the lab' report welcome issue
editorial W
e wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for science. But is there a point where we will no longer be able to do any research? Today this question might be asked, although one of the real questions is: Do we control what we have? It is in some ways a tricky question; we have to know what we have and what we can do with it. For instance: computer science. In only a couple of years, our generation has experienced its strong evolution. But where is it taking us? And does this necessarily mean somewhere good? Or are we just going to end up with the NSA or something else, listening to us, because otherwise, no one can control it? It is important to talk about it, be aware, and care. Knowing where we are helps, when the goal is moving forward. Therefore, it will be out goal during the session, to supply you with quality information not only about the latest news Europe’s, but also the latest scientific news.
This issue was brought to you by: Onur Can Uçarer (TR) Veronika Datzer (DE) Tuusa Eriksson (FI) R. Tamer Ozgen (TR) Peter Pölzleithner (AT) Manon Schuerch (CH) Raphael Bek (AT)
contents The Cell Wall - JURI
4
The Two Enemy Brothers, Science And Politics ? - ITRE 1
6
The Car Is A Temporary Phenomena. I Believe In The Car - TRAN
8
The Future Lies In Our Hands - IMCO
10
Europe’s Stand On Hydraulic Fraction - ITRE 2
12
Can Europe Achieve Integration ? EMPL
14
The Cell Wall R. Tamer Ozgen
T
he stem cell research has been the most controversial aspect of the 21st century’s modern science. When we look deeper into the discussions, we are able to see two very sharp sides of this never-ending dilemma: The pro-life movement and religion authorities who are strongly against the destruction of a human embryo for scientific purposes and scientist who see a promising future in the treatments by using embryonic stem cells. The question is how we will be able to find a route that satisfies both sides?
Nonetheless, according to EuroStemCell scientists, it is almost impossible to respect both moral principles: So as to obtain embryonic stem cells, the embryo has to be destroyed which means the destruction of a potential human life. However these stem cells could lead the scientists to discover new treatments for incurable diseases and save thousands suffering from them. In the contrary of pro-life movement, EuroStemCell also mentions that no clear line can be drawn between the personhood and an embryo which also one of the shady parts of the discussion. While some says the process of a fertilized egg into a baby is a continuously growing one and any attempt to this living thing is just same with an attempt to an infant. Yet, the others state that an embryo does not have the psychological, emotional and physical properties of a person therefore it cannot be behaved as a human. In this case, I believe the right to decide according to moral principles belongs to the mother until a child is born since the embryo lacks of this ability and doesn’t have emotional connection to the world. I see the abortion and embryonic-stem-cell researches on the same level because both actions require the embryo to be destroyed and if the mother has a right to have an abortion, she should have the right to donate her fetus for the sake of science. Furthermore I believe the protection of the living is more important than the protection of soon-tobe-born and this is the point where I meet the majority of scientists.
As we have always been aware regarding the strict attitude of Church towards the rights of pro-human beings, a new group called the pro-life movement joined their side in early 70s. Although it started as an organization against the legislation of abortion mainly in United States of America, it developed into a shape that defends the embryos against any kind of action with the development of stem cell research. Just like the three big religions, they also state that all the embryos have rights to be behaved as humans after fertilization, which creates the basic structure of their ideology. As for the Catholic Church, on one hand they are publically against the usage of embryos, but on the other hand, they also mention that they were among the first ones to applaud when the umbilical-cord-stem cell researches were first discovered.
JURI 4
a question mark on people’s minds, making them concerned about stem cells being used to develop further biological weapons. It is a small point but has to be answered by authorities to calm people down.
«
How will we be able to find a route that satisfies both sides ?»
Lastly, the debate will probably last for many more years and I don’t think it will have a short-term conclusion. The most logical action to be taken by scientist should be to gain both sides’ trust and develop researches without pushing over the limit. Who knows, maybe the only To continue, like we cannot draw a clear answer Dr. Gregory House gives to his felline for the personhood, it is also unlikely low doctors will be «Apply stem-cell treatto draw one for the science. This creates ment» in the future. another debatable question, which is «Should there be a point for the science that cannot be move onwards?» As the humankind betrayed science many times throughout the history while making nuclear and biological weapons, there is 5
The Two Enemy Brothers, Science And Politics ? Tuusa Eriksson
P
olitics is everywhere. It affects all parts of our lives, and scientific research is no exception. How does politics have anything to do with science, you may ask. Well, this is an issue that, as so many others, comes down to money. Research is dependent on funding. This funding either comes from private sector actors or from the government, which typically funds about 30% of the research. And the government, for reasons that are quite self-explanatory, is very closely tied to politics.
A research policy called the Haldane principle surfaced in Britain some decades ago. The Haldane principle is the idea that decisions about how to spend research funds should be made by researchers, not politicians. Government-funded research brings us face to face with an important question. Which is more important, the social good that may come as a result of politicians making decisions about funding, or researchers’ freedom in deciding the direction of their research? It is also worth noting that in the private sector, funding is nearly impossible to come by if the project doesn’t have huge commercial potential, like for example a clinical trial for a new drug. So without government funding, some projects are pretty much doomed.
There are some general concerns about government-funded research. The biggest one is that politics and bureaucracy get in the way of actual science. It’s like a dysfunctional relationship, where the other party holds the other down. Only projects that further the goals the government wants to pursue receive funding. Projects that propose ethical dilemmas, like embryonic stem cell research, don’t receive that much funding, since supporting research that some people view as outright murder, would reflect badly precisely on politicians. On the other hand, projects that further the growth of the economy are largely supported. Whether we like it or not, science doesn’t happen without money. In a perfect world, money wouldn’t matter. In the real world it does. What this effectively means is that when we are talking about government-backed research, politicians are responsible for deciding the value and importance of a scientific project.
What is important to remember is that government-funded or not, all science should be objective. If we use common sense, the origin of the money shouldn’t determine the kind of science projects that are carried out, it shouldn’t have any effect on the researchers’ work. The objectivity of science is its base. If science becomes subjective it also, as a result of this subjectivity, inevitably becomes obsolete. It’s no longer just a question of whether or not government-backed projects have a certain common agenda; there are many indicators that tell us that this seems to be the case. What is more important is that the source of funding behind different research projects influences the agenda of these specific projects. This is not only a
ITRE1 6
threat to the objectivity of science, but it also changes the questions being asked by researchers. Politics is everywhere. But should scientific research be untouched by it, the exception that proves the rule?
Most projects receive their funding through a competitive process. This, however, can turn ugly very quickly. It also results in the process of scientific discovery being very secretive and hushed. Non-competitive funding allows for co-operation and the sharing of knowledge, which in some scenarios, mainly ones that don’t have only one right answer, such as creating a vaccination or a new medical drug, can be vital. The answer to how funding should be divided among competitive and non-competitive research areas comes down to what kind of research we want to support. We circle back to politics.
The reality is that the nature of research is always risky. Constantly, there is the risk of wasting our money, of squandering our time. The risk that we won’t find what we are looking for. In fact, research hardly ever gives us any concrete answers or results right away. Most research results in the invention of things that are actually in no way related to the question that was originally asked. For example, the microwave oven was invented using radar technology from World War II. So if no concrete answers are really ever even found, does it really matter how we decide which research receives funding and which doesn’t? Government-funded research has produced many invaluable things over the years, like computers and cell phones. Maybe it doesn’t matter that politics shapes the agenda of government-funded research. Maybe the more important question is one concerning competitive and non-competitive research.
There are many points to be discussed about the funding behind research. The motivator and the answer as to why we’re doing research in the first place is exactly the same: Because there is so much we don’t know. What is truly scary is if we lose sight of that goal, the ultimate reason behind research that is the acquisition of knowledge. Ultimately we have to always keep that in mind, and try to do what best helps us in the pursuit of that goal.
7
The car is a temporary phenomena. I believe in the horse. Veronika Datzer
T
he car is a temporary phenomena. I believe in the horse.“ This is what Wilhelm II, the German Emperor serving at the beginning of the 20th century said. 100 years later we heavily depend on the once so criticized car and we use it more than we actually should. 80 per cent of all German households own at least one car, which means a total number of 40 million cars. Surprisingly, Germany is not the number one car country in Europe: Especially Luxembourg, Italy and Cyprus share the love for vehicles. In average 1000 European citizens own 477 cars – 100 more than 15 years ago. A majority of the European population lives in urban areas where statistically less people own cars. Mobility nevertheless is crucial, it encourages the economical growth and therefore all citizens should be provided with sustainable and accessible transport. Still, the European major cities cannot be described as places of perfect living standards. Conges-
tion, road safety and pollutions are issues that 9 out of 10 European inhabitants depict as urgent. Urban planning is mostly a dilemma. It is a tightrope walk, trying to compromise between traffic and pollution reduction but also movement of people and goods. Working in a city often means the necessity of a car, followed by traffic and stress. It is also contradicting the destination of slowing down the climate change and greenhouse effect. With CO2 emissions the inhabitants and the environment suffer. The current situation of urban living has to evolve to towards sustainability by economical, environmental and social means. Higher population density and enormous human features in comparison to areas surrounding, defines an urban area. Urban areas are usually cities, towns or conurbations and increase through urbanization, leading to many suburban areas. These are not necessarily provided with public transportation,
which aggravates mobility. Mobility plays a significant role for the social inclusion, the satisfaction and general life quality of the individual. The youth represents the future generation and is therefore responsible for a different way of structuring mobility in order to pursue the goal of sustainability and life quality. Mostly connected with motorized vehicles it is necessary for this definition to change. One should not forget the new opportunities that have been introduced in the past years. Modern and sustainable transportation techniques such as carpooling, bike sharing, electronic vehicles are already common and popular, especially among young people. It all started in 1948 in Switzerland where car sharing became known as “Sefage”. Nowadays this project includes 2300 cars, which are shared between 1150 stations. Similar programs have successfully been founded in other European cities. However, our mobility should never influence
TRAN 8
our health. Therefore the contradicting points of both, mobility and public health as well as a certain living standard and ecological consciousness form the major conflict within this issue. The smog covering industrial giants is the everyday situation of concerned individuals. Smog can cause severe headaches, heart problems, nausea and chronicle respiratory diseases. The massive CO2 emissions influence not only the greening of the earth but with bad air quality, humans suffer. But not only health wise is a reduction of vehicle usage necessary: The noise causes a higher risk for mental problems. These issues have not been solved. Suburban life is an alternative to the stressful city life but becoming a real Plan B is connected with massive changes such as a better-developed access to public transportation and local supply of groceries. The plans indeed exists, mostly know as the
Compact City concept or the Transit-Oriented Development. Thus, the idea of the perfect city is already among us but has not been enforced. Being part of the fabulous success of the European Union we are lucky to have this institution, supporting all member states to realize the vision of a sustainable urban area. Steps towards this goal have been made. It started in 1995 with the Citizens‘ Network as first policy proposal and developed itself 2007 with a program called ‘Towards a new culture for urban mobility‘. In 2009 the Action Plan on Urban Mobility was adopted, working as a bridge between mobility, travelling, health, cohesion and disability. There are many projects existing, for instance, the European Cohesion Fund, which tries to decrease the disparities in prosperity between the member states and also rural and urban area and therefore helps the different states to
9
further integrate into the supranational institution. The program supports smaller enterprises and transportation projects and provides unemployed citizens with advanced trainings. The financial means for urban planning and adjustment policy add up to 45 % of the total EU finances. Another project is the socalled Urban Track. It promotes an improvement of the rail infrastructure. As main features, Urban Track strives for high performance, safety, low noise and minimal maintenance. According to the Mercer consultancy, Vienna is the city with the highest living standards concerning political stability, crime rate, economic conditions, health care etc. Out of 215 cities seven European ones made it into the Top Ten. Although many facets have to be improved, the European cities are some of the most beautiful in the entire world. Let us adhere to this beauty.
The Future Lies In Our Hands Peter PĂślzleithner
N
o matter if you are a chief executive officer trying to run your business as profitably as possible or a head of state trying to get your country to prosper economically, there are two common factors, which should be given utmost consideration: Research and Development (RD). RD is an area that has undoubtedly established itself as a cornerstone for economic success in the 21st century.The level of innovations provided by European companies has been way lower than expected throughout recent history. Thus the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth within the European Union (EU) has been stagnating on a relatively low level for the last decade. As a result we are not only getting less and less competitive in economic terms, but also gradually losing our position on the global market to uprising economies especially the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) countries, which have excelled in the field of RD over the course of the last ten years. With external factors such as environmental problems and societal shifts also thrown into the mix there is indeed a lot to be done
in the European Union of the 21st century. It seems like an inescapable vicious circle, but there might very well be an exit from it. Facing the acute danger of repeating myself the solution to that little social-economic riddle can be spotted in the field of RD. Rethinking the principles of cross border research, restructuring the budgeting and subsiding of research institutions and reforming our current system of European research could get us back on track of the imaginary highway to economic prosperity and all the benefits, that come along with it. Countless measures have already been introduced to improve the way RD is conducted in Europe. However the majority has unfortunately proven to be inefficient, the system is absolutely not coherent and a bit confusing to be honest, with a lot of similarly sounding abbreviations thrown around. Despite all the ERAs, ERICs, ESFRIS´ in place, the European science base is still not strong enough, the level of innovations provided by corporations is worryingly insufficient, the research conducted has
IMCO 10
failed to specifically target the social-economic problem we Europeans are struggling with, cross-boarder research does not function as smoothly as it should and the budgeting factor in the background still leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
framework the amount of money assigned to a certain field of research is clearly stated and defined. A proportionally high amount of funds is assigned to research activities in the field of sustainable transport, climate change and renewable energy.
These are only some of the weaknesses pointed out in our current European network of research and development. That is why the voices calling for a proper European framework in the field of research related activities are continually getting louder and more powerful. Admittedly I whole-heartedly support them. Not only would a common framework facilitate and encourage research activities between different countries, but also sustainably strengthen our science base. And after all: RD is and always will be the cornerstone of a society´s progress. History has shown on numerous occasions, that if a society fails to progress, it will eventually only progress to fail
The significance of having a solid system of RD in place is undeniable in our day and age. Nevertheless a lot of politicians still seem to gravely neglect this issue and place way more importance on surveys, polls and getting their votes up. However these tactics will not get us anywhere. As a matter of fact, we do not possess the ability to predict the future, but by strongly pursuing the principles of research and development we obtain the possibility of creating it.
The Horizon 2020 is a budget plan issued by the European Union. In this proposed 11
Europe’s Stand On Hydraulic Fraction Onur Can Uçarer
W
hatever we do and decide, consequences are to predict. When environmental issues are involved, the decisions we take should always be deeply reflected on, as they may lead to further huge problems. European governments are conscious about environmental issues. We have lots of plans and control systems in order to preserve our world. The citizens are aware of the environmental threats, however the hydraulic fracturing system is something new for many of us, myself included. Hydraulic fracturing is a system that consists in bringing the underground resources to surface in order to make them available to use. This extraction is taken care of by a well that is implanted under the ground,
as deep as the level of the resource, such as natural gas. The movement of the resource is regulated by the difference of pressure between these surfaces. The United States of America started using this system in the 1950’s and thus, it has been a very discussed subject. Later on, in 2011, France prohibited the use of hydraulic fracturing system. This action led to deeper research and discussion about fracturing within Europe. Nowadays, a big part of the usable non-renewable resources are in the form of shale gas and the easiest and most productive way of extracting these resources is by hydraulic fraction. It is fast and relatively cheap so the oil companies prefer to extract this gas using fraction.
12
Researchers estimate that 70% of the natural gas resources in North America will be extracted with this system in the upcoming 10 years. Many claim that the practice of this system harms the environment: air and water pollution, methane contamination, radioactivity and seismicity. Some of the case studies state that farm animals are being affected badly from hydraulic fracturing fluid. This study even claims that 1/3 of the cows exposed to this fluid died after one day. Another case shows that methane leakage because of fracturing, and also the carbon emissions released by the equipment used in this practice harms the environment. While some believe that these methane leaks
affect the water quality, some others believe that hydraulic fracturing even has nuclear and seismic impacts in some areas. Those claims are very controversial because of the research issues. As mentioned before, this system is firstly structured in the USA and thus, the researches should also be detailed and useful. However, many organizations, research companies, scientists and media have encountered difficulties conducting their research, because of governmental pressure and oil companies unwilling to cooperate.
lots of researches over the nuclear energy. We know what consequences can happen in case of a mistake, we have seen them in Chernobyl in 1986 or in Fukushima in 2011. But still, many governments take that risk and continue their nuclear energy projects because it’s easy and cheap to produce energy with nuclear power plants.
With all these facts, this issue appears to be very tendentious. The arguments on both sides lead us to a grey area. In order to give us clear facts, unbiased and unpressured researches should be conducted. When we have detailed information on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing in the environment, the government’s action towards this practice will be easier to figure out. The approaches of the European Union on the issue Nevertheless, the discus- of hydraulic fraction will not sions over the effects of only show us the practice energy resources on envi- of this system in Europe, but ronment will never be clear also the future of our envias black and white. For ins- ronment and energy martance, there have been ket.
ITRE2 13
Can Europe Achieve Integration ? Manon Schuerch
A
ll around the European labor market, people with disabilities face the same challenges. Being integrated into a new and demanding field of work is one thing but handicapped people are faced with much different problems than non-handicapped people. In such situations these disabled people often have a disadvantage since they are being overlooked in an application process because the head department of a firm or company will not take on the risk of dealing with unforeseen complications that could emerge when the specific person is not able to cope in risky situations due to his or her disability. This gives disadvantaged people the feeling that they are not useful but a burden to society, which causes great conflict. Handicapped people today are still looked at as a marginal population segment. That is why working and society integration of such people, though being a small group, shouldn’t be an issue. In a working environment, which is in current modification, the integration on the labor market is a great challenge even to non-handicapped people. Even more challenges are faced when this person is mentally or physically challenged and therefore is limited in his or her efficient working ability. A part of disabled people can only be employed in a protected environment, such as in small factories and workshops. The number of severely handicapped people is rising as a consequence of demographic aging, since mentally challenged patients are often senior citizens and such people mostly developed such a sickness during their lifetime which is the main cause for a severe disability. We must notice however that also severely challenged people gain a profit out of the
labor boom however by far not as much as non-handicapped people. The recent job boom has provided lots of groups of society with a growing workplace rate, but has not favored the disabled. These people are left out and have very little chances to get involved in new working experience. Such problems have emerged because of the saving measures of the government and the ignorance of the private economy field. Almost a third of unemployed severely disabled people are over 55 years old. Without the abolition of obligations similar to early retirements the unemployment rate of severely disabled people would clearly have gone back. The dynamics of the unemployment rate has, even in the middle-aged group from 25 until 55 years, been proven to be explicitly smaller amongst severely disabled people than amongst non-handicapped people. The durance of the unemployment rate and the percentage of long unemployed people are because of these things on a much higher level than before. When society talks about including more women or migrants into the labor market everybody is involved in the discussion because this concerns each person individually. Politicians and companies brag about equality for everybody in their firms, however they tend to forget one important group of people, the mentally challenged. These people are tossed aside since people do not believe in their potential and their abilities. Being in a current situation like this whilst facing a boom in recent economic development is more than disturbing. The guilty ones, who are responsible for severely disabled people not being given the same
EMPL 14
chances on the labor market than non handicapped people, can be asserted to the respectable companies. Many firms rather pay duties than hire a disabled person. Concerning the occupation possibilities of disabled people one must consider these vital things which disadvantaged people should be able to have: an independent activity or practice, an individual and competitive activity on the open labor market, an occupancy in self-help firms and cooperatives firms which make it their principal to integrate physically and mentally challenged people into the labor market and finally the occupancy in facilities designed for such people. Generally speaking, a shift in employment within institutions is aimed towards a free labor market through integration efforts. But everybody does not agree with this step.
From an economic perspective it is looked at as a «sense of reality» when attempting to employ disabled especially in sheltered workshops. You justify this by saying that on the one hand one guarantees disabled people a working place and on the other hand they are free of stressful tension within their work place and adapt to each and everybody’s own pace. It is also cheaper for industrial society, to relocate social services instead of a full integration into the working world. But this attitude shows society that in our eyes disabled people are just to be employed so that they are given a working place and not because they are really useful to society. It also does not consider that a social exclusion on the labor market is made. In addition to that, disabled people in this view are shown not to be capable of competing with non-handicapped workers, which shouldn’t be the case.
15