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:

Joule - a value for sustainable choices?

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

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

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

Not really.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Books on the subject
   

Facts - until proven otherwise (repost)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23rd April 2016
Interesting talk about the difference between scientific belief and scientific
method by Rupert Sheldrake. Funny thing that he uses some of the same examples in this post (this talk had not been recorded when I wrote this blog entry).

The dishwasher dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading

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

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