Welcome to the Euroscientist! - General

Scapegoats for overstrained Authorities?

Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:00:00 GMT

In February 1975 something exceptional happened in China. Nocturnal animals came out of their holes, chicken stepped down their ladders and dogs and cats behaved in strange ways. Chinese farmers, who were ordered by law to report unusual behavior of their animals to the local authorities, did so. After consulting scientists, regional officials announced an Earthquake warning. They ordered the evacuation of Haicheng, a city of one million inhabitants.

On February 4th, a 7.3 earthquake shook the region. More than 2.000 people died, but it was estimated that the number of fatalities and injuries would have exceeded 150,000 if no earthquake prediction and evacuation had been made.

Seismologists all over the world looked in astonishment to China.

Only five months later, on July 28th, a 7.6 quake hit Tangshan, another one-million city in China. No warning, no precursors. The Earthquake took 250.00 lives. This quake repealed the hopes, that earthquake-prediction could be in reach for seismology.

But back to the present days. Let's go to Italy and take a close look of what happened during the last weeks to Italian earth scientists.

Six Seismologists are accused of manslaughter for not raising the alarm in the days preceding the earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, last year.

The answer of the scientific community is immense. More than 5,160 scientists and other professionals from different countries signed an appeal letter to the President of Italy, Giorgio Napolitano.

But this case has to be reviewed from various points of views. Natures blog „The Great Beyond“ asked, whether the categorical support is in a way „misleading“, as Flavio Dobarn said in a letter to Nature. “The indictment is an unfortunate result of the way Italian science is being practiced,” he says, referring to a strongly politicized academic environment.

Others ask, if the hazard assessment methods have to be adapted to the modern knowledge of earthquakes and their processes. This argument is addressed to all countries, living in constant risk of extreme natural phenomena. Methods like modern vulnerability, estimations and appropriate urban management structures have to be rebrushed all over the world.

But: is accusing scientists for not predicting an unpredictable natural phenomenon the suitable reaction? It definitely should be the starter for a new debate about the intermingling of politics and sciences – especially to find solutions for a sensitive problem like disaster management.

Image source and information: Wikipedia (http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Emergenza_Terremoto_Abruzzo_2009_-_12.jpg&filetimestamp=20090420103527‎)

posted by Simon Schneider

On the Way to Artificial Intelligence

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:00:00 GMT

Giulio Sandini, accompanied by a talk by Edgar Körner of the Honda Reserach Institute Europe, gave an insight look into recent developments on the way to learning robots at ESOF2010 in Turin. This thought provoking talk gave the determining factor for this interview.

Following Giulio’s fascinating session at ESOF 2010, the Euroscientist asked him a few questions approaching the philosophy of robotics.

ES: You mentioned that it is impossible for the human brain to "un-learn". Could you describe what is the difference between unlearning and forgetting?
GS: Once you have learned something you cannot voluntarily go back in time and try to replay the process that made you learn. When you have to solve an equation you can go through a set of processes until you get the solution and then, if you want to you can go back and follow all the steps again. With learning, once you have the solution all the intermediate steps are lost. As people say, once you have learned to ride a bicycle you never forget. Of course this is not true for all our memories (I do not remember the phone number of my first girlfriend). My point was more on the process of learning than on the memory itself.

ES: Do you think, that robots might have an advantage because we can teach them how to "un-learn"?
GS: This is not necessarily an advantage also because you could “delete” a memory but you cannot prevent the process of re-learning it (but it is an interesting point).

ES: Does the field of Robotics, especially the discipline dealing with artificial intelligence, benefit from discoveries in medical research? Could a better understanding of Alzheimer's disease or Dementia play an essential role in teaching Robots how to learn?
GS: Yes, medical and neuroscience research are definitely important sources of knowledge if one is interested in building systems with human-like intelligence. I would not say that a better understanding of Alzheimer or Dementia could play a role in teaching a robot how to learn, but it could certainly give new information about how humans learn and this could be useful. The reverse is also true in the sense that building robots that learn may clarify which are the essential ingredients of the process and explain why the failure of some may cause Alzheimer-like dysfunction.

ES: But dealing with the creation if intelligence is kind of a philosophic quest. Do you have to be a philosopher to work in the field of artificial intelligence?
GS: Maybe so, the definition of a philosopher is fuzzy. In the past it was intended to study matter (so also physical phenomena) so, in some sense, also robots.

ES: Euroscience is an international and interdisciplinary organisation: How is research in the field of robotics and artificial intelligence organised and handled, in respect to international co-operation and interdisciplinary research?
GS: In the past, robotics was mostly in the field of engineering, but more recently some of the long-term objectives of robotics, such as learning, have expanded the field to include cognitive and social sciences as well as neuroscience. Interdisciplinary research is possible in some centers around the world, such as the IIT where I currently work, and is supported by specific programs such as EU research programs in the IST (Information Science and Technology) area.

ES: Teaching robots to learn will affect our understanding of how we learn - and vice versa. This sounds very exciting.
GS: Yes indeed! If it is not useful to both engineers and neuroscientists the collaboration does not work in the medium and long terms.

Giulio Sandini is Director of Research at the Italian Institute of Technology (iit) and full professor of bioengineering at the University of Genoa. After his graduation in Electronic Engineering (Bioengineering) at the University of Genova in 1976 he was research fellow and assistant professor at the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa until 1984. During this period, working at the Laboratorio di Neurofisiologia of the CNR, he investigated aspects of visual processing at the level of single neurons as well as aspects of visual perception in human adults and children. He has been Visiting Research Associate at the Department of Neurology of the Harvard Medical School in Boston where he developed diagnostic techniques based on brain electrical activity mapping. After his return to Genova in 1984 as associate professor, in 1990 he founded the LIRA-Lab (Laboratory for Integrated Advanced Robotics, www.liralab.it). In 1996 he was Visiting Scientist at the Artificial Intelligence Lab of MIT. (taken from the iit-webpages)

Images:

Giulio Sandini, source: www.torinoscienzia.it

iCub robot, source: www.robotcub.org

interview by Simon Schneider

You are the Organisation!

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:00:00 GMT

Yes, you are the Organisation. It doesn't matter if you are a member of Euroscience, the European Society for Evolutionary Biology or of the European Association for Music in Schools - you as a member define the organisation from within.

When you apply for a membership, you have something in mind. Even if it is the simple fact that you want to join a special conference or you want to receive the newsletter. You join organisations because you want some benefit through your membership. But have you thought about getting involved too? Have you thought about actively contributing to the organisations services? After you visited the conference or read the newsletter you could start to communicate your thoughts about what you have heard or read. You could start a discussion or maybe submit a talk at the next-years meeting to stretch the topic a bit further.

Getting involved with organisation is easy and it doesn't have to consume all your time. If you do not know how to get involved, Alyssa Thomas from ASAE (American Society of Association Executives) has some really good ideas. She wrote a nice summary on Ways to get involved. And she developed the "Get Trilogy" project: Get Started! Get Connected! Get Involved!

"Get Trilogy" is tailored to the ASAE, but nevertheless, it is a great way to look at your engagement with Euroscience or other organisations.

One of the most sustainable ways to enrich an organisation is to become a volunteer within a Section or Workgroup.

The Regional Sections of Euroscience are the representative bodies of the wider Euroscience organisation in a region or country. The aim of a Regional Section is to provide opportunities and activities for all members, but in a certain locality. This might include workshops or topical conferences as well as assiting press and media relations. One of the major issues for a Regional Section is to conduct a public affairs program within a region or country. So, take a look at the Regional Sections of Euroscience right now!

The Workgroups assemble engaged members, to discuss and develop strategic plans for special themes. Currently there are eleven workgroups. At the ESOF2010 most of the workgroups conducted meetings and discussions.

By getting involved in an organisation you will be able to develop it in a meaningful and sustainable way while expanding your own personal skill set.

by Simon Schneider

Relaunch of The Euroscientist

Sat, 03 Jul 2010 22:00:00 GMT

Euroscience has appointed two new co-editors of the Euroscientst who will be developing this publication into a leading voice in European science. You can expect news and opinion on key issues in science and science policy. As well as articles from the editors, there will be guest pieces from experts across Europe and we welcome pitches for articles from individuals or topic suggestions.

You can now follow Euroscientist on twitter at www.twitter.com/Euroscientist

Contact the editors at editor@euroscience.org

Simon Schneider, co-editor of Euroscientist

In 2002, Simon finished his studies on Geophysics with his Diploma-thesis at Frankfurt's Johann Wolfgang Goethe University. Upon graduating, he started to conduct public relations programs, first for the Institute of Geophysics and later for the Department of Earth Sciences at Frankfurt University. The initiation of the geoscience liaison-office "Geo-Agentur" by Simon was based on intense networking and public relations efforts.

Among others, Simon has been involved with the science fair "Market of Geosciences", educational projects, interpretive programs and, of
course, press and media releases. In 2005 Simon moved to Potsdam where he was appointed to the Research and Development Program GEOTECHNOLOGIEN. Within the coordination office, Simon is responsible for public relations and education. Some major projects are travelling exhibitions on geoscientific themes like Remote Sensing with Satellites - the most recent exhibition.

In 2009 Simon got certified as a public relations counselor by the University for Management and Communications in Potsdam. One of his major skills is to develop public relations stategies. As a member of the former Public Information Committee of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), which will become the Outreach Committee in 2010, and as a member of the European Geoscience Union (EGU), the German Geophysical Society (DGG), the German Geoscience Union (DGG) and the National Association for Interpretation (NAI), he is able to maintain a tight network of geoscience experts and beyond.

Simon lives in Potsdam, Germany, is married to a taxidermist, and is proud father of two year old Emily and three year old Paul.

SImon once lived at the top of a volcano in Hawai'i working as a park ranger.

Leila Sattary, co-editor of Euroscientist

Leila Sattary works on higher education policy and administration and also is a freelance science writer.

Based in Oxford, UK, Leila develops knowledge exchange strategy at the University of Oxford to support academic collaboration with industry and policy makers through support for academic funding, industry liaison events and showcasing of research impact.

She writes regularly for Chemistry World and Laboratory News science magazines and blogs for Research Fortnight and Lay Scientist. In the past she has written for many other science magazines and blogs including Science. With a particular interest in science policy, she often focuses on policy developments in the UK including issues around research impact and peer review. She has also been published in two popular science books.

Leila graduated from the University of St Andrews, Scotland in 2008 with a Masters in Physics. Immediately after graduating, Leila started work at the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) as a portfolio manager. She has also worked on short research projects at the Universities of Oxford, Glasgow and St Andrews as well as writing for science magazines since 2006.

Leila is very interested in science communication. She has continued to support science outreach by becoming a STEM Ambassador and a STEM Challenges judge for the South East of England She also is assistant co-orindator of the Oxfordshire Science Festival and eMentor for young people interested in science careers through Big Bang Blogs.

You can read more about Leila on her website.

In her spare time, Leila practices the art of fire spinning.

Job offer

Tue, 06 Apr 2010 22:00:00 GMT

EDITOR

The Euroscientist magazine

EUROSCIENCE, the European Association for the Promotion of Science & Technology, wishes to appoint an editor for its online magazine the Euroscientist.

The magazine was produced as a quarterly publication in print for many years before becoming an online-only publication three years ago. We have now restyled it in blog format in a repositioning of the publication as a facility for the presentation and discussion of issues of interest to scientists across Europe and beyond. The target audience is composed of policymakers, researchers and other members of the research community, research funders, the science media and the interested lay public

The editorship is a part-time post which we consider could fit well into the working life of an energetic and imaginative freelance science/technology journalist. We have a budget of around €5000 per annum as a stipend plus further money that can be used to commission special contributions and the like. In all, we are flexible about how this total annual budget might be spent and we are looking for someone with some innovative ideas about how to use the money to deliver a publication/discussion service for EUROSCIENCE members and the science-related community of Europe more widely.

Applicants should reply by email providing a CV and a letter outlining their ideas and what they feel they might bring to The Euroscientist to Dr Alma Swan at office@euroscience.org

EU budget and Climate Change

Sun, 31 Jan 2010 23:00:00 GMT

EU Budget and the Climate Change

Long before the Copenhagen Conference begun, it was obvious that climate change has an inevitable price tag to it. Both when it comes to tackling climate change and handling its effects that will strike us in the future. In order to cope with this price tag without increasing the EU budget, spending on agricultural subsidies need to be cut.

The Copenhagen Conference has come to an end and unfortunately no legally binding deal was sealed. Such a deal is crucial and hopes are now attached to the following COP16 meeting next fall. However, for a disappointed European Union, there are still lots to be done, not least in the upcoming negotiations on future priorities of the EU budget. Although it could only play a limited role by itself in reducing global GHG emissions, there are new technologies which are essential for the world market and that would be reasonable to finance through the EU budget.

Enhanced action on technology development and transfer to developing countries is one of them. According to the actual paper from the Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, which is an outcome of the Conference, private and public energy-related research, development and demonstration should increase towards at least a doubling of current levels. Investments in European R&D for development of cost-efficient low carbon technologies and support for large scale deployment of new technologies to European recipients are important as well. This is emphasised in the Commission’s Strategic Energy Technology Plan (the so called SET-plan). Adding to that, a CEPS taskforce on climate change recently made a compelling case on how infrastructure investments such as smart grids and Trans-European Networks need to be prioritised in order to tackle climate change. Such investments could build up economies of scale and create value for money, thus motivated to be financed through the EU budget.

In the light of the economic crisis though, there is simply not room for increasing the overall budget in the next financial perspective. Consequently, financial coverage needs to be found by other means if the equation is to add up. Resources would be available if agricultural subsidies were cut.

Currently over 40% of the EU budget is allocated to common agricultural policy (CAP) and rural development. This should be compared to the less than 6% allocated to R&D and innovation. Clearly, the EU is not walking the talk when it comes to the big money.

Ironically, climate change has been put forward as an argument to conserve the current structure of CAP subsidies.
The case is made that since agriculture stands for a large share of GHG emissions, this sector needs support to reduce its carbon footprint, and thus, more subsidies would be necessary.

This would only make sense if articulated as an argument for increasing the rate by which direct support in the first pillar is transferred to the second, i.e. reducing direct support to farms in favor of increasing support to rural development. In the best-case scenario, the second pillar could form a blunt tool for achieving an effect on climate change. However, if tackling climate change is the target, inefficient detours sought in order to legitimise historical systems of subsidies should be avoided.

The debate on how joint resources of the EU should be spent has already started. In the two years to come, important negotiations towards the next financial perspective will take place. These negotiations cannot be isolated from the outcome of the Copenhagen conference. Ambitions expressed on tackling climate change should be acknowledged as arguments in favour of decreasing first pillar agricultural subsidies – not the opposite.

The Climate conference has come to an end, but the tackling of climate change will continue. Will the Parliament, Commission and European leaders follow suit on the ambitions initially expressed? By the priorities made in the next financial perspective, they will have to show.

Birgitta Resvik, Director Climate and Energy Policies, Confederation of Swedish Enterprise

Helena Strigård, EU Budget Expert, Confederation of Swedish Enterprise

Letter from the editor

Sat, 10 Oct 2009 22:00:00 GMT

This issue of The Euroscientist spans a broad range of topics...

Daniel Mietchen follows up part I of his account of what science will look like in the future, Martin Andler reports on this year’s EUCYS competition, João Caraça discusses the ambitious target of 3% spending on R&D across Europe by 2010. What has happened in the years since this target was set and, since we are nearing 2010, are we anywhere near the target?...

TARGETS FOR R&D: WHAT DOES 3% MEAN?

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 22:00:00 GMT

At the end of the 1990s Europe was voicing worries about the widening of the gap in performance with respect to the U.S. By then, the notion that the knowledge-based economy was the central factor of growth, competitiveness and employment, was established. And the admission that research and innovation were at the core of the new economy prompted the need to define a new strategy towards the future...

What is the role of basic research in Europe’s future?

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 22:00:00 GMT

In April 2009 the international conference “Role of Basic Research in the Process of Structuring ERA (European Research Area)” (http://www.era2009.cz/en/era/), was held in Prague, Czech Republic. There were about 150 highly ranked participants from all EU Member States...

SERBIA CELEBRATES THE INTERNATIONAL DAY OF CLINICAL TRIALS

Mon, 05 Oct 2009 22:00:00 GMT

With the EU Commission’s implementation of the Clinical Trials Directive (CT Directive) 2001/20, Europe was supposed to achieve an internal market in medicinal products within the European Union, similar in quality to other markets and attracting worldwide industrial clinical developments. This may have become true...

ESOF2010 update

Sun, 04 Oct 2009 22:00:00 GMT

We have now arrived at exactly nine months before ESOF 2010 in Torino so that the gestation countdown can now start. Actually, by now the event is not only shaping up but the contours are becoming clear and sharp....

Editorial

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 22:00:00 GMT

The first thing I want to do here is to say a big thank-you to Janna who has published this issue on the web despite the disruption of the Euroscience office move this week. Our new home is still in Strasbourg but now we share an address with the European Science Foundation. The two organisations are natural neighbours. We anticipate much cross-fertilisation of ideas and satisfying scientific companionship...

Media coverage of ESOF

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:00:00 GMT

I’d like to belatedly respond to the analysis of ESOF 2008 media operations offered by both Ingrid Wünning Tschol and István Palugyai in last August`s Euroscientist newsletter. In doing so I’ll base my response on the media evaluation which I sent to the ESOF steering committee in December 2008.

University rankings and the public(’s) governance of science

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 22:00:00 GMT

University rankings are proliferating. While we may claim that these lists are neither fair nor “true” representations of the global academic landscape they are nevertheless gaining increasing attention and they have become one of the core concerns for academic leaders and university managers across the world. Moreover, rankings are used by a wide variety of actors to navigate the academic fields: by students for selecting where to study, by corporations for selecting where to recruit, by policymakers for making comparisons and evaluate performances and, not least, by universities and higher education institutions to argue distinctiveness and prominence in the global scientific field. In part, following the development in one particular field – management education – rankings are becoming important elements in the contemporary governance of science.

If you have any questions or other requests concerning the Euroscientist, please contact:

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 22:00:00 GMT

Alma Swan, Editor
editor@euroscience.org

or >

Janna Wellander, Coordinator
janna.wellander@euroscience.org

Published under a Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license unless otherwise stated' and link to this URL http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/