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!

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.

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

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.

Further reading

A field study in changing the mind of a scientific community

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

Disease control... bridge under construction, please wait

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

Doctor of Philosophy - Egypt and Thoth

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.

Further reading

Doctor of Philosophy - without the philosophy please!

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").

Educational Blocks - Amazing what We do not Know

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!

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

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.

General introduction - Catch-22 of Innovation

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!