Science Communication with a biology twist

Development of the National Strategic Framework Programme for RTDI (ESPEK): 2014 - 2018

2011-10-13T14:27:00.000+03:00

Development of the National Strategic Framework Programme for RTDI (ESPEK): 2014 - 2018 To contribute please visit: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B-WepcKUOTYqZTA3ZWFkOWMtYzI5Ni00OWE1LWI2ZmQtNDlkNTUyZjY4ZTBh

New Greek Law for Research and Innovation Draft 6-10-11

2011-10-13T14:15:00.000+03:00

New Greek Law for Research and Innovation Draft _6.10.11_V5To contribute to it please visit: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B-WepcKUOTYqMzI5YTY0NDMtNGMwMy00ZDE1LWJkNDgtYTJmYTRjNjI1ZWYx

WebWise: Web 2.0. supported Higher Education Institutional Learning Scenarios for Collaborative Learning

2011-07-11T23:00:00.000+03:00

WEBWISE is a European Project with subject Web 2.0. supported Higher Education Institutional Learning Scenarios for Collaborative Learning

http://www.flickr.com/photos/webwise_project/

Health and education are amongst the most important social and economic resources in contemporary Europe as in the rest of the world, and both are facing very substantial transformation process. Accordingly, the current healthcare education system is coping with a wide-spectrum of challenges, the most notable of which being the inclusion of the ever increasing skill and training requirements for healthcare graduates as well as innovation in many fields.

What is more, the Bologna Process has brought about a series of important reforms in Higher Education, having initiated processes aiming significant harmonization in recognition, course structure and quality assurance to name but a few examples. An even cursory look at the instruments created by Bologna process shows an emphasis on flexible learning pathways, recognition of prior learning, widening access to second cycle studies and a host of other instruments aimed at doing quite the opposite of the negative perceptions of the process.

With this in mind, WebWise brings together a range of European higher education institutions active in the field of public health education as well as experts for innovating e-learning, to analyze, experiment and develop innovative learning scenarios within public health education.

The general objective of WebWise is to support the improvement, the quality, the efficiency and the accessibility of Higher Education using the structure of the Bologna process and the innovative methodological collaborative Web 2.0. learning tools. Within this objective, the project will aim to:

Identify innovative learning scenarios and learning designs within public health or general health education
Suggest and test a number of innovations to improve the learning process within the scenarios
Identify and elaborate the key improvements from the pilots
Recommend how such improvements may be transferred in public health education and to other areas of Higher Education
Disseminate recommendations to competent authorities on a national and European level

Its target groups are:

Regulatory bodies
Managers
Deliverers
Users

in public health and public health related study programmes.

Please visit its webpage: http://projekte.hs-magdeburg.de/whole/course/view.php?id=97

Day 2: 2011 Science Communication Conference #SCC2011

2011-06-01T16:33:00.002+03:00

Day 1: 2011 Science Communication Conference #SCC2011

2011-06-01T16:32:00.002+03:00

Young Europeans Discuss Sustainable Development

2011-05-05T01:11:00.000+03:00

I have been absent from this blog because I have been organising the Young Europeans Discuss Sustainable Development from the point of view of science and technology event:

Young Europeans Discuss Sustainable Development
9-14 of May 2011

Advances in Science and Technology directly affectyour life, and you should have an opinion!

28 Young Europeans (18-24 years old) from 13 EU countries, will be discussing with Greek scientists about6 different aspects of Sustainable development.

at www.ensaa.eu:

Meet the 23 scientists that will talk at the event! They work at almost all of the big Greek universities and research centres!

Learn about the issues that will be discussed:

Climate Change, Energy, Innovation, Water and Food, Biodiversity, Public Health

Chat with other people!

Check out what will be happening during that week!

Find out about the participants!

Watch online, ask questions for the scientists to answer, vote!

The event language is English.

Please forward this to your members and whoever you think might be interested.

For more information do not hesitate to contact us at yedsda@gmail.com

Dr Ino Agrafioti

The first women astronomers

2011-02-12T23:33:00.002+02:00

I have never been one of these scientists that see themselves as women scientists rather than scientists. Similarly, I am not usually looking at women scientists' lives because they are women, but because they are scientists. Some would disagree with me on that point, but this is an issue for a whole different post.

Nevertheless, these women, the first modern day women astronomers, caught my interest while reading a popular physics book. Maybe this was because up to that point I kept reading only about men, so when I read about a woman, I paid extra attention. I know this is not directly related to the theme of this blog, but I thought I should write something, just in case you do not know about them.

Women entered astronomy - a mostly forbidden field up to then - thanks toone man and one woman. The man was Edward Charles Pickering who became director of the Harvard College Observatory in 1877. The woman was Anna Mary Palmer, the wife of Henry Draper whose intention was to photograph the entire night sky. Henry Draper did not manage to do so before he died, so his wife donated money to the Harvard College Observatory after his death.

Edward C Pickering decided that women would be better to complete this monumental task, so he hired his "Harem" or his "Computers". Yes, you read right. These women were called "computers". I find this awful for some reason. Others might find the 'Harem' term worse. At least the term harem shows they are women, whereas computers are neutral. Anyway, Pickering hired approximately eighty women during his directorship at Harvard College Observatory, which was amazing for that time (link). Saying that, they earned 25 cents per day, which was less than what the secretaries at the university earned, so by hiring them he also saved money. These women were responsible of catalogueing, indexing, examining and caring for the new photographic plates, identifying the stars on them and then calculating their positions.

"Pickering's Harem". The group included Harvard computer and astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt (1868–1921), Annie Jump Cannon (1863–1941), Williamina Fleming (1857–1911), and Antonia Maury (1866–1952). Photograph courtesy of the Grasslands Observatory. Date: circa 1900–1910. Original Source: http://www.3towers.com/sgrasslands/essays/Leavitt/Leavitt03.asp

You can see what Pickering looked like in this later photograph - I have included the caption from the source since it shows that these women were educated (https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~jshaw/pick.html):

This picture was taken on 13 May 1913 in front of Building C, which faces north. It was specially built of brick to protect the astronomical data and glass negatives from fire. Since the astronomical photographs were stored on the ground floor and most of the women worked on the top floor, the building had a dumb waiter to convey the plates up and down. The women all worked in a large room on the east end of the third floor. Pickering had his offices on the west end across the central hallway. All the other men worked on the lower levels.
At the far left of the photograph is Margaret Harwood (AB Radcliffe 1907, MA University of California 1916), who had just completed her first year as Astronomical Fellow at the Maria Mitchell Observatory. She was later appointed director there, the first woman to be appointed director of an independent observatory.
Beside her in the back row is Mollie O'Reilly, a computer from 1906 to 1918.
Next to Pickering is Edith Gill, a computer since 1989.
Then comes Annie Jump Cannon (BA Wellesley 1884), who at that time was about halfway through classifying stellar spectra for the Henry Draper Catalogue.
Behind Miss Cannon is Evelyn Leland, a computer from 1889 to 1925.
Next is Florence Cushman, a computer since 1888.
Behind Miss Cushman is Marion Whyte, who worked for Miss Cannon as a recorder from 1911 to 1913.
At the far right of this row is Grace Brooks, a computer from 1906 to 1920.
Ahead of Miss Harwood in the front row is Arville Walker (AB Radcliffe 1906), who served as assistant from 1906 until 1922. From 1922 until 1957 she held the position of secretary to Harlow Shapley, who succeeded Pickering as Director.
The next woman may be Johanna Mackie, an assistant from 1903 to 1920. She received a gold medal from the American Association of Variable Star Observers (AAVSO) for discovering the first nova in the constellation of Lyra.
In front of Pickering is Alta Carpenter, a computer from 1906 to 1920.
Next is Mabel Gill, a computer since 1892.
And finally, Ida Woods (BA Wellesley 1893), who joined the corps of women computers just after graduation. In 1920 she received the first AAVSO nova medal; by 1927, she had seven bars on it for her discoveries of novae on photographs of the Milky Way.

Of these women, four have really stood out. You can find more details in Wikipedia, so I will just write a few words for each, the points which I found most interesting (the quotes are from https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~jshaw/pick.html):

1. Williamina Paton Stevens Fleming (1857-1911)
Born Scottish, she moved to the US with her husband who then abandoned her and her unborn child, so she became the Housekeeper of E. Pickering, who then hired her as one of his team. In nine years, she catalogued more than 10,000 stars, discovered 59 gaseous nebulae (including the Horsehead), over 310 variable stars, and 10 novae.
Fleming was placed in charge of dozens of women hired to do mathematical classifications and edited the observatory's publications. She devised her classification system which divided the stars into classes based on “the complexity of the spectrum lines and bands and the strength of the spectral lines due to hydrogen”.

In 1890, the first Henry Draper Catalogue was published in the Annals of the Harvard College Observatory. It contained most of the stars visible to the unaided eye, a total of 10,351 stars. Though Fleming was not listed as an author, Pickering did acknowledge her contribution to the work. She was also widely recognized by the astronomical community.

In 1899, Fleming was given the title of Curator of Astronomical Photographs and in 1906, she was made an honorary member of the Royal Astronomical Society of London, the first American woman to be so selected.

Antonia Maury (1866–1952)
While at Harvard College Observatory, Draper's wive's nice, Antonia Maury, observed stellar spectra and published a catalogue of classifications in 1897. During Maury’s cataloguing work, she rearranged Fleming’s scheme to reflect the temperatures of stars. She further refined the sequence by adding another “dimension” to describe the spectral lines. Pickering, disagreed with Maury’s system of classification and explanation of differing line widths, so she left. However, Ejnar Hertzsprung realized the value of her classifications and used them in his system of identifying giant and dwarf stars.
In 1908, Antonia Maury returned to Harvard where she remained for many years. Her most famous work there was the spectroscopic analysis of the binary star Beta Lyrae, published in 1933. In 1943, Antonia Maury was awarded the Annie Jump Cannon Award in Astronomy by the American Astronomical Society.

Annie Jump Cannon (1863–1941)
Since 1896 Cannon’s duties included cataloguing variable stars and classifying the spectra of stars in the southern hemisphere for the Henry Draper Catalogue project, the counterpart to Maury with the northern hemisphere. Cannon took over the duties as Curator of Astronomical Photographs when Fleming died in 1911.

Possibly due to her deafness, Cannon was “recognized even during her lifetime as the world’s expert in identifying and classifying stars, with incredible accuracy and speed.” By the time of her death, she had classified up to 350,000 stars, at a rate of up to 300 per hour.

Annie Jump Cannon also negotiated a compromise between the two systems of Fleming and Maury and put an end of the disagreement. According to her system stars are divided into the spectral classes O, B, A, F, G, K, M. The mnemonic of "Oh Be a Fine Girl and Kiss Me" was developed as a way to remember it. Her category scheme was so “user-friendly,” it was officially adopted as the standard in 1910 by the International Astronomical Union. Today, with minor changes, Cannon’s system is known as the Harvard Spectral Classification.

Cannon was recognized by her peers for her contributions to astronomy. She received six honorary degrees, one from Oxford University, the first given to a woman, and was the first woman to receive the Draper Gold Medal. With the money she received from one award, the Ellen Richards Research Prize of the Association to Aid Scientific Research by Women, Cannon established an award to recognize contributions to astronomy by women.

Henrietta Swan Leavitt (1868–1921)
Leavitt was the woman I read about in my book, she was the one who lead me to all this. Like Cannon, Leavitt became deaf during her traveling. I find this really interesting! :):)

In 1902, Pickering hired her on the permanent staff at $.30 per hour. As an assistant at Harvard, she was given little theoretical work since Pickering did not like his female staff to pursue such endeavors. Instead, she was given the position of chief of the photographic photometry department and was responsible for the care of telescopes. But she also worked with the rest of the team on the plates. Her task was to determine the magnitudes of stars. Her system was recognized by the scientific community as an important standard and in 1913, was adopted by the International Committee on Photographic Magnitudes.
But what she is most known for, was her work that lead to Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding. By studying Cepheid variables in the Small Magellanic Cloud she determined the absolute magnitudes of stars. Her study led to the period-luminosity relationship.

How amazing could these women have been!!!!

My #scipolicy news archive Jan 2011 part A

2011-01-15T19:32:00.002+02:00

My #scipolicy news archive Jan 2011 part A

Institutional Framework for Research and Technology (N. 3653/2008)

2011-01-04T18:25:00.002+02:00

[This is another essay I wrote for my MA course in Public Policy and Management. I was advised to write it in Greek, so it is in Greek. The subject of this essay is the Institutional Framework for Research and Technology (Law 3653/2008), a law that was never implemented and is currently postponed once again until 31/12/2011]

[UPDATE: This essay was published in this blog at a time when Research and Technology has been in the news due to the resignation of the Greek General Secretary of Research and Technology, Professor Achilleas Mitsos, on the 31st of December 2010. As a response, Professor I. Tsoukalas, currently an MEP, who was the General Secretary of Research and Technology between 2004 and2008 and responsible for the Law 3653/2008, produced the following press release (taken from http://www.eppgroup.eu/press/showPRExport.asp?PRExportID=24297):

Δήλωση του Ευρωβουλευτή της ΝΔ, Καθ. κ. Ιωάννη Α. Τσουκαλά, σχετικά την παραίτηση του Γενικού Γραμματέα Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας, Καθ. κ. Αχιλλέα Μητσού

"Με αφορμή την παραίτηση του Γενικού Γραμματέα Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας του Υπουργείου Παιδείας, Δια Βίου Μάθησης και Θρησκευμάτων, Καθηγητή κ. Αχιλλέα Μητσού, ο Ευρωβουλευτής της ΝΔ, μέλος της Επιτροπής Βιομηχανίας, Έρευνας και Ενέργειας του ΕΚ, Καθηγητής κ. Ιωάννης Α. Τσουκαλάς, δήλωσε τα εξής:
«Με θλίψη αλλά χωρίς έκπληξη πληροφορήθηκα τον εξαναγκασμό σε παραίτηση του Γενικού Γραμματέα Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας, Καθ. κ. Αχιλλέα Μητσού.
Είχα στηρίξει πολλές ελπίδες στη μακρά εμπειρία του ως Γενικού Διευθυντή της Γενικής Διεύθυνσης Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και ήλπιζα ότι η κυβέρνηση θα τον στήριζε ώστε η μακρά αυτή εμπειρία του να αποδώσει το έργο που η ερευνητική κοινότητα της χώρας έχει μεγάλη ανάγκη. Παραβλέπω την απογοήτευσή μου για την πλήρη παραθεώρηση του έργου της ΝΔ (νόμος 3653/2008, τον οποίο το ΠΑΣΟΚ αρνήθηκε να εφαρμόσει), παρόλο που ο κ. Μητσός σε επανειλημμένες δημόσιες δηλώσεις του υποστήριζε τις ίδιες αρχές διαφάνειας, αξιοκρατίας και αριστείας, όπως και η ΝΔ με τον παραπάνω νόμο.
Δυστυχώς ατομικές πολιτικές προσώπων της κυβέρνησης, που υπερβαίνουν κατά πολύ και τη νομιμότητα και τον θεσμικό ρόλο τους (και όπως προκύπτει και από την παραίτηση του κ. Μητσού, ρίχνουν σκιές σχετικά με την αποτελεσματικότητα και τη διαφάνεια του τρόπου διαχείρισης των κοινοτικών κονδυλίων), αποδίδουν στη χώρα έναν τύπο διοίκησης της «αυλής Λουδοβίκου του 14ου».
Με καλή πίστη και χωρίς πρόθεση πολιτικής αντιπαράθεσης, κάνω έκκληση στον Πρωθυπουργό, όπως και στην Υπουργό Παιδείας, να επαναφέρει σε τάξη στελέχη της κυβέρνησής του που εκθέτουν ανεπανόρθωτα τη δημοκρατική συγκρότηση της χώρας».

]

Εισαγωγή

Η έρευνα και η τεχνολογία διαδραματίζουν σημαντικό ρόλο στην οικονομική, κοινωνική, περιβαλλοντολογική, ανταγωνιστική και αειφόρο ανάπτυξη της χώρας μας. Η ύπαρξη στρατηγικής για την έρευνα και την τεχνολογία και η καλή και αποτελεσματική οργάνωση τους θα έπρεπε άρα να αποτελεί βασική πολιτική προτεραιότητα. Παρολ’ αυτά οι βασικές μεταρρυθμιστικές προτεραιότητες της χώρας μας ήταν η εθνική άμυνα και η εθνική οικονομία, πράγμα που φαίνεται και από το ποσοστό του ΑΕΠ (για εθνική άμυνα 5-7% ενώ για την έρευνα 0,6%).

Δεν είναι παράξενο λοιπόν, το ότι το νομοθετικό πλαίσιο της έρευνας και της τεχνολογίας που ισχύει σήμερα στη χώρα μας σχεδιάστηκε το 1985 (Ν. 1514/1985). Αν και αυτό τροποποιήθηκε μερικώς πριν περίπου μια δεκαετία (Ν.2919/2001), σε σχέση με τις ραγδαίες αλλαγές που έχουν γίνει στην οργάνωση της έρευνας και της τεχνολογίας είτε σε άλλες χώρες, είτε σε Ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο, η Ελλάδα έχει μένει όλο και πιο πίσω σε αυτό το χώρο. Σε μια εποχή στην οποία οι περισσότερες κυβερνήσεις, συμπεριλαμβανομένου της Ελληνικής, δίνουν ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στην επιστήμη και στην τεχνολογία, ως το μόνο όχημα που θα μπορέσει να μας οδηγήσει στην ανάπτυξη και έξω από τη κρίση, μια ριζική συστημική αλλαγή στο σύστημα της έρευνας και τεχνολογίας θα έπρεπε να αποτελεί προτεραιότητα.

Είναι όμως ενδιαφέρον να εξετάσει κανείς ποιοι μπορεί να είναι οι λόγοι πίσω από την διατήρηση της ίδιας δημόσιας πολιτικής επί 25 χρόνια. Μια πρώτη ματιά οδηγεί στο συμπέρασμα ότι αυτό δεν οφείλεται σε πλήρη αδιαφορία από τις εκάστοτε κυβερνήσεις, ή έλλειψη διαβούλευσης με την επιστημική κοινότητα, ούτε σε διοικητικές δυσκολίες στην εφαρμογή τους. Όλες οι κυβερνήσεις έκαναν προσπάθειες να μεταρρυθμίσουν το σύστημα της έρευνας, αλλά από αυτές τις προσπάθειες μόνο δύο έφτασαν στο σημείο που να κατατεθούν για ψήφιση στην βουλή. Η πρώτη ήταν ο Ν.2919/2001, ο οποίος δεν στόχευε την ριζική αλλαγή του συστήματος, αλλά τον μερικό εκσυγχρονισμό του ισχύοντος συστήματος.

Η δεύτερη προσπάθεια, η οποία θα είναι και το θέμα αυτής της εργασίας, αν και οδήγησε στον σχεδιασμό ενός νόμου ο οποίος ψηφίστηκε από την Βουλή επί κυβερνήσεως της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, ποτέ δεν εφαρμόστηκε. Επομένως, ο Ν. 3653/2008, με τίτλο «Θεσμικό Πλαίσιο Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας» είναι ένα παράδειγμα δημόσιας πολιτικής που διαμορφώθηκε, ψηφίστηκε, αλλά απέτυχε να εφαρμοστεί. Η αποτυχία του δεν οφειλόταν σε κακή στοχοθεσία – το κατά πόσο ήταν καλή ή όχι η στοχοθεσία ποτέ δεν θα το μάθουμε – αλλά εξαιτίας παντελούς έλλειψης εφαρμογής.

Σε αυτή την εργασία, μετά από μια σύντομη περιγραφή της κατάστασης όταν άρχισε η διαμόρφωση της πολιτικής αυτής, θα περιγραφούν οι διαδικασίες που χρησιμοποιήθηκαν κατά την διαμόρφωσή της και οι εμπλεκόμενοι φορείς που πήραν μέρος. Τέλος, θα δοθούν πιθανοί λόγοι που οδήγησαν στην μη-εφαρμογή της πολιτικής αυτής.

Αφετηρία

Το μακρό χρονικό διάστημα που είχε περάσει από την θέσπιση του τότε και τώρα ισχύοντος νόμου Ν.1514/1985, αλλά και από την τροποποίηση που αυτός είχε υποστεί (Ν.2919/2001), δεν είναι αρκετό καθεαυτό να αποτελέσει έναυσμα για την παραγωγή μιας νέας πολιτικής.

Τρεις ήταν οι βασικοί λόγοι που η ηλικία του συστήματος του έδινε αδυναμίες. Ο πρώτος λόγος είναι ότι η έρευνα και η τεχνολογία είναι ένας τομέας που προχωράει με όλο και γρηγορότερους ρυθμούς. Μας πήρε παραδείγματος χάρη σχεδόν δύο δεκαετίας για να αποκωδικοποιήσουμε το πρώτο ολόκληρο γονιδίωμα, και μετά μόνο εφτά χρόνια για να αποκωδικοποιήσουμε άλλα 150. Η έρευνα λοιπόν χρειάζεται ένα εκσυγχρονισμένο σύστημα το οποίο είναι δυναμικό και προσαρμόζεται γρήγορα στις επιστημονικές και τεχνολογικές ανάγκες.

Οι άλλοι δύο λόγοι είναι εξωτερικής φύσεως, και φανερώνουν την ανάγκη που υπήρχε για συγχρονισμό του βηματισμού της χώρας με τα παγκόσμια και τα ευρωπαϊκά σύγχρονα δεδομένα αντίστοιχα. Πρώτον, οι διεθνής ισορροπίες και η θέση της χώρας μας και της Ευρώπης στο παγκόσμιο σύστημα έχουν πια αλλάξει. Για να μπορέσουμε να διατηρήσουμε το ίδιο επίπεδο ζωής, πρέπει να επενδύσουμε σε τομείς της οικονομίας που βασίζονται στην γνώση, όπως αυτή βγαίνει από την επιστήμη και την τεχνολογία, και στις υπηρεσίες υψηλών δεξιοτήτων. Χωρίς καλές επιδόσεις σε αυτόν το τομέα, εξαιτίας ενός παλαιομοδίτικου συστήματος έρευνας, ολόκληρη η οικονομία της χώρας θα επηρεαστεί αρνητικά.

Δεύτερον, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η οποία έχει συνειδητοποιήσει το παραπάνω φαινόμενο, από την δεκαετία του 1990 και μετά έχει δώσει ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στην διοίκηση της έρευνας και τεχνολογίας, η οποία μέσω των Ευρωπαϊκών Χώρων Έρευνας αλλά και πολλών άλλων πολιτικών, γίνεται όλο και περισσότερο σε Ευρωπαϊκό παρά εθνικό επίπεδο. Ένα σύστημα το οποίο που δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη του αυτές τις αλλαγές, γίνεται ακόμα πιο αναποτελεσματικό, ακόμη και παράνομο, όταν τα επιμέρους κομμάτια του έρχονται σε αντίθεση με τις δημόσιες πολιτικές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης.

Γι’ αυτούς τους τρεις λόγους, η Κυβέρνηση της Νέας Δημοκρατίας με Πρωθυπουργό τον Κωνσταντίνο Καραμανλή αναγνώρισε την ανάγκη για διαμόρφωση του θεσμικού πλαισίου για την έρευνα, την τεχνολογία και την καινοτομία της Ελλάδας. Επίσης, αναβάθμισαν την έρευνα ως πρωταρχική προτεραιότητα και έθεσαν ως στόχο την αύξηση των επενδύσεων στην έρευνα στο 1.5% του ΑΕΠ της χώρας μέχρι το 2013 (σημαντική αύξηση για την Ελλάδα, αν και ο στόχος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ήταν 3% του ΑΕΠ μέχρι το 2010).

Άρα οι πολλές αδυναμίες του συστήματος που μερικώς οφείλονταν στο ότι ήταν παλαιομοδίτικο, στις αλλαγές που γίνονται στις παγκόσμιες ισορροπίες, στις πιέσεις από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για ένα σύστημα εναρμονισμένο στις καινούργιες τοποθεσίες και πολιτικές της, για αύξηση των επενδύσεων σε αυτό τον τομέα και για καλύτερες επιδόσεις σε δείκτες όπως οι δημοσιεύσεις, οι πατέντες, η καινοτομία και η εμπορική εκμετάλλευση των ερευνητικών προϊόντων, οδήγησαν την καινούργια κυβέρνηση του Κώστα Καραμανλή να θεωρήσει αναγκαία την δημιουργία ενός καινούργιου σχεδίου νόμου.

Διαμόρφωση

Το εργαλείο της δημόσιας πολιτικής για την Έρευνα και την Τεχνολογία ήταν ένας νόμος, του οποίου η διαδικασία διαμόρφωσης ήταν η εξής. Καταρχάς το θεσμικό πλαίσιο για την έρευνα και την τεχνολογία έγινε αντικείμενο επεξεργασίας από το Εθνικό Συμβούλιο Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας (ΕΣΕΤ), το οποίο κατέληξε στην εκπόνηση ενός κειμένου-εισήγησης με τίτλο «Το Θεσμικό Πλαίσιο της Έρευνας στην Ελλάδα-13 Ιουνίου 2005». Το κείμενο αυτό στάλθηκε στις 6 Ιουλίου του 2005 στον τότε Υπουργό Ανάπτυξης κ. Δημήτρη Σιούφα και την τότε Υπουργό Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων κ. Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου. Το κείμενο αυτό είχε δύο γενικές κατευθύνσεις: α) τη στρατηγική και σχεδιασμό της έρευνας και β) την αποτελεσματικότερη διαχείριση της έρευνας.

Στις 24 Οκτωβρίου του 2005, κοινή Υπουργική απόφαση των Υπουργών Ανάπτυξης και Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων σύστησε διϋπουργική νομοπαρασκευαστική επιτροπή για την κατάρτιση και υποβολή προτάσεων που θα οδηγούσαν σε ένα σύγχρονο ενιαίο θεσμικό πλαίσιο για την έρευνα στην Ελλάδα (δηλαδή το έργο της επιτροπής ήταν να μελετήσει, να επεξεργαστεί, να συμπληρώσει και να αναδιατυπώσει τα κείμενα εργασίας που συνετάχθησαν από το ΕΣΕΤ) και την εναρμόνιση του με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση (δηλαδή το έργο της επιτροπής ήταν να αναθεωρήσει το ισχύων νομικό πλαίσιο – νόμος 1514/1985 – και να ενσωματώσει την ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική και σχετικές πρωτοβουλίες).

Η επιτροπή η οποία έκανε 27 συνεδριάσεις αποτελείτο από 13 μέλη, μεταξύ των οποίων ήταν ο Γενικός Γραμματέας του Υπουργείου Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων, κ Α. Καραμάνος, ο Γενικός Γραμματέας Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας κ Ι Τσουκαλάς, ο πρόεδρος του ΕΣΕΤ, κ Δ. Νανόπουλος, τους ειδικούς Γραμματείς Πανεπιστημιακής και Τεχνολογικής Ανώτατης Εκπαίδευσης κ Α. Κυριαζή και Κ. Σούτσα αντίστοιχα, τρεις προέδρους ερευνητικών κέντρων και πέντε καθηγητές Ανωτάτων Εκπαιδευτικών Ιδρυμάτων.

Η εντατική επεξεργασία της νομοθεσίας περί έρευνας από οχτώ κράτη γνωστά για τις άριστες επιδόσεις τους στην έρευνα (π.χ. ΗΠΑ, Φιλανδία) που έφερε εις πέρας η επιτροπή συνεκτιμήθηκε με τις ιδιαίτερες ανάγκες της Ελλάδας για την επιλογή των προτάσεων που η επιτροπή παρουσίασε στις 22 Μαΐου του 2006 στους Υπουργούς Ανάπτυξης και Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων. Στην συνέχεια οι προτάσεις αυτές, με τίτλο «Εθνικό Πρόγραμμα Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας – Προτάσεις Διυπουργικής Επιτροπής», παρουσιάστηκαν στους επιστήμονες από τον ακαδημαϊκό και ερευνητικό χώρο στο Εθνικό Ίδρυμα Ερευνών στις 5 Ιουλίου του 2006 από τον τότε Υπουργό Ανάπτυξης κ. Σιούφα και την τότε Υπουργό Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων κ Γιαννάκου, με την παρουσία του Υφυπουργού Ανάπτυξης κ Παπαθανασίου και των μελών της διϋπουργικής επιτροπής. Κατόπιν, οι προτάσεις αυτές τέθηκαν σε επιπλέον διαβούλευση στην ιστοσελίδα της Γενικής Γραμματείας Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας (ΓΓΕΤ) μέχρι τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2006. Επίσης το καλοκαίρι του 2006 εστάλη ερωτηματολόγιο στους Διευθυντές όλων των Ερευνητικών Κέντρων με θέμα την αναδιάταξη του ερευνητικού ιστού.

Οι προτάσεις της δημόσιας διαβούλευσης συνδυάστηκαν με την αρχικές προτάσεις από την διϋπουργική νομοπαρασκευαστική επιτροπή με σκοπό την διαμόρφωση προσχέδιου νομικού πλαισίου. Το προσχέδιο αυτό κατατέθηκε πάλι για δημόσια διαβούλευση στην ιστοσελίδα της ΓΓΕΤ από τις 16 Νοεμβρίου του 2006 μέχρι την 15η Ιανουαρίου του 2007. Στο πλαίσιο της διαβούλευσης η διϋπουργική νομοπαρασκευαστική επιτροπή έλαβε 74 κείμενα-συμβολές από όλους τους εμπλεκόμενους φορείς, ερευνητές, πανεπιστημιακούς και επιχειρηματίες.

Το σχέδιο νόμου που εστάλη στους αρμόδιους υπουργούς από τους εντολείς της ΓΓΕΤ και του Υπουργείου Παιδείας ήταν βασισμένο στο προσχέδιο νομικού πλαισίου που κατατέθηκε για διαβούλευση και στα 74 κείμενα-συμβολές που κατέθεσαν οι εμπλεκόμενοι φορείς.

Στις 8 Φεβρουαρίου του 2008 ο νόμος κατατέθηκε στην Βουλή. Η Διαρκής Επιτροπή Παραγωγής και Εμπορίου και η Διαρκής Επιτροπή Μορφωτικών Υποθέσεων συνεδρίασε 12-15 Φεβρουαρίου για να επεξεργαστεί και να εξετάσει το σχέδιο νόμου. Στις 18 Φεβρουαρίου βγήκε η έκθεση της Επιστημονικής Υπηρεσίας Της Βουλής. Ο νόμος ψηφίστηκε στις 6 Μαρτίου του 2008 έπειτα από τοποθέτηση του Υφυπουργού Ανάπτυξης κ. Σταύρου Καλαφάτη. Τέλος, ο νόμος ανακοινώθηκε στην εφημερίδα της Κυβερνήσεως στις 21 Μαρτίου του 2008 (ΦΕΚ 49Α'/21.3.2008) ως νόμος 3653.

Επομένως, οι συμμετέχοντες στην συγκεκριμένη δημόσια πολιτική ήταν εσωτερικοί και εξωτερικοί. Καταρχάς στην ανάπτυξη της ατζέντας συμμετείχαν υπουργοί και γενικοί γραμματείς από δύο υπουργεία: Ανάπτυξης και Παιδείας. Ο Υπουργός Ανάπτυξης και η υπουργός Παιδείας πήραν παραδείγματος χάρη την απόφαση να συσταθεί η διυπουργική επιτροπή και έδωσαν την άποψή τους πάνω στο προσχέδιο που έφτιαξε η επιτροπή. Σε όλη την διάρκεια της διαδικασίας σημαντικό ρόλο έπαιξαν ο εκάστοτε Υφυπουργός Ανάπτυξης και ο Γενικός Γραμματέας Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας. Ο άλλος εσωτερικός συμμετέχων που πήρε μέρος στην διαμόρφωση αυτής της πολιτικής ήταν η δημόσια διοίκηση, κυρίως η Γενική Γραμματεία Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας (ΓΓΕΤ) και το ΕΣΕΤ, οι οποίοι έγραψαν τον νόμο και τον προετοίμασαν για την ψήφο της βουλής.Υπήρχαν όμως και πολλοί εξωτερικοί παράγοντες. Σε διάφορα στάδια είπαν την γνώμη τους ερευνητές και διοικητικά στελέχη από τα ερευνητικά κέντρα της χώρας και επιχειρηματίες είτε ως μέλη διαφόρων συμβουλίων είτε ανεξάρτητα στις δημόσιες διαβουλεύσεις. Όλοι αυτοί οι συμμετέχοντες ήταν άμεσα εμπλεκόμενοι στο σύστημα και χωρίς εσωτερική συνοχή. Συμβουλές στην διαδικασία διαμόρφωση έδωσαν και μη εμπλεκόμενοι εξωτερικοί παράγοντες, όπως ο κύριος Φώτης Καφάτος, τότε πρόεδρος του European Research Council και ο κύριος Αχιλλέας Μητσός, ο οποίος ήταν υπεύθυνος για την Ευρωπαϊκή πολιτική σε θέματα Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας. Επίσης ο υπουργός ανάπτυξης και ο Γενικός Γραμματέας Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας ταξίδεψαν σε διάφορες χώρες με σκοπό να εξετάσουν διάφορα ερευνητικά συστήματα ανά τον κόσμο (π.χ. στις ΗΠΑ, την Κίνα, την Φιλανδία κτλ). Οι άνθρωποι με τους οποίους συνδιαλέχτηκαν εκεί είχαν μια έμμεση συμμετοχή στην διαμόρφωση της πολιτικής.

Στόχοι του θεσμικού πλαισίου

Αν και το περιεχόμενο του νόμου δεν είναι στο θέμα αυτής της ανάλυσης, οι τέσσερις βασικοί στόχοι της καινούργια νομοθεσίας θα περιγραφούν συντόμως γιατί μας δίνουν μερικές ιδέες για το γιατί υπήρξαν τόσες αντιδράσεις στον νόμο αυτό.

Ένα από τα κύρια προβλήματα που διαπίστωσε η τότε ηγεσία της χώρας ήταν ότι αν και ένας μεγάλος αριθμός υπουργείων (Υπουργείο Εθνικής Άμυνας, το Υπουργείο Ανάπτυξης, το Υπουργείο Περιβάλλοντος, Χωροταξίας και Δημοσίων Έργων, το Υπουργείο Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων, το Υπουργείο Υγείας και Κοινωνικής Αλληλεγγύης, το Υπουργείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων και το Υπουργείο Πολιτισμού) διαμόρφωναν και προωθούσαν την έρευνα, υπήρχε έλλειψη συντονισμού. Γι’ αυτό και στόχος του καινούργιου νομοθετικού πλαισίου ήταν συγκρότηση οριζοντίων οργάνων διοίκησης της Έρευνας, όπως το «Εθνικό Συμβούλιο Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας (ΕΣΕΤ)» και η Διϋπουργική Επιτροπή Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας (ΔΕΕΤ).

Δεύτερον, δόθηκε ιδιαίτερη έμφαση στα ερευνητικά κέντρα, των οποίων θέματα όπως η διοίκηση, η κατάσταση και η εξέλιξη του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού τους και η συνεργασία τους με τα ΑΕΙ και ΤΕΙ, θεωρούντο από πολλούς ότι χρειαζόντουσαν βελτίωση. Τρίτον, η καινούργια νομοθεσία έδωσε ιδιαίτερη σημασία στην αξιολόγηση του ερευνητικού έργου, πάνω στην οποία θα βασιζόταν από εκεί και πέρα οποιαδήποτε χρηματοδότηση.Τέλος, ένας άλλος βασικός στόχος της καινούργιας νομοθεσίας ήταν η ενίσχυση της εφαρμοσμένης, βασικής και τεχνολογικής έρευνας με σκοπό τη στενότερη συνεργασία μεταξύ επιστήμης και βιομηχανίας που θα είχε ως αποτέλεσμα την επίτευξη καινοτόμων προϊόντων και υπηρεσιών.

Εφαρμογή

Η ισχύς των διατάξεων του Ν. 3653/2008 θα άρχιζε την 01/01/2009. Ένα μήνα περίπου μετά την έναρξη εφαρμογής το νόμου, δεν υπήρξε καμία γραπτή οδηγία ή εγκύκλιος από την εποπτεύουσα αρχή, το Υπουργείου Ανάπτυξης. Οι προφορικές εντολές, οι οποίες πολλοί είπαν ότι δοθήκαν ήταν «πορευτείτε με τους παλιούς νόμους (ν.2919/2001 και ν.1514/1985) και βλέπουμε» (π.χ. Ερώτηση Φ. Κουβέλη προς τους Υπουργούς Ανάπτυξης, Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων). Ένα μήνα μετά, η ισχύς του νόμου ανεστάλη έως την 31/12/09 σύμφωνα με την παρ. 2 του άρθρου 40 του Ν. 3734/2009 (ΦΕΚ 8/Α΄/28−01−2009). Παρόλ’ αυτά στις 6 Ιουνίου του 2009, το Υπουργείο Ανάπτυξης ανακοίνωσε ότι στο πλαίσιο της κατάργησης ή της συγχώνευσης φορέων του Δημοσίου και ευρύτερου Δημόσιου Τομέα, που αποφάσισε η Κυβέρνηση, θα υπάρξει χωροταξική και γνωστική αναδιάταξη του ερευνητικού ιστού: καταργούνται 3 φορείς του υπουργείου Ανάπτυξης, συγχωνεύονται άλλοι 19 σε 8, περιορίζονται τα Διοικητικά Συμβούλια από 22 σε 8 και μειώνεται ο αριθμός των μελών των ΔΣ από 192 σε 66. Ο στόχος πίσω από αυτήν την κυβερνητική απόφαση ήταν «ο περιορισμός του εκτεταμένου φαινομένου του κατακερματισμού των Κέντρων/Ινστιτούτων και των πολλαπλών επικαλύψεων, τόσο στο σύνολο του ερευνητικού ιστού της χώρας, όσο και στα ίδια τα ερευνητικά κέντρα».

Αν και πολλοί εμπλεκόμενοι φορείς θεώρησαν την συγκεκριμένη ανακοίνωση αιφνιδιαστική, ο Γενικός Γραμματέας Ε &Τ κύριος Τσαλίδης λέγοντας ότι αυτή η απόφαση βασίζεται στην διαβούλευση που προηγήθηκε του νόμου Ν. 3653/2008, ότι υπάρχουν σχετικές αποφάσεις της Ολομέλειας του Εθνικού Συμβουλίου Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας και ότι όλοι οι Διευθυντές των Ερευνητικών Κέντρων στο ερωτηματολόγιο που διανεμήθηκε το καλοκαίρι του 2006 με θέμα την αναδιάταξη του ερευνητικού ιστού συμφώνησαν για τα κριτήρια συγχώνευσης, δηλαδή τη συγγένεια του γνωστικού αντικειμένου και τη γεωγραφική απόσταση. Άρα, παρόλο που ο Νόμος ήταν σε αναστολή, η κυβέρνηση προχώρησε σε εφαρμογή ενός μέρος του νόμου, τον συντονισμό των ερευνητικών κέντρων, τον τρίτο στόχο του θεσμικού πλαισίου έρευνας και τεχνολογίας που αναφέρθηκε προηγουμένως.

Αν η κυβέρνηση είχε στόχο την εφαρμογή αυτού του κομματιού του νόμου πριν της εκλογές, αυτή μάλλον δεν έγινε λόγω των απεργιακών αντιδράσεων από τα ερευνητικά κέντρα και τους καθηγητές ΑΕΙ και ΤΕΙ. Είναι πολύ πιθανό όμως να μην σχεδίαζαν να το εφαρμόσουν πριν τις εκλογές του Οκτωβρίου του 2009. Ανεξαρτήτως σεναρίου, τον Οκτώβριο του 2009 η κυβέρνηση άλλαξε έτσι ούτε αυτό το επιμέρους κομμάτι του νόμου δεν μπήκε σε εφαρμογή.Ένα χρόνο μετά, η νέα κυβέρνηση του ΠΑΣΟΚ με Πρωθυπουργό τον Γιώργο Παπανδρέου, προώθησε κι άλλη αναστολή του νόμου έως την 31/12/2010 σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 2 του Ν.3822/2010 (ΦΕΚ 21/Α΄/16−02−2010).

Γιατί δεν εφαρμόστηκε ο Ν.3653/2008; Σχολιασμός

Η δημόσια πολιτική για τον εθνικό χώρο της έρευνας, ο Ν.3653/2008 ήταν τελικά άλλη μία χαμένη ευκαιρία για την αναβάθμιση του χώρου έρευνας. Η προσπάθεια εφαρμογής ενός επί μέρους κομματιού του νόμου επίσης απέτυχε. Λόγω έλλειψης σταδίων αξιολόγησης και απολογισμού, αποτελέσματα της μη-εφαρμογής του νόμου, στο τελευταίο κομμάτι της εργασίας αυτής θα γίνει εξέταση των λόγων που μάλλον οδήγησαν σε συνδυασμό σε αυτές τις αποτυχίες. Ο νόμος Ν.3653/2008 απασχόλησε τον χώρο της έρευνας για ένα διάστημα τεσσάρων περίπου ετών (2005-2009). Ενώ κατά τη διαδικασία της διαμόρφωσης του νόμου είχαμε σταθερή ηγεσία (κ Σιούφα στο Υπουργείο Ανάπτυξης και την κυρία Γιαννάκου στο Υπουργείο Παιδείας), η φάση της εφαρμογής χαρακτηρίστηκε από υπουργική ασυνέχεια. Τον Σεπτέμβριο του 2007, πέντε μήνες πριν την κατάθεση της νομοθεσίας προς ψήφιση, άλλαξε ο Υπουργός Ανάπτυξης. Ο νέος Υπουργός Ανάπτυξης ήταν ο κύριος Φωλιάς, του οποίου η θητεία κράτησε μόνο ενάμιση χρόνο. Τον Ιούλιο του 2008, μερικούς μήνες μετά την ψήφιση του νόμου, αλλά μερικούς μήνες πριν αυτός έρθει σε ισχύ, άλλαξε και ο Γενικός Γραμματέας Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας. Ο κύριος Τσουκαλάς – από τον οποίο παίρνει το όνομά του και ο νόμος – πήρε σύνταξη και αντικαταστήθηκε από τον Κύριο Τσαλίδη. Όπως αναφέρθηκε πριν, η θητεία του κύριου Φώλια δεν κράτησε πολύ, αφού αντικαταστήθηκε από τον κύριο Χατζηδάκη, ο οποίος ήταν αυτός που πήρε την ευθύνη για την συγχώνευση των ερευνητικών κέντρων. Αλλά ούτε η θητεία του κύριου Χατζηδάκη ήταν μακρά, αφού τον Οκτώβριο του 2009 άλλαξε η κυβέρνηση.

Δεύτερον, η στοχοθεσία στην πρωτογενή νομοθετική παραγωγή οδηγεί σε ένα πολύπλοκο πλαισίου που απαιτεί 53 άρθρα για να περιγραφεί αλλά και πάνω από 60 προεδρικά διατάγματα και κοινές υπουργικές αποφάσεις για να εφαρμοσθεί. Το νομοσχέδιο είναι άρα τόσο πολύπλοκο και γραφειοκρατικό, που ακόμα και αν δεν αναστελλόταν θα οδηγούσε σε τέτοια σύγχυση και αβεβαιότητα που πάλι θα οδηγούταν στην αποτυχία.

Η νομοθεσία θα οδηγούσε σε σύγχυση και επειδή οι επιστημονικοί όροι που διαλέχτηκαν για να επεξηγήσουν την επιλογής της συγκεκριμένης εναλλακτικής διατυπώθηκαν πολύ γενικά. Το γεγονός ότι χρησιμοποιήθηκε το ίδιο λεξιλόγιο με την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση δεν είναι απαραίτητα κακό, αλλά προαπαιτείται επεξήγηση του τι σημαίνουν οι όροι αυτοί για τα ελληνικά δεδομένα.

Μία αντίφαση που υπήρξε στην διαδικασία διαμόρφωσης της νομοθεσίας ήταν ότι αν και ένας από τους τελικούς στόχους ήταν η καλύτερη συνεργασία ΑΕΙ και ερευνητικών κέντρων, η συμμετοχή των πανεπιστημιακών ιδρυμάτων στην διαμόρφωση του νομοσχεδίου ήταν ελάχιστη. Το νομοσχέδιο αυτό γράφτηκε για μια περίπτωση που η πανεπιστημιακή έρευνα αποτελεί ένα ελάχιστο ποσοστό της έρευνας που γίνεται σε μια χώρα. Αυτή η περίπτωση που αποκλίνει πολύ από την Ελληνική πραγματικότητα.

Επίσης, το νομοσχέδιο δεν συνοδευόταν από τους αναγκαίους πόρους για την έρευνα. Αν και οι ανθρώπινοι πόροι υπήρχαν για να χτιστεί ένα καινούργιο καινοτόμο και πιο αποτελεσματικό σύστημα, δεν υπήρχαν οι υλικοί πόροι. Η κυβέρνηση αν και στον πολιτικό λόγο της έλεγε ότι μέχρι το 2015, το ποσοστό του ΑΕΠ που θα πήγαινε στην έρευνα θα αυξανόταν από το πενιχρό 0,6% σε 3%, ουδέποτε δεν εξήγησε στους εμπλεκόμενους φορείς σε πόσες δόσεις και πότε θα έρθει αυτή η επένδυση ούτε πως αυτή η επένδυση θα κατανεμηθεί στους υποστόχους της δημόσιας πολιτικής και στα διάφορα μέρη του συστήματος. Δεν ήταν η πρώτη φορά που οι ερευνητές, οι πανεπιστημιακοί, οι επιχειρήσεις και οι υπόλοιποι εμπλεκόμενοι φορείς άκουγαν ανεκπλήρωτες υποσχέσεις για τους στόχους, χωρίς συγκεκριμένους προϋπολογισμούς και πλάνο, έτσι δεν ήταν παράξενο που δεν δέχθηκαν να πάρουν το ρίσκο να συναινέσουν με ένα πλαίσιο το οποίο δεν ήταν καθόλου ξεκάθαρο από άποψη υλικών πόρων.

Γενικότερα οι μεταρρυθμίσεις προϋποθέτουν ισχυρούς και αξιόπιστους δημόσιους θεσμούς, ιδιαιτέρως όταν οι διαδικασία της πολιτικής είναι σταδιακή και χρειάζεται στήριξη σε όλα τα στάδιά της και οι αντίπαλοι είναι πάντα καλύτερα οργανωμένοι (Παγουλάτος, 2007). Οι εμπλεκόμενοι φορείς στο χώρο της έρευνας όμως έχουν χάσει την αξιοπιστία τους στις μεταρρυθμίσεις που πρότειναν οι κατά καιρούς κυβερνήσεις αφού τα τελευταία 25 χρόνια αυτές ποτέ δεν εφαρμόστηκαν. Ήταν άρα δύσκολο για την κυβέρνηση να τους πείσει να στηρίξουν τις αλλαγές που προτείνει η συγκεκριμένη νομοθεσία και ότι οι χαμένοι θα αποζημιωθούν. Υπήρχε άρα έλλειψη διάθεσης συνεργασίας και συν-αντίληψης γύρω από τους στόχους από τους εμπλεκόμενους παίκτες.

Ένα άλλο εμπόδιο ήταν ότι οι εμπλεκόμενοι δρώντες οι οποίοι έδωσαν γνώμη λειτούργησαν περισσότερο για να δικαιολογήσουν, να εξασφαλίσουν και να βελτιώσουν τη θέση τους παρά για να λυθεί το συλλογικό πρόβλημα του συστήματος έρευνας και τεχνολογίας της χώρας. Επομένως, η ίδια η στοχοθεσία ήταν αποτέλεσμα συμβιβασμών μεταξύ δρώντων με αντιφατικές στοχεύσεις, πράγμα που απόκλεισε τις καινοτομικές και ριζικές αλλαγές που χρειαζόταν το σύστημα.

Τέλος, οι αλλαγές που πρότεινε η συγκεκριμένη νομοθεσία ήταν περιορισμένες από τις υπάρχουσες νομοθεσίες σε άμεσα εμπλεκόμενους φορείς όπως η παιδεία και η καινοτομία. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι δύσκολα θα γίνονταν ριζικές αλλαγές στο χώρο της έρευνας όταν τα άλλα συστήματα έμεναν στάσιμα.

Από την στιγμή που η πολιτική αυτή ήταν μια συστημική μεταρρύθμιση, που το σύστημα δεν έχει ανανεωθεί για τόσα πολλά χρόνια και που υπάρχει πίεση από εξωτερικούς παράγοντες (παγκοσμιοποίηση και Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση) για βελτίωσή του, θα μπορούσε η συγκεκριμένη δημόσια πολιτική να ακολουθήσει το ορθολογικό μοντέλο, δηλαδή να θέσει από την αρχή τους στόχους, τα μέτρα και τα μέσα αυτής της δημοσιονομικής πολιτικής εξετάζοντας όλες τις εναλλακτικές και συγκρίνοντάς τες να επιλέξει την βέλτιστη επιλογή. Αν και θα μπορούσε να πει κανείς ότι όντως ακολουθήθηκε αυτό το υπόδειγμα στη διαδικασία διαμόρφωσης – εξετάστηκαν και συγκρίθηκαν εναλλακτικές και έγιναν επανειλημμένες διαβουλεύσεις – δυστυχώς όσον αφορά το ίδιο το νομοσχέδιο, αυτό μοιάζει περισσότερο με ένα νομοσχέδιο αποτέλεσμα του παραδείγματος του προσαυξητισμού: ο νόμος βασίστηκε άρθρο προς άρθρο στον ισχύοντα νόμο και απλά προστέθηκαν κι άλλα άρθρα. Δεν είχαμε άρα ριζικές αλλαγές στο σύστημα της έρευνας. Από την στιγμή λοιπόν που το υπόδειγμα του κάδου απορριμμάτων, μπορεί να εμπεριέχει ορθολογικά στοιχεία, αν έπρεπε να μπει η συγκεκριμένη νομοθεσία σε ένα πιο θεωρητικό πλαίσιο, τότε το υπόδειγμα του κάδου απορριμμάτων μάλλον είναι το πιο αντιπροσωπευτικό.

Συνοψίζοντας η δημόσια πολική για την έρευνα αν και συμπερίλαβε και θετικές διατάξεις, αλλά αναλώθηκε σε λαβυρινθώδεις γραφειοκρατικές λεπτομέρειες (αφού σε πολλές περιπτώσεις τα άρθρα και οι περιορισμοί οδηγούσαν μετά από πολλά βήματα πίσω στην αρχή) και δεν βελτίωσε καθόλου την απόσταση ανάμεσα στα Πανεπιστήμια και στα Ερευνητικά Κέντρα που τόσο χρειάζεται. Η νέα κυβέρνηση του ΠΑΣΟΚ, όπως όλες οι προηγούμενες κυβερνήσεις, ετοιμάζουν μεταρρύθμιση του Εθνικού Χώρου της Έρευνας.

Μέχρι στιγμής έχουν γίνει δύο θετικά βήματα που μπορεί να βοηθήσουν αυτή η προσπάθεια να γίνει πιο επιτυχημένη. Πρώτον, το ότι η περισσότερη έρευνα είναι πια κάτω από την ίδια ομπρέλα, το Υπουργείο Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων, μετά από μετακίνηση της Γενικής Γραμματείας Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας από το Υπουργείο Ανάπτυξης. Αυτό μπορούσε να έχει θετικές επιπτώσεις στη σχέση ερευνητικών κέντρων και πανεπιστημίων. Δεύτερον, ότι ο νέος Γενικός Γραμματέας Έρευνας και Τεχνολογίας, ο κ Μητσός, μίλησε πρώτα για χρηματικούς πόρους και μετά για στόχους. Παρόλ’ αυτά, το πιο πιθανό είναι ότι και η καινούργια νομοθεσία θα πέσει πάλι πάνω στα ίδια εμπόδια που βρίσκουν οι κυβερνήσεις τα τελευταία 25 χρόνια στο χώρο της έρευνας: η έλλειψη αξιοπιστίας έχει οδηγήσει σε άρνηση υιοθέτηση οποιασδήποτε αλλαγής.

Βιβλιογραφία

Ερώτηση Φ.Κουβέλη προς τους Υπουργούς Ανάπτυξης, Εθνικής Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων http://www.syn.gr/gr/keimeno.php?id=13210

Παγουλάτος, Γ (3/5/2007) «Οι μεταρρυθμίσεις χρειάζονται κράτος» Καθημερινή.

Pollution and Environmental Policy: nitrate pollution from agricultural sources in the case of Greece

2011-01-04T01:56:00.001+02:00

[short note: as I've mentioned before I have started a new masters course in Public Policy and Management. I will be publishing my essays on this blog, and this is one of these essays.]

Introduction

In an economy that has achieved Pareto optimality (social efficiency), any additional changes in the economy would benefit some people only by making others worse off. In the real world however, markets fail to achieve this social efficiency and one of the main reasons for this, is the existence of externalities.

An externality occurs when the welfare of individuals and corporate profits are affected not only by the actions of individuals themselves or their companies but also from acts of third parties. Whenever these individuals or their companies are affected beneficially, there are said to be positive externalities, whereas whenever these individuals or their companies are affected adversely, there are said to be negative externalities. A common example of a negative externality is environmental pollution. Pollution will be used for now on, instead of the more general term of “negative externality”.

The existence of externalities prevents the achievement of social efficiency because the one who causes the negative externality (e.g. the polluter) does not equate his or her incremental benefit of generating an extra amount of pollution to the incremental social costs of that externality.

Specifically, the social costs of actions causing negative externalities (e.g. polluting activities) exceed private costs. This can be seen in Figure 1, where demand (D) and supply curves of a good whose production causes a negative externality are presented. If markets were left alone, Marginal Private Cost (MPC) will be the only cost taken into account when the price of the good is set by the market. Thus, the supply curve will be the dark blue one (S). In this case the price of the product would be equal to Pp and the quantity produced will be equal to Qp.

Figure 1. Negative Externality

Since the production of the good causes pollution, the marginal social cost (MSC) is different from the MPC. In fact it is equal to the Marginal Private Cost plus the cost caused by the externality (Marginal External Cost - MEC). The socially optimum quantity is thus smaller than the one produced by the market alone (Qp > Qs) and the socially optimum price is greater than that set by the market (Pp < Ps).

When pollution is ignored by those that cause it, i.e. the polluters, prices fixed by the market do not reflect the full social costs of producing goods and services that cause it and the quantity of the good is larger than the socially optimum. As a result there is too much pollution relative to the Pareto optimum.

Internalizing the externality

Environmental policy aims to reduce negative impacts on the environment through internalising negative environmental externalities. The first such policy was suggested by Arthur C. Pigou (1932) who said that the social cost generated by pollution should be dealt with by the central government. He proposed a tax per unit of pollution equal to the environmental damage created by this unit, when the total pollution is at the socially optimal level. The Pigou tax completely internalises the externality by being equal to the MEC, i.e. by moving the supply curve in Figure 1. from S to MSC, and therefore the market-determined output to Qs.

The second approach was developed by Ronald H. Coase (1960) who, instead of speaking of market failure, looked to markets to find the solution. Where transaction costs are low and property rights for environmental resources are clearly assigned, negotiations take place between those who create the pollution and those who suffer the damage. So it is the market process that leads to a Pareto optimal solution.

Pigou's approach has the disadvantage that information is costly to assemble, since the information requirement is huge: collection of complicated and rapidly changing information, translating this information into a tax, and imposing the tax on the polluter. An additional problem is that is not always easy to monitor and measure the externality, since sometimes one is not even aware of it.

In contrast, Coasian bargaining leaves the collection of information and the required negotiations to the interested parties. This makes it highly dynamic: a change in the size of the externality will mean that the market will adjust the negotiations by itself. While the Coasian solution takes care of the information problem, it fails when the number of parties is large since this leads to a great increase in transaction costs. This makes bargaining impractical. In addition, the optimal solution assumes that there is full information about the environmental implications of different activities which is unlikely.

Environmental policy instruments

Both of pure Pigou and Coase options are difficult to apply in the real world. For this reason, an extensive toolkit of environmental instruments are now available to the policy makers that can be divided in Command and Control (CC) instruments and Market-Based Instruments (MBIs).

Command and Control policy instruments

If emissions are difficult to measure, then the least that can be done is the enforcement of rules that require the proper installation of the required pollution control equipment (Fullerton, 2001). According to this Command and Control approach, the government agencies impose limits on permissible levels a polluting agent or require the agent to use a particular production method aimed at reducing emissions. The agencies/firms then adjust their output or abatement so that the standard is achieved. If the firms are not complying with these standards, then they are considered lawbreakers and financial penalties or other sanctions are used to bring into compliance.

A disadvantage of CAC instruments is that since abatement costs vary significantly between firms, uniform emissions standards will not minimise the costs of reducing emissions and therefore the costs of compliance may be considerably higher than under MBIs since firms are forced to take on equal shares of the pollution-control burden, regardless of the cost. For the policy to be cost-effective, the environmental regulator would need to define different standards for each pollution source taking into account the abatement costs that each firm faces, information that is generally not readily available and unlikely to be disclosed by firms (Stavins, 2004). Other negative aspects of these instruments are that they do not take into account the remaining pollution associated with each unit of output, just the cost of maintaining the cost of the new technology, and that they do not take into account all the major channels of emission reductions (Goulder and Parry, 2008).

1.1. Performance standards

Performance standards impose requirements on the emissions, i.e. the firms’ output. The regulators measure the observable outcome of the polluter's behaviour, such as the chemical residues produced. These regulations are usually more cost-effective than design standards described below, since firms are granted flexibility in how they will reach their aim (Goulder and Parry, 2008).

1.2. Design standards

Design standards impose requirements on the production process, i.e. they restrict the technology used by the polluters. For example, such regulations could govern the way farmers produce food and manage their land specifying waste management practices or the level, timing and form of nutrient applications to their crops.

Why are these measures still so popular? It is thought that this is because they are favoured by politicians since they help them gain votes and the public because they think that actions are taken against polluters. They are also favoured by administrators since they require a lot less information than for example environmental taxes. They are also favoured by governments, since it is very difficult to get international agreements on the terms of for example pollution taxes.

Market-Based instruments

In the 1970s, policy tools developed from the more regulatory command-and-control measures described above, to more complex Market-Based Instruments (MBIs). Economists are perhaps more likely to favour this ‘market-based’ approach, where the aim is to create economic incentives that will encourage people who are acting in their own self-interest, to simultaneously treat the environment in a way that is in the best interests of society.

2.1. Environmental taxes

There are many definitions and names for environmental taxes but the OECD defines them as “Any compulsory, unrequited payment to general governmental levied on a tax-base deemed to be of particular environmental relevance”. There are various types: taxes on emissions, taxes on products or inputs (when emissions can’t be measured), tax differentiation (for the benefit of activities or products are environmentally friendly), usage fees (payments for environmental services) and tax credit (encouraging activities or products are environmentally friendly). The revenue that comes from these taxes can then be invested by governments in order to tackle pollution in different ways and in R&D of new environmentally friendly technologies.

Even though taxes have been the preferred instrument for pollution reduction, they can have a negative impact if they are not set correctly (for example, they need to be equal to MEC in Figure 1). If they are not set correctly they lead to unfairness (polluters pay more than they emit), distortion of the economy (those industries that succeed will be those that avoid this kind of taxes), reduction of competitiveness of firms of one country compared to firms of other countries and inefficiency.

2.2. Tradable emission permits

Emission permits allow their owner to emit a certain quantity of pollution during a certain period. Those polluters that pollute less than that quantity are able to trade their permits with those that produce more of that quantity. This lead to the creation of permit market where polluters buy or sell permits based on their abatement costs and the price of the permits.

Permits fit in either of two categories: the credit programs and the cap-and-trade systems. Under credit programs, an emissions baseline is set and those that emit less, they get the difference in the form of a credit that they can trade. Under a cap-and-trade system, the overall allowable level of pollution is allocated among firms in the form of permits that they can then be freely exchanged among polluters. In the latter case, there is increased pressure in the EU to change the way these permits are given – from free allocation to auctioning (commission of the European Communities, 2008).

2.3. Subsidies for Pollution Abatement

Subsidies are current unrequited payments from government to producers with the objective of influencing their levels of production, their prices or their remuneration of the factors of production (ESA, 1995). Subsidies provide incentives to introduce environmental friendly technologies or recourse behaviour. They are less cost-effective than taxes and tradable permits (Goulder and Parry, 2008).

2.4. Deposit-refund systems

In a deposit-refund system, consumers pay a surcharge when purchasing a potentially polluting product and receive a refund when they return it to an approved centre for recycling or disposal. For economic efficiency, the size of the deposit should be set equal to the marginal social cost of the product being disposed of illegally minus the costs of the program’s operation. Deposit-refund systems are most likely to be appropriate when the incidence and the consequences of improper disposal are great e.g. with cans of soft-drinks.

2.5. Voluntary agreements

Voluntary Agreements (VAs) have been increasingly used as a new policy tool to achieve energy efficiency measures. In the European Union for example the total number of VAs has been calculated to exceed more than 300.

VAs seemed promising because (Bard, 2002, p.11):

They provide increased flexibility,
The industry prefers them instead of new laws and regulations,
The industry is seeking to avoid new taxes by pushing its own initiatives,
They are preferred by Non-Governmental Organisations and trade unions, since in this way they can have a bigger influence on environmental policy.

Different types of voluntary approaches have been developed, ranging from the strictest, i.e. contracts negotiated between public authorities and one or more private parties (negotiated agreements) to environmental improvement programmes set up by firms and communicated to their stakeholders (unilateral agreements).

An example of a voluntary agreement is the ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers Association) agreement with the European Commission. The ACEA agreement aimed to limit the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted by passenger cars sold in Europe. In 2008, the European Union claimed that the agreement have failed since most companies, except for FIAT, did not reach the target emission level of less than 140g/km.

A number of criticisms have been raised for voluntary agreements such as weak control, transaction costs, free-riding, regulatory capture (where businesses persuade those setting the terms of the agreement to be more lenient) and “business-as-usual scenarios’ (the outcome is equal to that that would been achieved anyway”). Nontheless, given their positive features (flexibility, stakeholder commitment, know-how diffusion), they are likely to work well as complements and/or precursors of other policy instruments, such as all those described above (Bard, 2002, p.12).

A case study

So far the most commonly used instruments for pollution reduction have been reviewed. In this part of the essay, an example will be taken in order to investigate which of these instruments are used in real-case scenario. The example that is chosen is water pollution. Specifically, agriculture-induced nitrate pollution of European water bodies. The current legislation will be analysed in order to detect which of the above instruments have been used.

Water pollution

According to the European Union “Pollution is the introduction of substances or energy into the environment, resulting in deleterious effects of such a nature as to endanger human health, harm living resources and ecosystems, and impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment.” (European Union website). Water pollution is one type of pollution.

Given that water is important for our quality of life, the things we grow and produce and that it provides natural habitats and eco-systems for Europe’s plant and animal species, the European Union has created a number of Directives that require its Member states to reduce their water pollution levels.

Water quality is influenced by both point (mainly from sewage treatment and industrial discharge) and non-point (diffuse) pollution sources (mainly from farming). The key pollutants of farming are nutrients (e.g. nitrogen, potassium, calcium, sulphur and phosphorus) and pesticides. In this essay we will focus on nitrate pollution from agricultural sources.

Nitrate pollution from agricultural sources

Current agricultural practices often require high levels of fertilisers and manure, hence leading to high nitrate surpluses. These are transferred to water bodies through various diffuse processes and have detrimental effects on the European water bodies by

a) promoting eutrophication

b) disrupting ecosystem processes

c) harming aquatic communities

Even though nitrate’s negative impact on human health has been under debate, a recent study estimated a 3% increase of incidence of colon cancer for 11 EU member states due to nitrate in drinking water exceeding 25 mg/L, being half the legal US and EU limit of 50 mg/L (van Grinsven, Rabl and de Kok, 2010).

In 1991, the European Union released the Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) in order to protect water quality in the European Member states, through prevention of nitrate pollution from agricultural sources of ground and surface waters. It also aimed to promote the use of good farming practices.

There are five steps of implementation of the Directive and they will be presented here focusing on what actions were taken in Greece:

1. Identification of polluted or threatened waters (N)

2. Designation of "vulnerable zones" (NVZs) by member states. These are all known areas of land for which:

surface freshwater contains or could contain more than 50 mg nitrates per litre;
groundwater contains more than 50 mg/l nitrate;
natural freshwater lakes, other freshwater bodies, estuaries, coastal waters and marine waters are found to be eutrophic or in the near future may become eutrophic.

In Greece 10 such areas were identified

(1) Thessaly

(2) Argolis

(3) Kopais

(4) Ilia

(5) plain of Thessaloniki

(6) Kilkis

(7) Pella

(8) Imathia,

(9) the basin of the Strymon (Serres), with the lake and Kerkini

(10) the plain of Arta - Preveza.

3. Establishment of Code(s) of good agricultural practice, to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis.

Greece established a Code of Good Agricultural Practice, whose application is voluntary outside the NVZs but compulsory in their interior. These were applied on three of the 10 NVZs: Thessaly (600,000 acres), Kopais (300,000 acres) and Ilia (30,000 acres). The total program budget for 2000-2006 amounted to 111.9 million euros. It should be noted that in 2005 the European Commission threatened to send Greece to the European Court for breach of the nitrates directive.

4. Establishment Action Programmes, to be implemented by farmers within NVZs on a compulsory basis.

The new Plan for “Agri-environmental payments” under certain action 2.1 of measure 214 of the Rural Development Program 2007-2013 "Alexander Baltatzis" will be launched in the first half of 2011. It will include the following areas:

(1) East and West Thessaly and specific regions of the Magnesia prefecture, Larissa, Karditsa and Trikala Fthiotida.

(2) Kopaida and specific areas of the county of Viotia, Fokida and Fthiotida

(3) Basin Penaeus in Ilia, particular areas of Ilia and Achaia.

(4) Argos in particular regions of the Argolis.

(5) Prefectures of Thessaloniki-Kilkis, Pella, Imathia (Lake Koronia).

(6) Strymon Basin in particular areas of the prefecture of Serres.

(7) Plain of Arta-Preveza.

On the 13th of October 2010, the ministry of rural development and food sent an invitation to farmers in affected areas of lake Koronia and Argolis, to submit their interest to join the 5-year program.

5. National monitoring and reporting every 4 years on Nitrates concentrations, Eutrophication, Assessment of Action Programmes impact and Revision of NVZs and Action Programmes. Three such reports have already been produced:

1st action program: 1996-1999 (published in 2002)
2nd action program: 2000-2003 (published in 2007)
3rd action program: 2004-2007 (published in 2010)

Putting Nitrate Directive into the context of Environmental Policy

Going back to the previously discussed environmental policy instruments, in the case of nitrate pollution, the European Union is using regulatory Command-and-Control performance standards in order to reduce nitrate levels. The government compensates farmers in NVZs to persuade them to use either of two methodologies:

A. Combination of resting and permanent reduction of the applied lubricant units

B. Combining rotation, uncultivated margin and reduction of the applied lubricant units.

Even though the new EU Nitrates fact sheet states that overall, the 2004-2007 report indicated good progress towards cleaner water, the results were not as satisfactory as it was hoped. In fact, Greece has been sent to the European courts for not succeeding to reduce nitrate levels to the required level.

But what about market-based instruments to reduce nitrate pollution? A study by Kraemer, Kampa and Interwies (2004) reviewed cases were tradable permits have been used for water pollution control in the US and Australia. They state these cases benefited from solid scientific understanding of the pollution problems in question, existing monitoring infrastructure and enforcement capacities. Europe has now an extended monitoring network in all of its member states, and those areas that were part of the 3rd plan programme of the Nitrate Directive have developed experience in monitoring nitrate levels. In the following figures (European Union website), the number of monitoring station are shown in parentheses next to each country name:

Figure 2. Concentration of nitrate in lakes and rivers in European countries (2006)

A growing interest exists towards applying environmental taxes on chemical substances. The OECD Environmental outlook study (OECD, 2001) investigated a policy mix that would include taxes on chemical use and showed that the chosen policy mix would deliver significantly reduced nitrogen levels at low economic costs. The European Commission also put forward a report for environmental taxes on cadmium in phosphate fertilisers (CEC, 2002). More recently a study analyzed the economics and politics of taxing chemical compounds and the future potential for increased implementation of such taxation policies in Europe (Soderholm and Christiernsson, 2008). They concluded that the choice of tax scheme is important both to ensure cost-effectiveness but also to reduce any political opposition towards them. Concerning, the implementation of such a scheme in Europe, the authors of the study suggest that taxation should be close to environmental damages in order to be considered as fair and that the reduction of transaction costs should be the priority of the policy.

No environmental policy instrument, whether market-based or regulatory (of the command-and-control approach) is guaranteed to work in every case. Whereas environmental taxes and tradable emissions have had some success in reducing CO2 emissions, it is regulatory Command-and-Control non-point source performance standards that are the instruments of choice in the case of water pollution, despite the arguments against them. This could be a result of the goal-oriented approach that it has been taken due to the imposing threat of climate change. However, this does not mean that the market-based instruments will never be applied. On the contrary, both are very likely to contribute to the reduction of water pollution. In my opinion, the best option will be a policy mix, a combination of market-based and command-and-control measures.

Bibliography

Coase, R (1960) "The Problem of Social Cost" Journal of Law and Economics 3:1–44.
Commission of the European Community – CEC (2002) “A possible EU wide charge on cadmium in phosphate fertilizers: economic and environmental implications” Report Number E-00/02, Brussels.
Commission of the European Community – CEC (2008) “20 20 by 2020: Europe’s climate change opportunity.” Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions.
Don Fullerton (2001) "A Framework to Compare Environmental Policies"Southern Economic Journal 68.2: 224-248.
Dowd BM, Press D and Los Huertos M (2008) “Agricultural nonpoint source water pollution policy: The case of California's Central Coast” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 128(3): 151-161.
European Union website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/index_en.html
Goulder LH and Parry WH (2008) “Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy” Review Of Environmental Economics and Policy 2(2):152-174.
Kraemer RA, Kampa, E and Interwies E (2004) “The role of Tradable Permits in Water Pollution Control” Working paper for the Inter-American Development Bank.
OECD (2001) “Environmental outlook study” OECD, Paris.
Pigou, AC ([1920]1932) “The Economics of Welfare” 4th edition, London: Macmillan.
Soderholm P and Christiernsson A (2008) “Policy effectiveness and acceptance in the taxation of environmentally damaging chemical compounds” Environmental Science and Policy 11:240-252.
Stavins, R.N., 2004. Environmental Economics. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 04-54, RFF: Washington.
van Grinsven HJM, Rabl A and de Kok TM (2010) “Estimation of incidence and social cost of colon cancer due to nitrate in drinking water in the EU: a tentative cost-benefit assessment” Environmental Health 9:58.
Bard, JP (2002) “Voluntary Environmental Agreements: Process Practice and Future Use” Edited by Patrick Ten Brink, Greenleaf Publications, UK.

The symphony of science

2010-12-22T19:50:00.000+02:00

I had written previously a post entitled the sound of science. So this is a video of the symphony of science, a musical project headed by John Boswell, designed to deliver scientific knowledge and philosophy in musical form. This video features noted scientists and thinkers, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris, Michael Shermer, Lawrence Krauss, Carolyn Porco, Richard Dawkins, Richard Feynman, Phil Plait, and James Randi.
It is amazing what people make!!!

Lyrics (taken from a Guardian science blogpost):

Russell:
When you are studying any matter
Or considering any philosophy
Ask yourself only: what are the facts,
And what is the truth that the facts bear out

Sagan:
Science is more than a body of knowledge
It's a way of thinking
A way of skeptically interrogating the universe

If we are not able to ask skeptical questions
To be skeptical of those in authority
Then we're up for grabs

Shermer:
In all of science we're looking for a balance
between data and theory

Harris:
You don't have to delude yourself
With Iron age fairy tales

Porco:
The same spiritual fulfillment
That people find in religion
Can be found in science
By coming to know, if you will, the mind of God

Krauss:
The real world, as it actually is,
Is not evil, it's remarkable
And the way to understand the physical world
is to use science

Dawkins:
There is a new wave of reason
Sweeping across America, Britain, Europe, Australia
South America, the Middle East and Africa
There is a new wave of reason
Where superstition had a firm hold

Plait:
Teach a man to reason
And he'll think for a lifetime

Sagan:
Cosmology brings us face to face with the deepest mysteries
With questions that were once treated only
in religion and myth

The desire to be connected with the cosmos
Reflects a profound reality
But we are connected; not in the trivial ways
That Astrology promises, but in the deepest ways

Feynman:
I can't believe the special stories that have been made up
About our relationship to the universe at large
Look at what's out there; it isn't in proportion

Russell:
Never let yourself be diverted
By what you wish to believe
But look only and surely
At what are the facts

Randi:
Enjoy the fantasy, the fun, the stories
But make sure that there's a clear sharp line
Drawn on the floor
To do otherwise is to embrace madness

Consumer debt and mental health

2010-12-07T13:33:00.000+02:00

[I recently applied for a job for which I had to produce a report on consumer debt and mental health. Even though I did not get the job, I did spent sometime to look over the issue so I am posting the report here.]

Consumer debt and mental health

Evidence has shown a clear association between consumer debt and mental health. Given the current financial crisis, extra measures are needed in order to deal with people affected. This note considers the published evidence on the above relationship, examines the current regulations and suggests what policies should be implemented in order to ensure that sensitive approaches are adopted for the benefit of the consumers, the health and social carers, and creditors.

Overview

· There are clear links between consumer debt affecting mental health, and vice versa, even if the direction of causality has not been yet verified.

· Given the current financial crisis, more people will fall in debt, leading to increased demand for mental health services.

· Currently mental health and debt are treated as separate issues. Any links that exist between financial services and health and social sectors are underdeveloped, partly due to legal and regulatory barriers.

· People need to be treated as “patients” and “bank customers” at the same time, so a co-ordinated cross-sector national approach is needed in order to mitigate the problems.

Definitions

Consumer debt: debt incurred by an individual for personal, family or household purposes.
Unsecured debt: if there is no collateral that is security for the debt. Most consumer debts are unsecured.
Problematic consumer debt: when the individual is two or more consecutive payment behind
Mental Health problem: anxiety and stress, depression, self-harm and suicidal thoughts, strain on personal relationships and self-esteem or social exclusion

Background

In 2008, UK households owed over £230 billion in unsecured consumer credit (see definitions box)[1], whereas the proportion of households reporting consumer unsecured debt as a financial burden in 2008 was the highest since 1995[2]. Given that being in debt can have a negative effect on one’s mental health and that those living with a mental health problem are more likely to fall into debt, a large percentage of the national consumer debt mentioned above is owed by people suffering from mental problems.

This percentage is likely to increase even further. Evidence suggests that large economic crises, such as the one we have been experiencing since 2008, have a detrimental effect on the mental health of a population. This is especially true for the vulnerable subgroups (e.g. those with pre-existing mental disorders, the unemployed and those of low socio-economic status)[3]. Many of these subgroups include people with little previous experience of coping with hardship and will thus be at greater risk of mental health problems, as compared to those ‘inured’ to financial insecurity⁵.

Scale of the problem

While there is a number of studies that have looked using different methodologies at the relationship between debt and mental health their majority has either treated all types of debt (mortgage, utilities, consumer, etc) as one, or did not specify what is meant by ‘debt’. For this reason, our evidence comes from 13 studies that have specifically investigated the relationship between consumer debt and mental health, or included consumer debt alongside other debt types[4].

These studies showed that consumer debt has negative effects on people’s mental health: those with consumer debt exhibited lower average levels of psychological well-being, higher levels of stress and depression. It was also found that those with mental health problems are more likely to be in debt. For example, a large UK survey by Mind showed that out of 924 individuals with mental health problems, half had arrears on credit/store cards, one in three on loan repayments and one-in-five on goods bought on hire purchase or mail-order[5].

Awareness

The link between debt and mental health has been recently recognised by a number of governmental departments. The New Horizons report on Mental Health mentioned that intervention to tackle social inequalities such as debt may be of benefit to individual mental health and recommended further research to be carried out around the issue[6]. However, no guidelines or recommendations were mentioned in the report. In addition, the department of Business Innovation and Skills has included specific reference to the issue of mental health in its Consumer White paper^{^[7]} and the Office of Fair Trading has made repeated reference to the difficulties facing people with mental health problems. This recognition has been however for debt in general and not specifically for consumer debt.

A number of non-governmental initiatives have been undertaken in order to increase awareness of the relationship between debt and mental health of health and social care services, money advisors, financial services, government sectors, as well as people suffering from mental health problems. Similarly to the governmental reports above, all these initiatives did not concentrate on consumer debt, but some of them referred to it.

In 2006, the Royal College of Psychiatrists developed ‘Final Demand’ Booklet for health and social care professionals in order to help them respond quickly to the needs of patients who are suffering from mental health and financial problems[8]. They also created a standardised clinical information form, called ‘Debt and Mental Health Evidence Form’ (DMHEF) to be used by health and social care professionals in order to provide their patients with clear information on how to proceed. In 2007, the Money Advice Liaison Group (MALG) provided voluntary guidelines for money advisers and creditors to support the use of DMHEF[9]. More recently, MALG published “Good Practice Awareness Guidelines For Consumers with Mental Health Problems and Debt”[10]. Furthermore, a national campaign was carried out by Mind in 2008 which targeted the financial services as well as various government sectors.

Measures

Despite these efforts, links between financial institutions, money advisers and health and social care services are still severely underdeveloped. This means that the “health” and “debt” components of this issue are mostly addressed separately, making most strategies ineffective[11]. The strategy agreed by all parties is to foster and maintain a coordinated national programme in which all of financial, advice, health and social services would help individuals receive well organised and complementary support, regardless of entry point.

For such a programme to succeed the appropriate legal and organisational infrastructure needs to developed at all entry points, whether these are health and social care services, money advice or financial services. For example, creditors should be legally obliged to train their staff to encourage customer disclosure, especially since people with mental health problems tend to be reluctant to report it. Money advisers should be legally obliged to routinely provide referral services to clients that disclose a mental health problem for which they require support. Finally, all health and social care professionals should receive a basic ‘debt first aid training’, in order to know how to talk with patients about debt and how to refer to and support debt advisers.

In the mean time, new research needs to be commissioned and undertaken on the effects of consumer debt in particular. Not all consumer debt is problematic, research is needed to further understand when it becomes especially problematic, as well as the direction of causality between consumer debt and mental health. In these new studies there needs to be a consistency in the conceptualisation and measurement of debt (e.g. to differentiate consumer debt from other types of debt). Furthermore, a survey of the current practices of all types of financial services concerning costumers suffering from mental health problems, should be carried out.

Endnotes

[1] Bank of England (2008) “Lending to Individuals: December 2008” Bank of England statistical Release, London.

[2] Hellenbrandt. T and Young, G (2008) “The financial position of British households: evidence from the NMG research survey” Quarterly Bulletin (Bank of England) Q4: 384-392

[3] Zivin, K, Paczkowski, M and Galea, S (2010) Economic downturns and population mental health: research findings, gaps, challenges and priorities, Psychological Medicine 14:1-6

[4] Royal College of Psychiatrists (2009) “Debt and Mental health: What do we know? What should we do?” London http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Debt%20and%20mental%20health%20(lit%20review).pdf

[5] Mind (2008) “In the red: debt and mental health” http://www.mind.org.uk/assets/0000/9121/in_the_red.pdf

[6] HM Government (2009) “New Horizons: A shared vision for mental health” http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_109705

[7] Department of Business Innovation and Skills(2009) “A better deal for consumers: delivering real help now and change for the future [Consumer white paper]” http://berr.gov.uk/policies/consumer-issues/consumer-white-paper

[8] Royal Society of Psychiatrists (2006) “Final demand” Booklet http://www.cfebuk.org.uk/pdfs/final_demand.pdf

[9] Money Advice Liaison Group (MALG) (2007) “Guidelines for money advisers and creditors to support the use of DMHEF” http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/DMHEF%20GUIDERCPsych%20webApr%2009.pdf%20(2).pdf

[10] MALG (2009) “Good Practice Awareness Guidelines For Consumers with Mental Health Problems and Debt” http://www.moneyadvicetrust.org/images/Mental_Health_Guidelines_2009.pdf

[11] Jenkins R, Fitch C, Hurlston M, Walker F (2009) “Recession, debt and mental health” Family Medicine Mental Health 6:85-90

My #scipolicy News archive: November 2010

2010-12-06T02:50:00.002+02:00

My #scipolicy News archive: November 2010

My #scipolicy News archive: October 2010 Part C

2010-11-01T03:05:00.000+02:00

My #scipolicy News archive: October 2010 Part C

My #scipolicy News archive: October 2010 Part B

2010-11-01T03:04:00.001+02:00

My #scipolicy News archive: October 2010 Part B

My #scipolicy News archive: October 2010 Part A

2010-11-01T03:02:00.002+02:00

My #scipolicy News archive: October 2010 Part A

The sound of science :)

2010-09-30T23:35:00.002+03:00

Science Policy News: September 2010 Part 3

2010-09-30T22:37:00.000+03:00

I have to say that the last couple of weeks I have been a bit busier than usual so I have not been as attentive as I would have hoped with with the news. Saying this, there is quite a lot of papers in this archive so I hope that is still quite representative. :)

My #scipolicy News archive: September 2010 Part C

Science Policy News: September 2010 Part 2

2010-09-15T14:25:00.001+03:00

So since no one complained, this is the new installment :)

My #scipolicy News archive: September 2010 Part B

i just like this image so i thought I should post it :)

2010-09-15T11:35:00.000+03:00

taken from here

Science Policy News: September 2010 Part 1

2010-09-11T14:27:00.002+03:00

I have mentioned time and time again that I am collecting news, and I am putting them into files. I thought of putting them online in case someone wants to read them. I thought maybe it will save some other people time. :)

PS because I am very careful with copyrights etc, all the articles say where I took them from. But if you find that this is going against rights of any authors, please tell me and I will not put them online. Thanks!

My #scipolicy News archive: September 2010 Part A

a small update - diary entry

2010-09-02T17:05:00.000+03:00

You might have noticed I have been away for a while.

A side of me wants to say: "I wish I could tell you that I've been on holiday". This side is tired.

The other side, however, wants to say: "I have been working on a Youth in Action proposal for the EU!!!". That side is enthusiastic and full of energy.

Both sides are saying the truth. Writing a proposal from scratch by yourself is a difficult thing. Especially if you have no experience like me. I will tell you more about the event this proposal is about, if it gets accepted. I don't want to say anything else, in case I jinx it.

Now that the proposal has been submitted, I have finally started to look around me.

Greece is nowhere near looking like this:

there is still time for:

but I have the feeling that children get around this time. Well... some children, i bet a lot of them don't. I always liked school because it meant I had a lot more company of my age - you guessed correctly I was an only child. So let me rephrase - I have the feeling I used to get as a child around this time: Athens is full of people again, shops are selling school things, the temperature dropped below the high 30s it has been for most of the summer, etc etc. All these lead me to think that a brand new year is starting. And I am highly optimistic and enthusiastic about it! :):)

This year will be interesting!!! For me and for this blog. I am continuing on my quest to understand the relationship between science and society, through my own reading. At the same time I am starting a Masters course on Public Policy and Management, so that i can understand a bit more the economics and the politics that affect Science Policy. If my proposal gets accepted I will have all sorts of other news. Maybe some news from my work too.

So I want to wish you a happy new year! :):)

Science and Society: My analysis of the Eurobarometer (1)

2010-07-29T22:07:00.002+03:00

So I finally finished gathering my data and did my plots. Before I get into specifics about what exactly did the Greek sample say, I want to mention four things that I found striking:

there was significantly more emphasis in the Greek answers: Even though, in most questions their beliefs appear to be similar to those of other Europeans, their answers were more "emphatic" i.e. their answers were less divided compared to other EU countries. I noticed this by eye, and in an effort to "quantify" it, I ranked all European countries according to their responses using the graph charts presented in the Eurobarometer report. In these graphs, the countries were plotted in descending order, according to the value of the majority and minority percentages in those questions. The country on the far left was thus ranked "1" since it showed the greatest majority percentage. Similarly the country on the far right was ranked "28" (the average of all 27 EU countries was included in the ranking).

In the following graph I present the distribution of rankings of the EU27 average:
As expected the average of "EU27 average" (as calculated in the report) rankings was 15, i.e. in the middle. The EU27 average rankings ranged from 11 to 19.

I did not calculate the rankings for all countries - that would be too much work I am afraid. I first calculated them for Greece and the UK, given that these are the countries I am comparing here. I also calculated them for Italy (as an example of another Mediterranean country), Germany (a central European country with a strong science base and a long history of science communication, to make sure that there is no "UK vs the continent" bias) and Denmark (as an example of a country widely known for being very technologically advanced and innovative).

I could have chosen other countries for these comparisons. For example, I could have chosen Cyprus as the Mediterranean example, but a lot of the answers of the Cypriot sample were too similar to the Greek sample. I found this also very interesting (is this an example of how culture shapes people's relationship with S&T?).

Here are the equivalent to the above plot for each of the countries mentioned above:

When the graphs above are compared, one sees that the majority of the Greek sample's rankings tended to be a lot higher, whereas the majority of the UK sample's rankings tended to be lower compared to the other countries. The average ranking for Greece was 9 and for UK was 17, whereas for Italy was 16, for Germany was 14 and Denmark was 14.
The Italian, German and Danish ranking ranges look very similar - spread out over the whole range.
they replied a lot more than the EU average: the average "Don't Knows" for Greece was 2% whereas for the EU27 averages was 5%. Thus, Greek people seemed more sure about what to reply compared to all other Europeans. I calculated this to look at the "ignorance" factor, which could have lead to the above emphasis. I.e. it could be that the results in point 1 above were so striking because Greek people did not know what to answer. But this does not seem to be the case.
the Greek sample seemed a bit confused on what they feel about S&T: in many questions Greek people were positive about S&T but in even more questions they were negative about it. This is striking given the emphasis with which the answered these questions. More on this point in the following posts and in my concluding post.
the difference in the rankings of Greece and UK were striking: in most questions they were on the opposite ends of the plots!

So these are some general conclusions I drove from the whole analysis. In the following posts, I will look at those questions on which the answers were most interesting.

Research and more in crisis

2010-07-14T20:53:00.000+03:00

On the 8th of July, my article on Research policy in Greece was published in ResearchEurope.

Why am I surprised?

2010-07-10T19:12:00.009+03:00

One could say that in this blog, I focus too much on UK science policy news, or generally UK science-related events, trends etc. I have to admit, I find them a tiny bit easier to understand, given that I did all my studying in the UK.

But there is another reason why I focus on the UK. I am still a bit scared to look at what is happening in Greece. Probably, since 2002, when as a naive 2nd year undergraduate, right in the middle of my tree-hugging phase, I looked online to find out what my government's views were on GM. I was against GM back then, so I was happy to read that the Greek government was too. However, the reality was very different. Since the government did very little to control GM crops, there were many GM fields in Greece. If I remember correctly, they had to burn huge areas when they found out about them, in order to show they were truly against GM. I was very disappointed to say the least.

My problem with science policy issues - e.g. libel law, abortion, animal rights, MMR, homeopathy, etc - is that I have huge gaps in my knowledge since I only recently started to be interested in them. I have no idea what are the facts, what are the arguments for and against, for many of these issues. Immersed in my world of theoretical genomics, I did not really pay attention when I was in the UK. This was a good thing in a way, because I managed to get my PhD very young, but on the other hand, I now feel completely overwhelmed. Don't worry, you might say, there is plenty of time. You are right.

Homeopathy is one of the issues I know nothing about in terms of policy. I have met people of course that use it regularly, but i have no idea what is going on exactly with doctor certification, government expenditure, etc.

I have to admit that when I was 13 I went to a homeopathic practitioner. Well, I did not have an appointment as such: I was on holiday with my parents, when a common friend told me to go visit him at his holiday home. The reason she sent me was that when she gave me a massage, she found that apparently "I had too much garbage in me". I did not do the therapy he suggested for long - it was ridiculous! - and the whole story was forgotten. I still remember how traumatising the "garbage" thing was. But then again a lot of doctors have told me a lot of traumatising things, so that is a different story.

I only recently found out about the efforts of Dr Evan Harris and many many others, to make sure that there is proof that all homeopathic drugs provided by the NHS improve people's health better than a placebo. This is an idea that makes COMPLETE sense to me and I am finding it very hard to understand why would someone not agree with such a statement. Also, I only recently found out that homeopathic medicines are so diluted that the chances that you actually get what it says on the label are almost zero.

This is how far my knowledge stretches on the issue in the UK, and I have not had the time to find out what the situation is like in Greece.

Until yesterday.

It all started when my boss told me in the middle of a completely unrelated conversation "Don't you know about George Vithoulkas?". Of course I hadn't. "He got the Alternative Nobel Prize, look him up!", he continued. My boss is a bit like President Bartlett in the West Wing: he makes me look up completely unrelated things just for the shake of it (I have to say, I do not mind when he does this, given how poor my general knowledge is). So... I looked him up.

George Vithoulkas:

studied homeopathy in South Africa and received a diploma in homeopathy from the Indian Institute of Homeopathy in 1966. Upon receiving his diploma, he returned to Greece where he practiced and began teaching classical homeopathy to medical doctors at what eventually became the Center of Homeopathic Medicine in Athens. In 1972, Vithoulkas started a Greek homeopathic journal, Homeopathic Medicine. In 1976, he organized the first of an annual series of International Homeopathic Seminars. In 1994, he opened the International Academy of Classical Homeopathy on Alonissos, which provides post-graduate training for homeopaths

Vithoulkas has authored a number of books on homeopathy, two of which "Homeopathy: Medicine of the New Man" and "The Science of Homeopathy" have been translated extensively, and is currently writing Materia Medica Viva, a homeopathic materia medica or reference work on homeopathic remedies, to reach 16 volumes when finished.

All this won him in 1996 the Right Livelihood Award - known as the Alternative Nobel Prize - for his outstanding contribution to Classical Homeopathy.

Maybe he knows how outrageous it is that a postgraduate course for homeopaths exists officially at a Greek University, since he seems almost surprised when he boasts about it on his website:

But the climax of homeopathy’s educational recognition in Greece is the publication in the FEK (Government’s Gazette) (1912/issue b’, 29.12.2006) regarding the authorization for a Program of Master Degree Studies in the University of the Aegean for medical doctors and dentists with the title “Holistic Alternative Therapeutic Systems–Classical Homeopathy” (duration: 2 years- www.syros.aegean.gr/homeopathy). In this Program of Master Degree Studies will participate the International Academy of Classical Homeopathy and Professor George Vithoulkas.

What is the name of department that this course belongs to? The Department of "Product and Systems Design Engineering". This department which also provides one graduate studies program (5-year B.Eng. degree: Product and Systems Design Engineering) and another MSc studies program (Design of Interactive and Industrial Products and Systems).

In what parallel universe does a homeopathy course fit in a university that is mainly focused on engineering? How did the government give its consent for such a course??

My boss told me that it is the only postgraduate course in Europe on Homeopathy. I briefly looked it up and discovered that it is definitely not the only one: there is the Homeopathy by e-learning at School of Nursing & Caring Sciences, University of Central Lancashire.

Then I read at the website of the European Committee for Homeopathy

Postgraduate training courses in homeopathy for doctors are provided at universities in Bulgaria, France, Italy, Lithuania and Spain, in other countries at private teaching centres.
Homeopathy is an official part of the Continuous Education Programme for doctors in Hungary and Romania.
A lectureship specifically for homeopathy exists only in the Netherlands (Amsterdam), a professorial chair of CAM including homeopathy in Hungary (Pécs) and Switzerland (Bern).

And I quote only the part on postgraduate courses. There is more on where this came from.

So... On the positive side, Greece is not the only country that provides approved university MSc courses on homeopathy. On the negative side, one of the internationally most recognized supporters of Homeopathy is Greek.

Given that the positive side is not that positive and the negative side is very negative, this is of course a very disappointing reality.

But... why am I surprised?

Science and Society: step 2 is to plot the data...

2010-07-02T10:26:00.001+03:00

This is just a teaser of the data i am plotting. This is maybe the question that has the biggest difference between Greece and the UK, but I am half way through all the eurobarometer tables.

So a lot more Greek people feel that "because of their knowledge, scientists have a power that makes them dangerous". When all EU27 countries are ranked according to their belief in this statement, Greece is on the one end of the spectrum (2nd most agreeing) and the UK is at the other end of the spectrum (6th least agreeing).

Could this maybe be part of the explanation to my question, for the difference between the two countries?

Science and Society: step 1 is to set the question...

2010-06-28T14:19:00.000+03:00

Why is there reaction to science-related issues in some countries, and in others not so much?

Having lived for almost a decade in a country where there were big reactions to science issues (MMR, mad cow, etc), and having moved back to a country where the reactions are not so big - one could say non-existent - it makes me wonder why is this the case?

Of course it comes down to society, but why? What I mean is, of course there are big differences between the British and Greek societies, but which of these differences cause reaction in the former and not in the latter?

This question has been brewing in my mind for quite sometime now since it is different to communicate science to a society that is against it, than to a society that simply does not care. (A related question: why it does not care?)

Ι decided to set the task of answering the question above when I read the rapid response of some people in - once again - the UK.

In a recent comment, Guardian columnist Simon Jenkins (you can find the article here), basically said that scientists, with Martin Rees and Lord May as their archbishops, "just want money" "based on faith, not reason". Jennifer Rohn, two days later published a post in her blog were she "proposed making Monday," today that is, "Spoof Jenks day, with bloggers taking the opportunity to writing an anti-science post in the style of Simon Jenkins". The idea was well received and in just 2 days there were not 1, not 2, not 5 but 11 Spoof Jenkins posts (you can find them at the end of this post but for a more updated list please check at the original post by Jennifer Rohn). Please also use the "#SpoofJenks" hashtag on twitter.

So this is a science-related issue and there was a fast reaction from the scientists. (I am so damn impressed when the reaction is so great!). In other cases, it is the creationists that react fast. I does not matter who does. Here I am talking about the reaction itself.

It makes me wonder, why is it that in the UK, in France, in the US, in Germany, etc there are reactions whereas in other countries there are not that many? Is it just my unfamiliarity with Greek reality or is this truly the case?

So, for the next couple of months this is what I will be thinking about... any help, ideas, will be much appreciated!

PS. The SpoofJenks posts
1. Get over it, scientists: your cushy days are numbered
2. Urgent new priority for UK science
3. A Mammoth of Research
4.Jenks from tectum to rectum
5. Perpetual Poetry in Motion
6. Not a guest post and not by Simon Jenkins
7. Simon Jenkins collects his tithe
8. A day in the life of Simon Jenkins
9. We know too much
10. Cancer: Scaremongering 'Scientists' Ramp Up The Fear
11. Bloody scientists think they know everything

Skeptic Park: absolutely brilliant!

2010-06-27T01:59:00.002+03:00

I haven't posted about things I found amazing for a while. The truth is I can't believe i just found this!

Can you believe there is a South Park for Science, Reason and Critical thinking?!? The blogger who made these amazing strips is Crispian Jago and his blogspot is: http://crispian-jago.blogspot.com/. Skeptic Park is absolutely brilliant as is of course his whole blog!!!!

EPISODE 1:

EPISODE 2:

EPISODE 3:

I can't wait for more!!!!

an easy guide to remember what a SNP is

2010-05-19T01:58:00.007+03:00

We read about SNPs (pronounced snips) in the papers and online, we hear about them on TV, on the radio and in people's conversations. But what are they?

A SNP is used to understand someone's Story - which population they belong to and who were his/her ancestors - and what makes them the Person they are - what do they carry in their DNA.

Thus, SNPs are used to find someone's S and P i.e. SNP.

----

A SNP stands for Single Nucleotide Polymorphism.

Consider our DNA as a very very very long road, with millions of houses - which we call nucleotides - each of which has an address - we call this its "position" or "co-ordinate". Thus when we talk about a single nucleotide, we talk about 1 of the, 6 billion in the case of humans, houses that make up our road.

There are 4 types of nucleotides/houses (we call these alleles): blue (Cytosine or C), green (Adenine or A), yellow (Guanine or G), red (Thymine or T). If the houses in the photo above were a nucleotide sequence, this would have been GCTATG.

But a SNP is not just a single nucleotide, it is a single nucleotide polymorphism. What is meant by polymorphism is that the house in the middle of the photo above, say the house with address 17854853, in my road is of a different colour than the house of the same address in your road. In this case, mine is green whereas yours could be blue. In biology talk, this is equivalent to "there is a SNP at position 17854853, where I have allele A and you have allele C".

In order for a house to be called a SNP, it is required for at least 1% of the human population to have a different type of house (allele) at that address than the rest. As a result SNPs are not very common: on average only 1 in 1000 houses is different between two individuals.

"So far so good" you could say, "but why is your house green and mine blue?".

The answer is mutation. When DNA gets copied (mitosis) or when it is split in two sets of chromosomes to produce the cells that can give rise to a new organism (the gametes, i.e. the sperm and the egg), mistakes happen. What I mean by mistake is that sometimes the house changes colour, but it can also mean that a house is destroyed (i.e. deleted) or a new house can be inserted.

But this does not exactly explain your question: it only tells you why our houses in this specific address are different, but not why my house in this particular address is green and not red, and yours is blue and not yellow.

This is where the S and P come in. My house is green and yours is blue either because our ancestors were different (the S part) or because a mistake was made when either one of us got created (the P part).

----

We' ll consider at the S part first. Lets say that the tree below is a tiny part of the "tree of life". I am the green dot and you are the blue dot. You will be happy to know that we closely related since we had a common ancestor just near the green line.

(image modified from http://dragonartz.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/_vector-tree-preview2-by-dragonart.png?w=495&h=495)

Our common ancestor had a green house at address 17854853 of his/her road. This ancestor had two kids, one of which is my ancestor and the other is your ancestor. A mistake was made when your ancestor was created and his house turned from green to blue. And just so that you do not get offended, mistakes are not necessarily bad. They can be good (advantageous mutation), bad (disadvantageous mutations) or they can make no difference whatsoever (neutral mutations). We now know that most often mistakes make no difference.

So the reason why my house is green and yours is blue is explained by who were our ancestors! Differences are explained by our history but this also means that looking at these differences we can understand our history. Find out what is our story. And this is one of the two reasons why SNPs are important: they allow us to understand where we come from and why we are the way we are!!!

Let me give you an example. I choose lactase persistence since it is a very clear and very famous example and because one of the people I worked with during my PhD worked on this.

Lactase is the enzyme that digests the lactose in milk. In some humans lactase activity decreases after weaning (we call these lactose intolerant). In others, lactase activity persists at a high level throughout adult life (we call these lactorse tolerant). Biologists wanted to find out how did this difference arise, what makes these individuals different. For this reason they had to find the SNPs associated with lactase persistence.

Two SNPs have been identified as the best able to explain why one individual is able to digest lactose and another one isn't. The first is "rs4988235 (−13910C→T)".

Don't be scared! All this means is that:

the name of the SNP/house is rs4988235,
the SNP/house is found 13910 houses before the start of the LCT gene, the gene makes the lactase enzyme (for the record the house's actual address is 136325115),
the house can be either of type blue (C) or red (T), and
the ancestral house was of type blue (C) so when one has that type of house is lactose intolerant, whereas if their house is red (T) they are lactose tolerant.

The other SNP is "rs182549 (−22018G→A)". You can now guess what this SNP is from my explanation above.

What Bersaglieri et al (2004) did was to look at those two SNP addresses in a number of individuals and count how many of them had one type of house or the other. In other words they wanted to determine the frequencies of the persistence-associated alleles (T in SNP rs4988235 and A in SNP rs182549). The individuals they used came from three populations (European Americans, African Americans, and East Asians) and for each of these individuals they knew if they were lactose tolerant or intolerant. What they found was a correlation between how common were the persistence-associated alleles and the level of lactose persistence in a population. European Americans, the population with the most lactose tolerant individuals, had the greatest percentage of persistence-associated alleles in these SNPs(77%). In contrast, the other two populations show low lactose tolerance and they have the lowest frequencies of persistence-associated alleles in these SNPs (13-14% in African Americans and 0% in East Asians).

So what did we understand about human history from looking at these SNPs? Based on this data, Bersaglieri et al (2004) estimated that these mistakes (C to T in SNP rs4988235 and G to A for SNP rs182549) rapidly became more common at a time near the estimated origin of dairy farming in northern Europe i.e. ∼9,000 years ago. They thus concluded that added nutrition from dairy appears to have provided an advantage in northern Europe. When dairy farming appeared, humans could not drink the milk. Mistakes happened in the DNA of some of these people and since being able to digest lactose gave an advantage, these mistakes spread through the population (i.e. the frequency of the persistence-associated alleles increased). In fact, these mistakes are in the top 3 of the most advantageous mistakes estimated to date.

------

Now lets talk about the P.

Our DNA does not only tell us about our past, but also about our present and our future. In other words, it tells us what we are and what does this mean in terms of our future. We get this information, in other words we understand what makes us the Person we are, when we compare our DNA to that of others. And one of the main reasons we want to do these comparisons is for our health. To predict what will happen to out state of health in the future. I will use cancer as an example.

Almost a decade after the sequencing of the human genome, new technologies have been developed that - given this sequence - make the creation of individual "SNP maps" or "SNP profiles" easier and easier. They also - and maybe more important - make it a lot cheaper.

But what are SNP maps? (I will use SNP maps from now on but SNP maps and SNP profiles are the same thing).

As I mentioned before, most of our DNA does not differ from person to person. Thus, in order to understand what causes our phenotypic differences - e.g. why do I get breast cancer and you are not - we do not need to compare the whole of our genomes. We only need to look at those addresses where there are known differences in the types of house found there. In other words we just need to look at the parts of our DNA which are polymorphic. Our SNPs that is.

A SNP map is like a registry that says what type of house (allele) we have in those addresses (houses) which are known to differ between individuals. It looks a bit like this: individual X at SNP rs4278313 (whose address is 105123) has allele C, at SNP rs9708285 (whose address is 105195) has allele T, at SNP rs9751025 (whose address is 105213) has allele A, etc etc.

But this is not the only source of information that doctors have for each cancer patient: they also know about their phenotype i.e. what cancer they have, for how long, what treatment worked for them and what did not, their sex, their age, their lifestyle choices, etc. etc.

You may now ask me "since doctors have all this other information, why are SNP maps helpful?".

The reason why SNP maps are important is that they can lead to faster and personalised medicine since they can be used

(a) for the better understanding of the cancer (red part of the following figure) but also

(b) for diagnosis and personalised treatment (blue part of the following figure) .

I would say that currently we are mainly using them for the former, but i will explain both of these below.

(taken from http://nci.nih.gov/images/Documents/f6e06278-e717-4465-b5b4-fda72f95584b/cancer41.jpg)

(a) understanding the biology of cancer: when scientists compare SNP maps of individuals with the same cancer, they can find in which SNPs these patients have the same allele and therefore which are the candidates for the cancer-causing mistakes (mutations). In other words, if individual A and individual B both have prostate cancer and they also have allele T at SNP rs4430796, allele G at SNP rs7501939 and allele C rs3760511 C, when men without prostate cancer have C, A and A respectively, then scientists assume that these SNPs are likely to be associated with this cancer. Of course these comparisons happen with a large number of individuals from many populations.

Similarly, SNP profiles can be compared to better understand the response to cancer treatments. If individual A and individual B both have prostate cancer, both got a lot better when prescribed a specific drug and both have the same alleles at a number of their SNPs, then scientists assume that these SNPs a likely to be associated not only with this cancer but also with this treatment.

(b) diagnosis and treatment planning: the stage above is aiming at personalised medicine. In the previous scenario it means that once the SNPs most associated with this cancer have been identified, a test is created to test each man for this set of SNPs. If they are found to have the cancer-causing alleles in these addresses then they have to check their prostate a lot more often than others who do not. In this way the cancer can be diagnosed in the earliest stage, increasing the chances of those people of living a long life. By the way, the first such test exists. A company called Proactive Genomics created two years ago the

Focus5™ Prostate Cancer Risk Test.

What stage (a) is aiming at is the following scenario: patient enters the room, doctor compares the patient's SNP map to the SNP maps of cancer patients. From this comparison the doctor is able to identify immediately, not only the specific nature of the cancer of the patient but also the best treatment for this particular patient. Cancer is diagnosed and treated at a very early stage and patient has less chances of dying because of the cancer.

However, we should not forget the ethics of this "mapping" and also to take into account the patient's psychology. Patients react differently to news about their health. They make a number of decisions some of which could prolong their lives, but others may have the opposite effect. The question you need to ask yourself is: Would you like to know that there is a probability that you will get cancer? Would you have liked to know this at the age of 18? Or 15? or 5? Would you like other people to know about this? Will it be possible for you to restrict who knows and who doesn't? How is this knowledge going to affect your life?

-----

So from now on, when you see or hear something about SNPs remember your S and your P: remember that the importance of SNPs is that they can tell us things about our hiStory and they can lead to Personalised medicine.

THE SCIENCE VOTE (#SCIVOTE) MOVEMENT: ORIGINS

2010-05-18T15:35:00.006+03:00

Over the last 3 weeks I have been following very closely what was happening before, during and after the recent UK elections but from a scientist's point of view. I copy-pasted every article I could find into Word documents. In the end, these Word documents were more than 300 pages long. I also read all of them and I have been following the twitter discussions as well.

Finally, I wrote the following article for a major Greek newspaper (for those of you who understand Greek and this will not all "sound Greek to you" the weblink for the Το κίνημα "Ψήφος στην επιστήμη" paper is http://www.vimaideon.gr). This is my attempt to translate it. I am saying attempt because the language centre of my brain does not understand anymore which are Greek expressions and which English.

I would really appreciate it if any of the people that were actually part of this movement could tell me which points I've understood wrongly: a third-party always sees things differently and a lot of times not correctly. I can think of many points that might be wrong or annoy people.

THE SCIENCE VOTE MOVEMENT: ORIGINS

The Lisbon Treaty and then European Strategy for 2020 stressed, ambitiously perhaps, the importance of long term investment in knowledge - produced through science and technology - as the only way of exiting from the financial crisis. Politicians in every corner of Europe (and beyond) indicate that the goal of modern society should be a knowledge-based economy.

Nevertheless - whereas the U.S.A., China and India increased their funding for science - Great Britain and other European countries in their general panic to reduce public deficit and debt, announced cuts in public investment in science and technology. In other words, although governments recognize the importance of these investments, they do not apply them. In this way they are risking the future of their country, since a reduction in funding today will lead to future lack of scientific expertise needed to boost economic growth. [businesses seem to agree already on this]

Many British people noticed this paradox during the recent election campaign and their disagreement resulted in the "Science Vote" movement or «#scivote» if one is to use twitter terminology. But what is this movement? What were its aims? Did it succeed in British elections? What is its significance for Greece?

WHEN VOTES MET SCIENCE

Two months before the British elections of May 6th, most people would have bet on a victory of the Conservatives, a party that had made it clear in their manifesto and before the elections that they would promote the greatest and more immediate reductions in the budget for Science and Technology. Faced with this frightening scenario, natural and social scientists, science journalists, skeptics and bloggers united to bring for the first time in the center of discussions fundamental issues concerning science, such as funding, free speech, the importance of evidence-based policy, etc. This had never happened in any country.

The first members of the «#scivote» movement, also could be called "science activists", decided to turn any votes to "science votes" i.e. to inform the British public on the scientific policies of each party, in order to enable them to judge and vote for the party with the best science policy.

The first to react was the non-profit organization "Campaign for Science and Technology" (CaSE), who on the 8th of March 2010, with the support of many major British scientists sent a letter in the Times to the political parties asking them to submit a detailed "scientific" manifesto.

One day later, on March the 9th, the Royal Society of Chemistry organized the first "scientific debate" and first public debate in the House of Commons streamed live over the Internet. In this debate took part representatives from the three major parties. The Liberal Democratic Party was represented by Dr Evan Harris, a leading supporter of and perhaps on the most active politicians in science and technology issues for over a decade. For example, he was a supporter of the reform of libel law in the UK, which made a lot of scientists afraid of speaking in public about their research and their views, in case they were sued by large organisations whose interests were affected [as it happened with Simon Singh]. Of course, not everyone reacted positively to Dr. Evan Harris's actions: extremists named him "Dr. Death", because of his views on abortion, euthanasia, stem cells and animal experiments.

These two events provided an initial impetus to the «#scivote» movement and, thanks to Twitter among other reasons, the movement quickly grew larger. Of particular help was that the Minister for Science, Lord Drayson, like many members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, had a strong and constant presence on twitter. Therefore, through the use of new web tools, there has been over the past few months continuous and direct dialogue on issues of science policy because the views of the movement reached directly the ears of politicians.

The voice of science activists was so strong that it even reached the media. Despite the heat of the election season, there was an increased focus on science in the press: in the last weeks before the election, Mark Henderson in the Times Eureka blog and Martin Robbins in the Guardian, wrote almost daily on scientific policy. The latter - together with five of the most famous British scientists - asked all political parties the same ten questions, so that British people are able to easily compare the science policies of the parties.

After an election season with so many "firsts", those who had bet on a clear victory of the conservatives were regretting it. Nick Clegg, the LibDem leader, had unexpected success in the television debates and in the polls the percentage of his party was increasing. This positive atmosphere gave hope to many members of the «#scivote» movement, since the LibDems were the party that understood the contribution of science and technology in the recovery from the crisis the best. Hence, the slogan «geek the vote, vote LibDems» was created.

THE DAY OF CRISIS

May 6th, 2010. Conservatives get 36.1% of the vote, Labour 29% and the LibDems 23%. As many feared there was a hung parliament, a result of "European style" as some people put it, which shocked Britain. Shocked was the «#scivote» movement as well. "Did we lose?" they whispered. "Were the polls so wrong? Did nobody read the articles we wrote in the press and online?". Anyone would be thinking the same since at first glance the results actually looked like a "disaster":

The number of MPs who were in some way related to science and technology declined from 86 to 71 and only one of the old "science activists" would be present in the parliament. Of the remaining, some retired and others did not get elected. In the second category is Dr Evan Harris, one of the "leaders" of the movement, who lost for 176 votes.
Secondly, the Liberal Democrats, the party that expresses best the beliefs of the «#scivote» movement, not only did not win seats as was expected from the very positive election exit polls, but lost five seats (out of the 62 that they had, they got only 57 seats in the recent elections).

Looking closer however, it revealed that the results are not as disastrous as they seem. It might be true that some of the previous MPs positive towards science did not get elected, but many of the newcomers also have a background related to science. The absence of Dr Evan Harris, remains really tragic however. Nor the LibDem performance was that disappointing: the share of votes did not fall as would be expected given the decrease in the number of seats, but increased from 22.1% in 2005 to 23% in 2010. The problem was the "First-Past-The-Post" electoral system, which is considered by many (among them the LibDems) as a system that does not represent what the public wants.

THE PUBLIC SPOKE BUT WHAT DID IT SAY?

For nearly five days after the election, Nick Clegg has negotiated with the two major parties so that they can agree on a coalition. Finally, on Tuesday, May the 11th it was announced that there would be a coalition between the LibDems and the Conservatives.

The fact that the LibDems would be part of the government and therefore had some influence in the administration of the country, did not relieve science activists. Clegg would be able to negotiate only a few points in the coalition agreement between two parties. It would therefore be unlikely that one of them was science. Furthermore, the scientific policy of the Conservatives differ considerably from that of the LibDems, so it was even more unlikely to find a compromise so quickly. For example, the Conservatives support the creation of nuclear power plants, while the Liberals are completely opposed to it.

All would be judged by the agreement between two parties, announced in the afternoon of Wednesday, May 12th, followed by the first public speech of the two leaders of the coalition. This agreement did not clarify at all the situation since it did not contain even once the word science. Instead, it resulted in new questions. "Why did they not mention science? Did they not discuss the issue or did they disagree on many points?" wondered members of the "#scivote" movement.

Their hopes were not lost though. Key would be who would be chosen for the positions of Secretary of State for Enterprise, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and Science and Universities Minister.

After almost a week of suspense for the «#scivote» movement, finally came some good news. First it was announced that Secretary of State for Enterprise, Innovation and Skills would be a LibDem, Dr Vince Cable, who has a degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University and a Ph.D. in Economics. Shortly afterwards it was announced that the Conservative David Willetts was appointed Minister of Science and Universities, also known as "two brains" because of his residing hairline, but also because of his cleverness. Willetts studied Politics, Philosophy and Economics at Oxford University. This option was particularly welcome because Willetts had argued in 2007 that science had important role in all sectors of society and that it was essential for all members of the cabinet to appreciate the importance of science and technology in making policy decisions.

AND NOW WHAT?

The team Cable-Willetts was that best that science activists could hope given the current allocation of seats in the British Parliament. It is a great advantage that both ministers are members of the cabinet, and thus they will be able to express their views on science and other issues. An even greater advantage, however, is that the LibDem Dr Vince Cable will oversee Willetts, a smart Conservative, who is pro-science, who also had the respect of Chancellor George Osborne, the one who will approve all ministerial decisions in the new government. Therefore, the future of British science will be influenced by a team with good awareness of the state of science policy before they even begin, and who has the tools and the conditions to bring good science policy about.

Of course not everything is perfect. Many would prefer an practicing scientist in the position of Minister of Science. Also, the movement did not agree with everything Cable and Willetts have said in the past. An important role will also play who will be the members of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. There are many battles to be fought in the parliament and outside in order to even keep the British science at its current high level.

The elections were only the beginning. The first battle in which no one can say with certainty whether the "science vote" movement lost or won. On the one hand, the elections reminded members of the movement that they remain a minority. That said, we they should be proud because, as the former Minister of Science Lord Drayson said "#scivote now has a real voice & influence in politics so keep it up! And support the next science minister whoever she/he is".

Now the "#scivote" movement should begin the important and urgent task of educating new MPs on scientific matters. Of convincing party members that science is more than one source of information and knowledge. That it is an important driver of the economy that will play a crucial attention to major issues such as energy independence, and that there should be strong support, even in times of economic cutbacks.

Also, the movement should push for a system that will not be based solely on public funding, but also a "charity-capitalist" organizations, such as The Wellcome Trust, which by their nature are long-term strategy and ambitious and risky objectives which governments by their very nature could never be set.

Furthermore, activists of science should not just preach to the believers. They should turn to those who have not had an interest so far for scientific policy, because only in this way there will changes in the way politics is practiced. Finally, they must convince the new Minister of Science and Universities to use twitter, in order to continue the constructive dialogue they had with the previous minister.

If the "science vote" movement does not act in continuity and consistency, it is certain that science will be one of the areas most affected by the crisis, and thus there will be uncertainty for the future.

But the important thing is that thanks to the science activists, for the first time in history science and technology became an election campaign issue. We must therefore ask ourselves what were the circumstances and why did this movement leave today the area of consensus and entered politics.

Could such a phenomenon have been created in other countries, such as Greece?

NOTE: some of the ideas/thoughts of this article were taken by the various articles I read. I will be linking to these articles in the next few days.

UK Election and #SciVote (1)

2010-05-07T16:46:00.000+03:00

Just because I am a geek, I decided to do a little exercise of my own even before the we even know what the government in the UK will be.

First of all for "after-election" articles related to science vote from people that actually know about this topic please click here , here and here.

What I did is that I took the list of MPs published in the Eureka Zone Times paper by Mark Henderson last week.

Given this list, I added next to each constituency the candidate that won. For those where there was information on science background in THAT list I kept this information.
You can find both the original list and the "after election" list here.

So there are 2 massive problems with this dataset:
1) not all 650 constituents are on there and
2) when we say that an MP has a science background as Mark Henderson mentioned

"we don't mean to suggest that you need to have a background in science to become an effective Commons advocate for it" and
a background in science does not necessarily mean that an MP will be actively engaged in it, or promote it in Parliament.

So you could say "what is the point of all the graphs you made?". As a scientist I do feel very awkward about the plots that I will show you, but because I have already spent too much time on this, and because I do not really have the time to go look in detail all the backgrounds of all 650 MPs, I decided to post them anyway. In addition, I am pretty sure that the people who are dealing with these issues (like the authors of the papers I mentioned above) will be doing this work anyway, so it will be a bit redundant if I did something like this. Especially since I do not have knowledge of the "political history" of each MP (e.g. what bills s/he voted and so on.

What I am saying is, I am aware that the following plots are not very well evidence-based and that they could lead to misinterpretation. If you are ok with this please read on, otherwise please leave this post (hopefully not the whole blog :P).

OK so here we go....

Out of 155 constituancies (I found a double in the list from the Times article), 70 had a "science background" and the last one for which right now we do not have the results is likely to be the 71st that is mentioned in the new article by Mark Henderson.

Out of the 70 MPs with "science background" 36 have degrees in the "hard sciences" i.e. physics, maths, chemistry, biology etc, 19 had degrees in engineering, 9 are medical doctors or dentists and for the rest it is not specified even though they are stated as having a "science background". Most of these belong to the Science and Technology Committees or held science related roles in the past (correct me if I am wrong since once again I did not have the time to check this: Graham Stringer, Malcolm Wicks, Adam Afriyie, Roberta Blackman-Woods, Rob Flello).

So then I wanted to see what is the distribution of MPs in the different parties once they have been sorted according to background:

And then I looked at each party separately:

The results are not unexpected given all those articles I have been reading the last two weeks on which I will report soon (hopefully). LIBDEMs is the party who has more MPs with science background" than with "non-science or unknown background". Labour has more or less equal proportions whereas the Conservatives (and other parties) have a higher proportion of MPs with non-science or unknown backgrounds.

So this is my little research. Of course any comments are MORE THAN WELCOME!!!

I repeat that the information I had was only for 155 constituencies out of 650 and that having a "science background" does not make you necessarily more likely to "defend science". I am not claiming that this is a complete research.

But the results are interesting nevertheless! :)

digital literates vs illiterates: are we going towards the right direction?

2010-04-30T20:33:00.000+03:00

blogs (308) information (2670) papers (398) reports (147) knowledge (1)

created at TagCrowd.com

I made a cloud of what I have been doing the last few weeks related to this blog. As you can see I have been receiving a lot of information, or rather, collecting it since I have not read everything I have tagged, starred, downloaded, printed - yes, yes, I said printed you read correctly (sometimes i like to print stuff, don't judge me).

But you can also see from this cloud why I have not written anything. The ratio between information and knowledge is massive. That is why I decided to stop. And if I miss things, which I am sure I will, then I can catch up later.

But I did not write this post to whine. Fortunately or unfortunately I am not a whiner. I wrote this post to make a little comment. A naive comment. A comment which might sound a bit weird from someone that believes in the importance of knowledge and the equal and open access to knowledge.

THERE IS TOO MUCH INFORMATION OUT THERE!

Seriously! Have you noticed???

It is not as if I have been "away" for the last 5 years.

I have been online, I have been looking and searching.

The only thing I am doing different now, compared to... say... 3 years ago is that I am looking online for something that is very new to me. And relatively broader than what I used to be searching for. You will agree that it is not very likely that there is more information on chicken microsatellites than... say... Digital Economies.

In a way I feel sorry for the people that are starting now their lives. There is so much more information out there than it used to be. As many times more information I had compared to my parents. Information increases exponentially!!!!

There is too much information out there. I can spend my whole day following the twitter updates of the people I follow and clicking on the links they are referring to, without even reading any of the links.

Is this right??? Are we going towards the right direction???

If I start blaming anyone, I start with myself: I have been writing my little blog for more than a year now, and as if this was not enough, I started this one too. Everyone puts information online. Useful, interesting, useless information all mixed up.

And I ask again, are we going towards the right direction???

There was a conference this week somewhere in the US. It was called Future of Web 2010. The papers that summarize the plenary talks of that conference are on the massive virtual pile that I will be reading. These people are working on the issue I mention here. Most probably if, instead of writing this post, I read those reports I would be getting my answers. These people are working on this exact thing: a whole conference on the future of the web. I hope they have something to suggest, because in my opinion

THIS IS NOT THE WAY FORWARD!!!

Don't get me wrong. I am all pro-information!!! I am pro-knowledge!!! I am saying this, even though such a statement is a bit pointless, since I cannot think how could anyone not be pro-knowledge, but I am mentioning it just to make a point: I am all for open access to information. I am all for it!!! But I am also saying is that i have a feeling that this is not the way forward.

And given that we are living a globalised world and given that i know that most people who are using the internet are not using it like me - for example they follow their friends, musicians and celebrities on twitter instead of people whose bios have to do with:

- given these things I think we are going towards a world where there is going to be a "digital literate elit", i.e. people that know the right things and the right people - and a "digital illiterate class" which will not be able to advance itself because it cannot use the internet to its advantage. And like in all early stages of new societies (i think at least with my limited sociology knowledge), the latter is going to be massive and the former tiny.

I am sure all the social media and web specialists have better terms for these groups of people.

I would also like to mention that I am not sure that the digital illiterates have it wrong. These people are out there socialising in the physical world or the digital world. After all, we are human beings: we want to entertain and amuse ourselves. Not all people are like me that I live on learning and working and if I do not have something to interest me I get depressed.

I repeat I am not sure these people have it wrong. But in terms of their careers and hence in terms of the position of this new society and their ability to put food on their table, they will definitely have a disadvantage.

And I am not talking about digital natives and immigrants because I sometimes feel that I am an immigrant too. Yes I am using most Web2.0 tools, yes I am very good at finding information online - maybe too good by the looks of it - but I am not as digitally native as I thought I was. Imagine what this little girl will be like when she reaches high-school:

I cannot even imagine!

It is not about the access to the information. Is about the fact that these people are not going to be looking for it. Not because they are stupid. Just because they are human. And with the speed that information is increasing, I cannot say that I blame them!!!!

Thank you for reading!

European Citizen’s Agenda of Science and Innovation

2010-04-24T18:43:00.000+03:00

I finally got back to Athens 2 days ago: I was supposed to be away in Paris for 8 days but I ended up staying for 2 weeks due to the volcano eruption. I cannot really complain. :P The only problem is that when you are stranded away from home it is more difficult to write your blog! :)

Anyway the meeting in Paris was related to knowledge, science, youth, communication and policy issues and I learned a lot of interesting things that I will mention in my future posts. For the time being I suggest to the European people that might fall into this blog, to go and vote at the website that is mentioned below.

The following text i copied pasted it from the e-mail I was sent:

Science and innovation have played an essential role in our history. The search for knowledge to advance together is one of the pillars of European culture.

Creativity, innovation and enterprising spirit are essential values we should feel identified with in order to tackle the enormous challenges faced by Europe both today and in 2030.

What is the Citizen’s Agenda of Science and Innovation?

The Fundación Española para la Ciencia y la Tecnología (FECYT) has embarked on an awareness campaign in which European citizens are going to be able to inform top level representatives of science and innovation in Europe about what challenges should be addressed in these two areas in the time horizon until 2030.

Marking the Spanish presidency of the European Union in the first half of 2010, and with the support of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, FECYT presents this unique and innovative initiative to all the citizens of Europe: the Citizen’s Agenda of Science and Innovation.

You are going to change our lives.

The Citizen´s Agenda includes 14 challenges that will change our lives by 2030. Which do you think should be included in the agendas of our European representatives so it can become a reality?

Discover 14 exciting challenges for the future and choose one. Choose your challenge now!

Check out the video (has English subtitles):

Vote here: www.reto2030.eu

QUESTION #1 Who is the "public" we are trying to engage?

2010-03-31T13:55:00.000+03:00

I found a site called bigassmessage.com which enables you to write big messages such as this.

I thought of making an image myself. Copying a quote related to the issues of this blog was the first thing that came to my mind. But I could not think of a quote out of the top of head so I then thought of asking a question instead of copying a quote. And I wrote the question that has recently been bugging me the most:

http://bigassmessage.com/4f83dd710

Yes, yes, I know that many people have asked this before - especially in marketing, advertising etc. One day I would like to talk about the fact that the more I read things for this blog, the more I realise that advertising and science communication use a LOT of the same tools. And some principles as well.

I have not typed the question into google to find out what comes up. The purpose of this post was to use the website bigassmessage.com afterall...

Overload

2010-03-29T13:44:00.000+03:00

I am already at a stage where I feel that either this will happen:

or this:

Maybe I have reached this stage BECAUSE i am at the beginning.

I started by reading an article about science communication which lead me to the effectiveness of science blogging BUT also to the importance of peer review and how this is going to evolve AND also on whether science should be blogged, tweeted etc AND to the conclusion that there are a lot of interesting blogs out there, which have a LOT of comments to go through.

And I have not even started to look at science policy!!!!!!!

But fuelled with excitement I am running too fast I think. I have to pace myself: one aspect at a time. I have created a few posts on all of these subjects which I am hoping to be able to build on over the next few months.

I know this post is a bit pointless, but since this is in a way a diary of a journey I think I will need to write diary-entry-like posts every now and then. I hope you don't mind... :)

The Creative Economy: Challenges and Opportunities in a Τime of Crisis

2010-03-26T11:42:00.000+02:00

creativeathens on livestream.com. Broadcast Live Free

Periodic table of science blogs: what a great idea!

2010-03-23T15:07:00.000+02:00

Sciencebase aka Science Writer David Bradley had another great idea: to create a periodic table with all the science bloggers on it, one for each element.

I read about it when it was announced but did not have the guts to ask if I could take Si (my blog starts with S and my first name with an I). This blog is not that old anyway! :)

This periodic table is a treasure for people like me. And this is why I am posting it here.

Science Communication: one really needs those presentation skills!

2010-03-22T23:04:00.001+02:00

Today I visited the Athens Concert Hall (Megaron Moussikis) to attend a talk by Marcus de Sautoy (website1, website2). I found out about it the last moment through twitter (twitter gets more and more useful everyday!!!).

According to wikipedia:

Marcus Peter Francis du Sautoy OBE (born in London, 26 August 1965) is a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford. Formerly a Fellow of All Souls College, and Wadham College, he is now a Fellow of New College. He is currently an EPSRC Senior Media Fellow and was previously a Royal Society University Research Fellow. His academic work concerns mainly group theory and number theory. In October 2008, he was appointed to the Simonyi Professorship for the Public Understanding of Science.

It is this last sentence that really obliged me to go to see him. Maths is especially difficult to communicate, since people have all sorts of prejudices against it. Biology is sort of easier I think, which does NOT mean that it is easy. Just easier.

I would have gone anyway, even if he was not the Professor for the Public Understanding of Science. Why? Because it makes a huge difference to attend a talk where the speaker knows how to engage the public. Having watched his TED talk (see below) I knew he was one these speakers, the speakers that drew you in so much that you did not want him to stop. That makes forget even that he is talking about maths.

Maybe this post, once again, has a Greek as well as a biology twist. But I do not think that Greece is the exception. I think that Greece is the rule. It requires a lot of work, a lot of training and a lot of talent to be able to stand up in front of large audiences and seem like you are talking to your mates down the pub. The key word here is the "training".

To be one of these charismatic science communicators you need to present your facts in an interesting, easy and fun way. Which is bloody difficult. This is why this training I am talking about should NOT start at the PhD level like it usually is in most countries. It should start a lot earlier. From school. The development of Presentation and Communication skills is something that is not included in the curricula of a lot of educational systems. Yes, in the US and the UK such skills are appreciated and promoted from school (I mentioned the US and the UK because these are the countries I know something about, that is all) but in countries like Greece, this is not and has never been the case.

So how does one find out

1) what is the situation concerning presentation, communication and debate skills in one's country?

and

2) where should a country begin in order to improve the situation above?

I know that these are simple/stupid questions but for me they are not... For me they are just two of the first questions I will pose in this blog.

For the time being though, enjoy Marcus de Sautoy:

UPDATE: you can find another mention to the same evening at http://knightofmathematics.wordpress.com/2010/03/23/finding-moonshine-in-athens/

Rap + Genetics

2010-03-12T11:06:00.000+02:00

so it seems that I will post in this blog whatever I find which i think it is interesting.

Are you ready for some... Geek (not Greek, Geek ;-) ) Pop

2010-03-11T18:34:00.000+02:00

Geek Pop is a free online music festival featuring artists inspired by science. Starting from today (12 March from 12 GMT - 2 μμ greek time), musicians from around the globe are invited for a gleeful celebration of geek culture.

Previously an online-only event, the festival is in its third year and is now adding live music to the programme, with gigs in Bristol and London.

Music from every set will be available to download for free.

You can find more information and to listen: geek pop

Bioinformatics, Systems Biology, Synthetic Biology: new paradigms or changes in fashion?

2010-03-11T16:12:00.001+02:00

This is an article I wrote for a major Greek newspaper "ΒΗΜΑ" which was published on the 5th of February 2010. There is going to be a small Greek twist to this blog as well. A loose translation in English follows the article in Greek.

Βιοπληροφορική, Συστημική Βιολογία, Συνθετική Βιολογία
Καινούργιες ιδέες ή απλά «αλλαγή συρμού»;

Μέσα σε μία μόνο δεκαετία «δημιουργήθηκαν» τρεις «νέοι» τομείς της Βιολογίας. Το 2000 όλοι πίστευαν ότι η Βιοπληροφορική (Βioinformatics) είναι το μέλλον της Βιολογίας. Μετά την τελική αποκωδικοποίηση του ανθρώπινου γονιδιώματος, τρία χρόνια αργότερα, όλοι μιλούσαν για Συστημική Βιολογία (Systems Βiology). Σήμερα, στο τέλος της δεκαετίας που διανύουμε, στο επίκεντρο του ενδιαφέροντος είναι πλέον η Συνθετική Βιολογία (Synthetic Βiology).
Είναι απόλυτα λογικό λοιπόν να αναρωτηθούμε αν οι συγκεκριμένοι τομείς είναι όντως καινούργιοι, αν πρόκειται δηλαδή για τη δημιουργία ενός νέου «υποδείγματος» (paradigm). Αλλάζει όντως η επιστήμη της Βιολογίας με πρωτόγνωρα ραγδαίους ρυθμούς ή οι επιστήμονες δίνουν στην έρευνά τους το πιο νέο, και άρα ελκυστικό, όνομα για να έχουν ίσως περισσότερες ευκαιρίες να βρουν χρηματοδότηση;
Η οποιαδήποτε απάντηση σε αυτό το ερώτημα δεν μπορεί να δοθεί πριν από τον ορισμό αυτών των τομέων.Βιοπληροφορικήείναι η ανάπτυξη εργαλείων πληροφορικής για την ανάλυση, συλλογή και διαχείριση των βιολογικών δεδομένων.Συστημική Βιολογία είναι η μελέτη των σχέσεων των στοιχείων ενός βιολογικού συστήματος με σκοπό την κατανόηση του συστήματος· ενσωματώνει εργαλεία και μεθοδολογίες από επιστήμες όπως τα μαθηματικά, η φυσική, η χημεία και η πληροφορική. Τέλος, ηΣυνθετική Βιολογίαείναι η σύνθεση πολύπλοκων συστημάτων, βασισμένων και εμπνευσμένων από τα βιολογικά συστήματα.
Με απλά λόγια, η Συστημική Βιολογία ερευνά την οργάνωση και λειτουργία των βιολογικών συστημάτων όπως τα γνωρίζουμε, ενώ η Συνθετική Βιολογία προσπαθεί να κατασκευάσει αυτά και άλλα βιολογικά συστήματα στο εργαστήριο. Γι΄ αυτόν τον λόγο η Συνθετική Βιολογία θεωρείται από μερικούς το τελευταίο βήμα στην επεξήγηση της βιολογικής πολυπλοκότητας, ότι δηλαδήμόνοόταν καταφέρουμε να φτιάξουμε ζωή από το μηδέν στο εργαστήριο θα έχουμε αντιληφθεί πραγματικά πώς λειτουργούν τα κύτταρα.
Για την καλύτερη προσπέλαση των τομέων αυτών, θα αναφερθώ σύντομα στη συνεισφορά του καθενός στην κατανόηση των πρωτεϊνικών αλληλεπιδράσεων, ένα θέμα το οποίο απασχολεί δικαιολογημένα εδώ και έναν αιώνα τους βιολόγους, μιας και, όπως έχει πια αποδειχθεί, η πολυπλοκότητα που βλέπουμε γύρω μας οφείλεται στην πολυπλοκότητα των πρωτεϊνών.
Στο τέλος του 20ού αιώνα, ένα μέρος από τις πρωτεϊνικές αλληλεπιδράσεις είχαν επιβεβαιωθεί πειραματικά στα εργαστήρια, αλλά τα αποτελέσματα αυτά ήταν διεσπαρμένα
σε εκατοντάδες άρθρα. Μεγάλη ήταν λοιπόν η συνεισφορά του πρώτου από τους τρεις τομείς στους οποίους αναφερόμαστε, του τομέα της Βιοπληροφορικής. Το 2000 δημιουργήθηκε η πρώτη βάση δεδομένων των πειραματικά επιβεβαιωμένων πρωτεϊνικών αλληλεπιδράσεων, η DΙΡ (1).
Οι βάσεις δεδομένων, όπως η DΙΡ, αποδείχθηκαν να είναι ουσιαστικά η «τροφή» που χρειαζόταν για να δημιουργηθεί ο τομέας της Συστημικής Βιολογίας. Οι βιολόγοι, ακολουθώντας την ως τότε κυρίαρχη- αλλά όχι και μοναδική- προσέγγιση, την αναλυτική (analytical) ή αναγωγική (reductionist) προσέγγιση, ερευνούσαν καθεμιά από τις πρωτεϊνικές αλληλεπιδράσεις ξεχωριστά ή σε μικρές ομάδες (βιολογικές οδούς). Αντιθέτως, όταν οι μαθηματικοί, οι φυσικοί και οι πληροφορικοί κοίταξαν τις βάσεις δεδομένων που μόλις είχαν δημιουργηθεί, είδαν τις αλληλεπιδράσεις ως κομμάτια ενός παζλ, ενός συστήματος.
Με άλλα λόγια, η Βιοπληροφορική δεν τακτοποίησε απλά τα- μεγάλων διαστάσεων πια- βιολογικά δεδομένα, αλλά δημιούργησε χάρτες (η DΙΡ είναι χάρτης των δικτύων αλληλεπιδράσεων (interactome), ενώ άλλες βάσεις δεδομένων είναι οι χάρτες του γονιδιώματος (genome), του πρωτεϊνιδιώματος (proteome), του μεταγραφήματος (transcriptome) κτλ.). Αρα, η μεγάλη συνεισφορά της Βιοπληροφορικής ήταν ότι έδειξε μια διαφορετική- σκόπιμα δεν λέω καινούργια- προσέγγιση των βιολογικών δεδομένων που υπήρχαν ως τότε.
Από εκεί και πέρα, θα μπορούσαμε να πούμε ότι η Συστημική Βιολογία «καταβρόχθισε» τη Βιοπληροφορική και πήρε τη θέση της στο επίκεντρο του ενδιαφέροντος. Φυσικοί, μαθηματικοί και πληροφορικοί παρατήρησαν ότι θα μπορούσαν να χρησιμοποιήσουν τις τεχνικές που είχαν αναπτύξει για τα δικά τους δεδομένα, για να αναλύσουν τα βιολογικά συστήματα. Το επιχείρημά τους ήταν ότι μέσα από έναν επαναληπτικό κύκλο μοντελοποίησης, προσομοίωσης και θεωρίας θα βοηθούσαν στην κατανόηση των βιολογικών συστημάτων και στη στόχευση των πειραμάτων, διατυπώνοντας νέες υποθέσεις οι οποίες θα μπορούσαν να διερευνηθούν ως προς την εγκυρότητά τους στα εργαστήρια από τους βιολόγους.
Προτού προλάβουν όμως να αλλάξουν τα ονόματα των πανεπιστημιακών τμημάτων και των μεταπτυχιακών πτυχίων, από Βιοπληροφορική σε Συστημική Βιολογία, άρχισαν οι συζητήσεις για τη Συνθετική Βιολογία. Αρχισαν μάλιστα προτού ακόμη προλάβει να δημοσιευτεί η έκθεση του ΕRΑSysΒio που αναφερόταν στην πορεία της ευρωπαϊκής έρευνας στον τομέα της Συστημικής Βιολογίας· στην έκθεση αυτή η Ελλάδα ήταν απούσα.
Οπως οι μαθηματικοί, οι φυσικοί και οι πληροφορικοί πρότειναν τρόπους να βοηθήσουν στην κατανόηση της πολυπλοκότητας των οργανισμών, πρότειναν και οι μηχανικοί τον δικό τους τρόπο, τη μεθοδολογία που χρησιμοποιείται για την κατασκευή αυτοκινήτων, μηχανημάτων και αεροπλάνων. Το επιχείρημά τους ήταν αλλάζοντας ελαφρά και με λογικό τρόπο τα γνωστά ως τότε συστήματα, οι αλλαγές στη συμπεριφορά των συστημάτων που θα δημιουργούνταν θα ήταν μεγάλη πηγή γνώσης.
Στην περίπτωση των πρωτεϊνικών αλληλεπιδράσεων, οι συνθετικοί βιολόγοι έχοντας διαλέξει ένα μικρό μέρος του συνολικού δικτύου αλληλεπίδρασης των πρωτεϊνών (που αντιστοιχεί συνήθως σε μια βιολογική οδό) αφαιρούν, μία μία ή σε συνδυασμούς, τις πρωτεΐνες. Παρομοίως, άλλοι επιστήμονες αφαιρούν όσες περισσότερες πρωτεΐνες μπορούν από το συνολικό δίκτυο έτσι ώστε να βρουν τον ελάχιστο βιώσιμο συνδυασμό πρωτεϊνών. Και τα δύο αυτά παραδείγματα μπορεί να τα βρει κανείς στην έκθεση του ΝΕSΤ Ρathfinder Ιnitiative (3), στο οποίο παρουσιάζονται 18 προγράμματα Συνθετικής Βιολογίας, όπως η κατασκευή βιολογικών καυσίμων, η νανοτεχνολογία και οι ασθένειες (σημειώνω ότι μόνον σε έναν από αυτούς τους τομείς υπήρχε ελληνική συμμετοχή και αυτή είναι ειδικευμένη στη χάραξη πολιτικής).
Δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι όλες αυτές οι μεθοδολογίες και τα εργαλεία που χρησιμοποιούνται όλο και περισσότερο έχουν βοηθήσει σε σημαντικό βαθμό την κατανόηση της βιολογικής πολυπλοκότητας. Το ερώτημα που θέτω εδώ- όπως το έθεσαν και πολλοί από τους συγγραφείς στο ειδικό τεύχος του ΕΜΒΟ reports (4) τον Αύγουστο που μας πέρασε- είναι το κατά πόσον αυτοί οι τομείς είναι νέες ιδέες ή απλά αλλαγές «συρμού», αποτελέσματα μιας αναζήτησης για τον επόμενο «ελκυστικό» όρο. Το ερώτημα αυτό δεν είναι καθόλου τυχαίο από τη στιγμή που δεν είναι η πρώτη φορά που η διεπιστημονικότητα οδηγεί σε άλματα στη Βιολογία: στη δεκαετία του 1950 η συνεισφορά των φυσικών και μαθηματικών επίσπευσε την ανάδυση της Μοριακής Βιολογίας (Μolecular Βiology), ενός - τότε- νέου τομέα της Βιολογίας.
Κατά τη γνώμη μου- και πολλών άλλωνσε εννοιολογικό επίπεδο οι τομείς αυτοί δεν είναι όσο καινούργιοι όσο φαίνονται, αλλά αποτελούν τη συνέχεια παλιών προσεγγίσεων. Η διαμάχη ανάμεσα στην αναλυτική (analytical) ή αναγωγική (reductionist) προσέγγιση και στην ολιστική (holistic) ή συστημική (systemic) προσέγγιση υπήρχε πάντα στην επιστήμη της Βιολογίας. Η πρώτη προσέγγιση υποστηρίζει ότι τα πάντα μπορούν να εξηγηθούν μελετώντας τα μέρη ενός συστήματος ξεχωριστά· αυτή ήταν η κύρια προσέγγιση που χρησιμοποιούσαν οι μοριακοί βιολόγοι μέχρι πρόσφατα. Η δεύτερη προσέγγιση- ανάμεσα στους υποστηρικτές της οποίας ήταν ο φιλόσοφος Καντ και ο ποιητής/φυσιοδίφης Γιόχαν Β. Γκαίτε- υποστηρίζει ότι οι βιολογικές λειτουργίες πρέπει να μελετούνται συνολικά, αφού ένα σύστημα είναι κάτι παραπάνω από το σύνολο των στοιχείων που το αποτελούν- πρόκειται με άλλα λόγια για τη λεγόμενη «ανάδυση ιδιοτήτων» (emergence).
Για την ώρα τουλάχιστον, η Συστημική και η Συνθετική βιολογία αποτελούν συνέχεια αυτής της δεύτερης προσέγγισης, δεν έχουν δηλαδή αποδείξει ακόμη ότι αποτελούν νέα υποδείγματα(paradigms), όπως αποδείχθηκε τελικά ότι ήταν η Μοριακή Βιολογία. Επειδή οι επιστήμες τους τελευταίους δύο αιώνες παρέμειναν «απομονωμένες» και άρα οι μεθοδολογίες της καθεμιάς δεν είναι αναγκαστικά ικανές για να χρησιμοποιηθούν σε άλλες επιστήμες, η επικοινωνία μεταξύ φυσικών, μαθηματικών, πληροφορικών, μηχανικών, και βιολόγων, αν και έχει ήδη οδηγήσει σε επιτυχίες, παραμένει ιδιαίτερα δύσκολη. Σε αυτό ίσως βοηθούσε η παραγωγή διεπιστημονικών επιστημόνων, πράγμα που τονίζεται στην έκθεση του ΕRΑSysΒio (2), στην οποία συστήνεται ότι μια νέα προσέγγιση στην εκπαίδευση επιστημόνων είναι απαραίτητη σε όλα τα επίπεδα.
Ας ελπίσουμε ότι η καινούργια πολιτική της Ερευνας και Τεχνολογίας της χώρας μας θα ενημερωθεί για αυτές τις εκθέσεις και θα βοηθήσει να μπει και η Ελλάδα στα ευρωπαϊκά δίκτυα της Συστημικής και Συνθετικής Βιολογίας.

--------------

In just one decade in the science of biology three "new" areas were "created". In 2000 everyone thought that Bioinformatics is the future of biology. After the final sequence of the human genome, three years later, everyone was talking about Systems biology.Today, at the end of this decade, the focus is Synthetic Biology. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to wonder if these areas are indeed new, if a new paradigm is being created. Is the science of biology changing with with unprecedented high rates or do scientists give to their research the newest, and therefore most attractive name in order to increase their opportunities of getting funding?
Any answer to this question cannot be given before the definition of these fields.Bioinformatics is the use of tools for the analysis, collection and management of biological data. Systems Biology is the study of relations between elements of a biological system to understand the system, integrating tools and methodologies from disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry and computing. Finally, Synthetic Biology is the synthesis of complex systems which are based and inspired by biological systems.
Put simply, systems biology investigates the organization and functioning of biological systems as we know them, while Synthetic biology seeks to construct these and other biological systems in the laboratory. That is why the Synthetic biology is considered by some as the last step in the explanation of biological complexity, in other words only when we will be able to create life from scratch in the laboratory we really understand how the cells work.
To explain a bit better these sectors I will refer briefly to the contribution of each to the understanding of protein interactions, an issue that rightly concerns biologists, for over a century, because, as it is now established, the complexity we see around us is due to the complexity at the protein level.
At the end of the 20th century, a large number of protein interactions were confirmed experimentally in the laboratories, but the results were scattered in hundreds of articles. So the contribution of the first of the three areas we are talking about here, the field of Bioinformatics, was great. In 2000 the first database of experimentally verified protein interactions was created, DIP (1).
The databases, such as DIP, proved to be essentially the "fuel" needed to create the field of systems biology. Biologists, following the by then dominant, but not alone, analytical or reductionist approach, investigated each protein interaction separately or in small groups (biological pathways). However, when the mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists looked at the databases, they saw the interactions as pieces of a puzzle, a system.
In other words, Bioinformatics not only organised the large-scale biological data, but created maps (DIP is the map of protein interactions (interactome), while other databases are maps of the genome , the proteome, the transcriptome, etc.). So the great contribution of Bioinformatics was that it revealed a different - I deliberately do not call it new - approach.
Beyond that, we could say that systems biology "devouring" Bioinformatics and took its place in the limelight. Physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists have observed that they could use the techniques they had developed for their own data to analyze biological systems. Their argument was that through an iterative cycle of modeling, simulation and theory they will help in our understanding of biological systems and targeting experiments, making new hypotheses that could be explored as to their validity in the laboratories by biologists.
Before there was time to change the names of University Departments and graduate degrees from Bioinformatics to Systems Biology, discussions began on Synthetic Biology. They started even before the publication of the ERASysBio report, in which the course of European research in systems biology was outlined; in this report Greece was absent.
As mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists suggested ways to help in our understanding of the complexity of systems, engineers proposed to use their methods too, in other words the methodology they use in the manufacture of cars, machinery and aviation industries. Their argument was that changing slightly and in a reasonable manner the known systems, the observed changes in the behavior of systems would be a great source of knowledge.
In the case of protein interactions, synthetic biologists remove a small part of the network of protein interactions (which is usually a biological pathway) one by one or combinations of proteins. Similarly, other scientists remove as many proteins as they can from the total network to find the minimum sustainable mix of proteins. Both these examples can be found in the report of the NEST Initiative Rathfinder (3), which presented 18 programs in synthetic biology, such as the construction of bio-fuels, nanotechnology and disease (note that only one of these areas was Greek participation and is specialized in policy).
There is no doubt that all these methodologies and tools that are increasingly being used, have already been significant help to the understanding of biological complexity. The question I ask here - as raised by many authors in the special issue of EMBO reports (4) in August of last year -is whether these areas are a new paradigm or just fashion-shifts. This question is not without relevance, since it is not the first time that interdisciplinarity leads to breakthroughs in biology: in the 1950s the contribution of mathematics and speeded up the emergence of Molecular Biology, a then-new field of biology.
In my opinion-and many others- at the conceptual level, these areas are not as brand new as they seem. The dispute between the analytical or reductionist approach and the holistic or systemic approach is very old in the science of Biology. The first approach argues that everything can be explained by studying the components of a system separately; this was the main approach used by molecular biologists until recently. The second approach - whose supporters include the philosopher Kant and the poet / naturalist Johann V. Goethe - argues that biological functions should be studied as a whole, since a system is more than the sum of its constituent elements - in other words there are also "emergent properties".
For now at least, systems and synthetic biology belong to this second approach, and have not yet proven that they are new paradigms, as it was demonstrated eventually that Molecular Biology was. As the sciences over the last two centuries remained "isolated", the methodologies of each are not necessarily able to be used in other sciences, so communication between the physicists, mathematians, computer scientists, engineers and biologists, even though it has already resulted in successes, it remains very difficult. This can be avoided if interdisciplinary scientists are produced, as was highlighted in ERASysBio (2), in which it was recommended that a new approach to training scientists is needed at all levels.
Hopefully the people responsible for the research and technology policies in our country will be informed of these reports, will help Greek scientists to become part of the European networks of System and Synthetic Biology.

Science and Politics: A start

2010-03-11T15:08:00.000+02:00

Two days ago (Tuesday 9th March 2010) a debate on Science was organised in the UK, using as an incentive the General Election of 2010. Since this debate was broadcast live - for the first time in the history of the House of Commons - the whole world (including me) had the chance to follow the debate.

The debate was organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry on behalf of the science and engineering community (Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, Institute of Physics, Society of Biology, Geological Society, Royal Astronomical Society, the Science Council and the Campaign for Science & Engineering, etc).

Three politicians took part in the debate:

Adam Afriyie MP Conservative Party - Shadow Minister for Innovation and Science
Lord Drayson Labour Party - Minister of State for Science and Innovation
Dr Evan Harris MP Liberal Democratic Party - Spokesperson for Science & Technology

The link to watch this debate is at:

http://www.rsc.org/ScienceAndTechnology/Parliament/Events/2010Election.asp

I know that it would give more meaning to this post if I gave my views, but I am not ready yet. Anyway I need to read first the documents produced recently on the future of science in the UK. And that is one of the things I will do next. Hopefully one day I will be able to come back to this.

An... introduction

2010-03-11T13:54:00.000+02:00

Greekgirlinlondon is my internet name and I would like to advise whoever starts an internet presence to be careful which username they choose. I wish someone had told me so 5 years ago when for some reason, this name - one of the least viable in the long-term - seemed to me appropriate.

Why I am saying this? Because I am having problems because of it. Even though I have and always will - fortunately or unfortunately - remain a Greek person, I do not want to blog about "girly" stuff so much any more and I am not living in London either.

Rant over, time to introduce this blog.

I spent years trying to pretend that science was something that i accidentally fell into. Something that just happened to me. That i could have been an equally mediocre banker, lawyer, painter, architect, psychologist, builder, singer, etc. At the same time I kept thinking that science is something that I am not good enough for, passionate enough for, innovative enough for, smart enough for, etc etc.

And when I say years, I mean a decade. More than one-third of my life and the WHOLE of my adult life.

So for me it took a degree, an MSc, a PhD - admittedly all of them from the top 5 universities in the whole world -, 5 scientific papers (including one in Nature) and 2 years of soul-searching absence for me to say that "My name is Greekgirlinlondon and I am a scientist".

I do not really feel a scientist of course - you do not immediately feel something just because you said it - but I thought that if I say out loud and if I try to pretend to be one, then one day I might feel like one, and all this wasteful soul-searching will - hopefully!!! - be over.

So this blog was created by me for me to say to myself: YOU ARE A SCIENTIST: DEAL WITH IT!

And because I am one of these people who having decided to do something, they want to do it properly and methodically and keep records and make something good and new and innovative out of it, and discuss with other people about it, and learn, and grow etc, I decided to take what I am - a... scientist - and make the best I can out of it.

I do not know where this is road will lead me, but I want to share this journey with you.

I have to apologise from the beginning: this journey is not going to be tidy. When has a scientist's log book has ever been tidy anyway? I will make a lot of mistakes, I will ask a lot of questions that - for me - will lead to dead ends (they might not lead to dead ends for you though), I will go backwards and forwards, etc etc.

My goal at the moment is to find out what is out there in the world of science outside the lab. But who knows if my goal will be the same in a year's time? Maybe by that time I will be back in the lab. Who knows?

This is how all scientific experiments begin - you have some thoughts on what might happen, but you do not know what will.

Lets begin!