaps even go home and read about questions that appeared in the discussion?

Today's class is under water

Promoting passion and healthy self-criticism above long-term purely academic aims, such as degrees, might also result in overall better-doing students. In addition, constant self-reflecting empowers students to adapt to inevitable changes in life and constantly reflect on their roles in collaborations. One aim of higher education should be that the students would find they have an excess of passion and begin teaching back on their own initiative - thus showing they have developed a heart for learning. 

Students teaching and learning, and smiling!

Link: Bujinkan Estonia Tartu Dojo

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

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

In vitro meat is closer than you think.


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Historically

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

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

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

Exploitation of researchers in publishing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good journals do exist

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

Doctor of Philosophy - Wanted: Philosophical King

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



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

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

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

Plato put it in these words:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Image: CLASSICAL PHILOSOPHY

Industry Interest in Science or Science Interest in Industry?

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 use 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

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

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

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:

Where is the passion (in science and education)?

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

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)

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?

 

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: