New technology to revolutionise Archaeology research Blockchain technology that revolutionised financial systems, could do the same for archaeological data The world’s first “archaeology coin” launched in October to fanfare might be part of a coming social science data revolution. Named Kapu, the digital currency is similar to Bitcoin, but specifically designed for archaeology. The technology underlying Kapu and Bitcoin is called blockchain and it may change data storage and cultural heritage protection. While the public is unaccustomed with blockchain, there is good reason to believe we may be witnessing the first step in what will become a standard technology over the next decade. It is a complex technology, but the underlying idea is quite simple. Blockchain is a public ledger, unlike a ledger kept by a bank or government institution. Each person who owns a “coin” also maintains a copy of all other assets and transactions, creating a peer-to-peer asset and transaction registry network. This provides transparency and avoids centralized “trust” institutions such as banks. The result is a “distributed” network where all the ledgers and transactions are replicated on delegates’ or users’ computers throughout the network. Data manipulation can be prevented since it will not be approved by the network. “The Kapu team is investigating the best ways to store different types of data and will be evaluating ways to use the block chain to develop a distributed public network to sustain and host heritage content” said Archaeologist Grant Cox.
Focus on robot safety in the work place An alliance between OSHA and a robotics industry trade group puts emphasis on safety The Robotic Industries Association (RIA), which is North America’s leading robotics trade group, just announced the signing of an alliance partnership with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Labour agency tasked with ensuring safe and healthy working conditions in the US. The partnership comes as robots begin making their way into new work environments, such as light manufacturing, logistics and fulfilment centres, and agriculture. Of course no technology can be made foolproof, and OSHA will be taking safety standards in environments where humans and robots work together seriously. So will the engineers designing these robots. “RIA has a long history of helping to keep around industrial robotics,” says Jeff Burnstein, the organization’s president. “We developed the first American national robot safety standard in 1986 and we’ve kept it up-to-date since then.” Burnstein adds, “This new alliance with OSHA and NIOSH [the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health] will help us to continue advancing worker safety as more robots enter the workplace.”
Democrats ask Trump to renew gun research at NIH Senate Democrats are asking the National Institutes of Health to resume conducting research on gun violence after funding lapsed in early 2017. “In spite of the toll of gun violence on Americans’ health and safety, a dearth of scientific research has hindered efforts to reduce gun-related fatalities and injuries,” they wrote in a letter sent Wednesday to NIH Director Francis Collins. Senators said October’s mass shooting in Las Vegas, which resulted in 59 deaths and more than 500 injuries, was the impetus for their request, though they also noted that 30,000 gun-related deaths occur each year, two-thirds of which are suicides. “With 93 Americans dying per day from gun-related fatalities, it is critical that NIH dedicate a portion of its resources to the public
6
health consequences of gun violence,” the senators wrote. In their letter, they pointed to the Dickey Amendment, a 1996 rule that prohibits the advocacy or promotion of gun control, saying that they believed it often was minsinterpreted as a federal ban on funding gun research conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It’s not clear if the Trump administration plans to renew the NIH funding. Science magazine reported recently that the funding is under consideration but no timeline has been set for making a decision. Gun rights groups oppose the research because they view it as an attempt to enact gun control legislation.
EU Research