Political blocks - targeted funding. Funding of products.

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:
 

Explosion of idealistic firms in Denmark

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

CO2 free electricity in 2010?

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?

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.

Political Blocks - Big Boss Says No!

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.