Blog moves!

When I started this blog I said that its aim would be to help me in my journey to clarify what I am really most interested in. I started this journey almost three years ago and I find myself after all this time in a different kind of job, with another Masters (in Public Policy this time - and do not worry this is the last one) and even in a different country!

Almost three years ago I had said

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.

And what a journey it has been. A great journey indeed. Now I know what I am interested in. It is science policy and STS, rather than communication or theoretical genomics.

This made me realize that it is time for a change.

Time to close this blog and start a brand new one. Time to start posting again!

So new year, new start, new blog. Please visit me at:   http://scipolicyeu.wordpress.com/

And thank you once again for visiting this blog and having joined me in this journey!

The reform “LARROUTUROU”: A new organisation for a stronger and more open CNRS

[this essay was for my course on Reform Management. it was largely based on a report. A lot of the information was based on http://www.lsv.ens-cachan.fr/~petit/Divers/LORS-Special-CNRS.pdf but this information was greatly cross checked with colleagues that were there when the reform too place and are still in CNRS, so they could give me an opinion on what changed and what did not ]

1.    Introduction

Governments are increasing becoming aware of the important role that research and technology play in the economic, social, environmental, competitive and sustainable development of a country. As a result, the existence of strategic research and technology initiatives and the proper and efficient organization of scientific efforts are a key policy priority for any European country. In fact, one the five EU headline targets on which Europe 2020 (a strategy for jobs and smart, sustainable and inclusive growth), is that 3% of the EU's GDP should be invested in Research and Development (R&D). In the case of France, since 2004 the indicator of this target GERD (Gross domestic expenditure on R&D) as a percentage of GDP, ranged from 2.08% (in 2007) to 2.26 % (in 2009).

To continue to excel in the changed regional, national and international conditions, the general direction of CNRS (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique), the French National Centre for Scientific Research and the largest fundamental research organisation in Europe, has implemented the "Project for CNRS", which involved six key changes in the organisation. This renovation project of great magnitude was prepared in early 2004 by Gerard Mégie, an atmospheric physicist and the then President of CNRS, and Bernard Larrouturou, a Mathematician and then Director-General of CNRS. The subsequent reform is now remembered as the “Reform Larrouturou”.

In this paper, after a very brief description of CNRS, the general aims of the Reform will be outlined and followed by a description of how it was formulated. For these changes to be achieved, a number of organisational changes were required. The six key changes imposed by the reform will then be discussed, in each case through a description of what was the status quo before (Situation A), of what was planned according to the reform, of the arguments for and against each change, of whether these were in fact implemented (Situation B) and of whether these have been properly incorporated in the organisation of CNRS (Situation C).

Overview of the presence and influence of interest groups in decision-making in the EU

[this was my essay for the European Integration course]

1.      INTRODUCTION

From the very beginning of the European Union (EU), interest groups have been an important element in its evolution, an element inextricably interwoven with the functioning of European institutions. The term interest group (IG) is used to describe organisations or bodies that represent trade unions, firms, farmers, local and regional authorities, consumer groups, environmental and animal protection interests etc (Labdas, Mendrinou, Hatziyanni, 2009).

IG influence greatly contributes to the EU’s democratic legitimacy and to the formation a common reference framework for the various European public spheres. A coexistence of a variety of public spheres can be observed, which are evolving through complex interactions between the many different material and virtual factors that shape European policies (Labdas, Mendrinou, Hatziyanni, 2009).

As a result, the presence of economic and social IGs has been ever increasing since the mid-1980s, indicating that their political mobilisation has been indeed considerable. This increase has been partly due to the complexity of the EU’s multilevel governance and the central position of highly fragmented European institutions. As a result, a great range of access points has been available to these groups to exert their influence on the decision-making process.

In addition, due to the constant criticism of the democratic deficit (lack of accountability, transparency of decisions and participatory opportunities, Michalowitz (2007)), the European Commission (EC) has demonstrated increasing openness towards IGs (e.g. White Paper on Governance or the Transparency Initiative, Kohler-Koch and Finke (2007)). In fact, nowadays, any explanation of policy outcomes without mentioning the contribution of IGs would be incomplete, especially since the influence of policy outcomes is their main goal.

From the geosphere to the cosmos

This is the report that I wrote in the context of the ASPERA-2 EU FP7 project. I am soooo proud of it!

Open publication - Free publishing - More biology

Academic Dishonesty: Students’ Corruption

[this is not very related to science but it is an issue I feel very strongly about. This was my essay for the Ethics and Corruption in the public sector course I took during my Masters in Public Policy.]

1.               DESCRIPTION

One of the behaviours that negatively affect an educational system is the very high levels of students’ academic dishonesty. This is especially the case for written examinations, the main assessment procedure in both high-school and university level education in Greece.

Academic dishonesty is a very dangerous type of corruption because it happens when people are at such a young age, at the stage when they learn how to think, try to find out what they believe in and develop into the people that they will eventually become. If a behaviour is perceived as correct or normal at this stage, it is more likely that it will be repeated for the rest of the life of the individual, or even be transferred in situations outside education. By adopting such a corrupt behaviour at such an early stage, young people are more likely to be corrupt as adults as well.

Academic dishonesty in the context of written examinations exists in many forms. Students can increase their chances of getting good grades by finding out the questions before the exam, copying from other students during the exam, copying from material brought into the exam room (notes in the bag, on the floor, in pencil cases, etc), from texts written on their hands, arms, thighs etc, and/or using technology (e.g. using mobile phones to obtain answers from the internet or from friends at home) or even by sending someone else to sit the exam for them. All these forms of cheating are used to great extents depending on the situation.

The focus of this essay will be university students who are performing any of the above behaviours during their higher education studies. They are the ones who initiate and benefit from the corrupted act of cheating in written examinations.  The alarming trend that served as inspiration for this essay is the increasing number of university students that consider cheating as an integral and justified part of their studies, even a right. The majority of students nowadays consider it completely independent of corruption.

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

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

New Greek Law for Research and Innovation Draft _6.10.11_V5 To 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

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

Day 1: 2011 Science Communication Conference #SCC2011