How not to encourage girls to study science

What were they thinking? It really beggars belief that a whole host of people in the EU Commission got it so wrong.

Of course, I'm talking about THAT video. If you haven't seen it, check it out below.




As part of an entirely laudable campaign  (complete with #sciencegirlthing hashtag)to encourage girls to study science and think about careers in science, the European Commission released a launch video which was so far wide of the mark that they had to confirm that it wasn't some sort of joke. As one spokesperson for the Commission put it on twitter: "(the) Commission doesn't really do irony".

The video seems to have been removed from the campaign's Youtube account but not before some kind soul copied it and reposted the offending clip.

To be fair, I'm sure no harm was meant. The campaign website itself seems fine, but perhaps a little light on detail. The Commission moved to deflect some of the online criticism late on Friday evening by encouraging their Twitter followers to help them build a list of #realwomeninscience.

The swift and overwhelming online reaction seems to have ensured that the video will live long online as an example of how not to promote science (on anything for that matter).

At least they got one bit right. Male scientists are all tall, clean shaven and handsome in their glasses and white coat......ahem. ‪

BASF Moves Plant Biotech Jobs to America

The global biotech and chemical company BASF is to withdraw from Europe and concentrate its plant biotechnology business on North and South America. 140 jobs in Europe will go.

Just when science, technology and biotechnology, in particular, have the capacity to create jobs, build confidence in economies and promote an economic recovery, Europe now risks becoming known for an anti-science agenda.

The company said today that it will halt development and commercialisation of all products targeted solely at the European market because of "a lack of acceptance for this technology" from the majority of consumers, farmers and politicians.

BASF say they are "convinced that plant biotechnology is a key technology for the 21st century" but at this time the "conditions for cultivation of genetically modified crops in Europe are unfavourable".

The move will stop development on Europe-targeted crops such as Amflora, a genetically modified potato variety which provides easy to extract starch for industry. The company will also halt work on its Fortuna potato variety, bred to be resistant to late blight, Phytophthora infestans. BASF had applied for approval from the EU for commercial cultivation of Fortuna late last year. The variety had two resistance genes inserted from a wild relative found in South America.

Despite ceasing development of other such products, BASF have said they will continue with the regulatory approval process already in train.

Greenpeace have welcomed the move claiming that "Europeans don't want GM crops, and for good reason".

Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's agriculture policy director said that it wasn't just health concerns that worried EU consumers; "GM crops go hand in glove with factory farming, pesticide use, pest resistance and disappointing long-term yields".

Today's development sees a company with European origins having to move much of its research and development to the Americas due to continuous delaying and buck-passing when it comes to GM regulations in Europe.

This has created an atmosphere where even the research and development of GM crops, for one company at least, has become impossible.

Irish Young Scientist Wins Top EU Prize

Alexander with his project in Helsinki

Alexander Amini, the winner of Ireland's BT Young Scientist Award for 2011 has scooped the top European Young Scientist Award in Finland today.

Alexander's work looked at collecting and analyzing huge quantities of sensor data taken from tennis courts and discovered a technique for automatically distinguishing between 13 different types of tennis stroke with a 96% accuracy. His findings are relevant to a variety of motion assessment scenarios in sports, physical therapy and emergency responses.

Although technology already exists to measure some of the tennis strokes, Alexander's system can measure much more. Speaking after winning the Irish award, the young scientists said: "I am very proud and happy.I could never have imagined this would happen. I spent about four months working on this project," he said.
"My father taught me tennis and was very into technique and this inspired me."

In total, 3 first place awards were made, with young scientists from Lithuania and Switzerland also taking the top prize. Winners were announced at a ceremony in Helsinki and on the competition's Twitter stream. Alexander is a student of Castleknock College in Dublin and will be awarded a €7,000 prize fund. That's on top of his cheque for €5,000 which he receives for winning the Irish Young Scientist Competition.

Lab Notes: 14th January 2011

Lab Notes: a round-up of some of the top science stories in the past few days.

 'Pint-sized' dinosaur discovered
A team of Argentinian and US paleontologists and geologists have discovery a new species of dinosaur that lived in South America some 230 million years ago.
Erodromaeus (meaning "dawn runner") weighed just 10-15 lbs and measured 4 feet from nose to tail. It is believed that it was one of the first all meat-eating dinosaurs and probably a ancestor of the famous Tyrannosaurus.
“Who could foretell what evolution had in store for the descendants of this pint-sized, fleet-footed predator?” said Paul Sereno of the University of Chicago.
more on this story...


 New EU rules on animal experiments
The EU are to make the first major changes to Europe's animal testing rules for a quarter of a century. The union wants to enhance the quality of the research being conducted by industry and the scientific community, while at teh same time setting the world's highest welfare standards for such experiments.
The rules will come into force from the start of 2013 and ensures that any future testing must comply with the three R's: replacing, reducing and refining animal testing.
According to EC figures, 12 million animals were used for scientific purposes in Europe in 2008. Rodents made up 80% of that figure; mice making up 59% and rats 17%.
more on this story...


Young science
The BT Young Scientist and Technology Exhibition continues in Dublin today. The event, in its 47th year, showcases the best science projects from second-level students from all around the country, with 100 awards up for grabs including the BT Young Scientist of the Year and the oppurtunity to represent Ireland in the EU Young Scientist Competition.
Interestingly, the first ever winner of the competition, John Monaghan has recently retired as Chief Executive Officer of Avigen, a US Biotech company. So, there is much in store for this year's overall winner who will be announced this evening.
more on this story...

The above image is adapted from an original by BlueRidgeKitties and used under a Creative Commons  license.

Europe divided on new GM crop rules

John Dalli: new regulations on GM crops criticised

Plans for new GM regulations in Europe are faltering amidst rejections from a number of large EU countries.


The proposed regulations would have allowed individual member states to decide for themselves whether genetically modified crops were grown in their territories. The regulations were floated in July by Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner, John Dalli who said that member states would be allowed to ban GM crops on grounds other than those based on a scientific assessment of health and risks to the environment .

Having received mixed reviews from both pro- and anti-GM groups, it now seems that some of Europe's major agricultural nations have noted their opposition to the proposals.

On Monday, Marco Contiero, Greenpeace's agriculture policy director in Europe warned EU countries not to be "duped into accepting the proposal as it stands and taking the pressure off the Commission to improve crop safety and prevent GM contamination".

'EU ministers should demand a moratorium' - GreenpeaceContiero called for the EU to totally rethink its strategy on GM crops: "Until Europeans and farmers can be sure that the dangers of GM crops are thoroughly addressed, EU ministers should demand a moratorium on new authorisations".

At a meeting of EU agriculture ministers in Brussels on Monday, there was significant difference of opinions on the matter, with all sides agreeing to delay any decision on how to move forward until after the proposed regulations are reviewed by the EU's legal team and the World Trade Organisation. There are concerns that the regulations could have a significant impact on the internal market which operates within the union.

Apparently, France, Italy, Germany and Spain all came out against the proposals. France and Italy would traditionally have been seen as anti-GM, while Germany and Spain would be considered pro-GM in attitude.

Italian agriculture minister Giancarlo Galan said that Italy does not support the proposal as it stands and that "Each for himself undermines the foundations of the common agricultural policy (CAP)".

His French counterpart Bruno Lemaire was equally dismissive saying that national decision making would “give a wrong signal to European citizens and a wrong signal for the CAP".

'if it's the only way to move forward it may be the least worst option'- James PaiceBritish Minister of State for Agriculture and Food, James Paice also attended the meeting in Brussels and outlined his government's opposition to the fragmented approach, but seemed open to compromise: "The idea of effectively nationalising the policy is pretty counterproductive in terms of the single market, but if it's the only way to move forward it may be the least worst option".

Commissioner Dalli hit back at a press conference after the meeting saying that the proposal "does not undermine the internal market and it is not against WTO rules". Dalli also pointed out that the regulations will be discussed by a council of Environment ministers on the 14th of October and no doubt he will be hoping from a more positive outcome for his proposals.

'GMOs or non-GMOs don't excite me all that much'- John DalliIn a recent interview with Reuters, Dalli warned of rejecting GM out of hand: "GMOs or non-GMOs don't excite me all that much - it's a question of innovation. If Europe is going to say 'no' to anything that is new, then we are condemned to backwaters".

It can be all too rare to find someone involved in the GM debate who doesn’t get “excited” about the positives or negatives of GM crops. Unfortunately, the topic is one which seems to polarise opinion across Europe and this may be the crux of the problem from Dalli’s point of view. However, in trying to introduce an ‘a la carte’ solution which is likely to see the development of blocks of member states in the pro- and anti-GM camps, Dalli risks dividing opinion even further.

What the European Commission needs to do is act on a pan-EU basis and take the decisions which have been long-fingered by successive commissioners. A piecemeal approach will put up barriers to research and innovation which would not be permitted if we were dealing with almost any other scientific topic.

From the response of governments to his most recent attempts to remove the impasse on GM crops, it seems that Europe may be stuck in the backwaters for some time to come.

55% of public say scientists must communicate more

According to a new Eurobarometer report published this week, nearly 80% of Europeans say they are interested in scientific discoveries and technological developments, compared to 65% interested in sport.

57% think scientists should put more effort into communicating about their work and 66% believe governments should do more to interest young people in scientific issues. Europeans overwhelmingly recognise the benefits and importance of science but many also express fears over risks from new technologies and the power that knowledge gives to scientists.

For example, a massive 58% of respondents at the EU level agreed with the statement that "we can no longer trust scientists to tell the truth about controversial scientific and technological issues because they depend more and more on money from industry". This figure falls to 36% when responses from Ireland only are considered. Given the Irish government's decision to reduce the amount of exchequer funding available to scientific research, in favour of more input from industry, it begs the question: will the Irish and European public be happy about this? Perhaps not, given the results of this survey, but they are hardly likely to demand higher taxes to pay for purely government sponsored science either.

53%: "scientists have a power that makes them dangerous"Worrying too is the agreement of 53% of the European respondents (46% of Irish respondents) with the statement that, because of their knowledge, scientists "have a power that makes them dangerous". Not potentially dangerous, mind you, but just dangerous, full stop!

Interestingly, when asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement that we depend too much on science and not enough on faith, 29% of Irish respondents agreed. This was down significantly from 41% when this survey was last taken in 2005. Is this an indication of the increased secularisation of Irish society?

With regard to the communication of science, 57% of EU respondents (55% of Irish respondents) felt that scientists do not put enough effort into informing the public about new developments in science and technology. When the data is closely analysed, we see that those respondents who feel that they are not informed at all about scientists feel that scientists themselves are not making enough effort to communicate the message about science.

16%: "newspaper journalists best equipped to communicate science"The majority of EU citizens (63% of respondents) felt that scientists working at a university or government laboratories are best qualified to explain scientific and technological developments. Just 32% of respondents felt that scientists working in industry were best placed to explain these developments. 16% of respondents felt that newspaper journalists were best equipped to discuss such developments.

Research, Innovation and Science Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said: "The success of the Europe 2020 Strategy depends on cutting edge science to keep Europe competitive. In turn, that means ordinary Europeans need to back science and keep the pressure up on government and on industry to invest in it. These results show a very high awareness of the importance of science. But they also show that both politicians - like me - and scientists themselves need to explain better what we are doing and why."

Overall, the survey shows that European citizens are fairly optimistic about science and technology - 75% of respondents agree or tend to agree that thanks to science and technology there will be more opportunities for future generations. However, there is a shift towards scepticism compared to the 2005 survey. Judging by the results of this survey, this scepticism could be reduced by more scientists, in particular those in academia, making an even greater effort to communicate their work to the general public.

As Peter Fiske wrote in Nature earlier this year: "Scientists must communicate about their work — to other scientists, sponsors of their research and the general public...searching for opportunities to give talks and lectures — and seeking audiences that are outside one's immediate sphere of scientific influence at, for example, science museums or local civic organizations".

"scientists must communicate about their work" - Peter Fiske"Many scientists are incredulous at how little the general public knows about science and technology" says Fiske, "but scientists do little to address the gap in understanding. Most think that their successes in the lab are manifestly evident, making education about the value of their work unnecessary. Few ever communicate with their elected officials. With the public footing most of the bill, this misguided belief seems naive and undermines those who campaign for more funding.

"Excellent work is a prerequisite for career progress, but is not sufficient by itself. Broadcasting one's accomplishments and exercising the 'active voice' in all aspects of one's work is the best way to earn notice, gain recognition and make the public at large aware of the value of the scientific enterprise."

The full Eurobarometer report (pdf) can be viewed here.

An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian.co.uk Science Blog.

Second generation GM can't come soon enough

This week’s decision by the newly-installed European Commission (EC) to allow genetically modified (GM) potato varieties to be grown in some EU countries brings to somewhat of a conclusion, a 13-year campaign by the German chemical company BASF.



An edited version of this article appears on the Guardian.co.uk Science Blog. View it here.

The potato in question, Amflora benefits from the gene for a particularly uneconomic form of starch (amylose) being turned off by genetic modification. This means that the useful starch that is produced (amylopectin) doesn’t need to be separated from the useless form.

The starch is used in the paper, textiles and adhesives industries. BASF say that while the starch will not be used in human food, they may use the product in animal feed.


Amflora also carries an extra gene called neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) which makes the potato resistant to the antibiotics neomycin and kanamycin. This ‘antibiotic resistance marker gene’ has provoked much debate and is focused on by opponents of GM technology.


In June 2009, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that these marker genes, including nptII are unlikely to cause adverse effects on human health and the environment, but due to limitations to sampling and detection they were unable to be conclusive. They did however re-emphasise that they considered Amflora to be safe.



"Insertion can be achieved by using a bacterium to “ferry” the gene into the plant cell or by blasting it in using a gene gun"The antibiotic resistance marker genes are a remnant of the genetic modification process that produced the potatoes in the first place. GM plants are produced by inserting novel genes into individual plant cells and then growing the plant cells into whole plants in the laboratory. Insertion can be achieved by using a bacterium to “ferry” the gene into the plant cell or by blasting it in using a gene gun. Alternatively, the tough plant cell wall can be stripped off and the gene can be inserted into this “naked” cell.



Whatever way it is inserted, not all of the plant cells treated will successfully take up the new gene and incorporate it into its own DNA; perhaps just 5 cells out of every 1000 in particularly susceptible plants. It is necessary therefore to be able to select those cells which have been modified from those which have not.


By not only inserting the novel gene, but also tagging a marker gene onto it, it ensures that cells which have been successfully modified exhibit resistance to a specific range of antibiotics. In the case of Amflora, it means that only those plant cells which will grow in the presence of kanamycin and neomycin have been successfully modified. The successful cells can then be allowed to grow into whole plants. However, these whole plants will contain the antibiotic resistance genes in every one of its cells.


BASF first submitted its Amflora potato for approval in 1996 but an EU-wide moratorium on GM between 1998 and 2004 delayed the process substantially. When the potato was resubmitted for approval after the moratorium ended, progress was so slow that BASF took the EC to court in 2008 to force them to come to a decision.


The chemical company filed an action against the EC in the European Court of First Instance for “failure to act” and decide on the issue despite the EFSA saying in two separate reports that the product had no harmful effects on human health and was as safe as any conventional potato. The company claimed that the previous commissioner, Stavros Dimas, “unjustifiably delayed” the decision on several occasions.


Now, within weeks of stepping into the role, the new European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli, has given the green light for planting to begin. BASF say the potatoes will be grown in Germany and the Czech Republic this year as well as Sweden and The Netherlands in 2011.


Opponents of GM technology have been quick to denounce the decision, with Greenpeace saying that Dalli has “steam-rolled” a decision through. Given that the potato variety in question has undergone 13 years of testing since its first submission, this analogy of a steam-roller might be better applied to the lumbering decision making process in Europe rather than this final decisive move by the new Commissioner.


At the crux of this issue is the consumer’s opinion on GM foodstuffs and GM organisms in general. Consumers genuinely do not see the benefit for them of using GM products.


"there is a need to move beyond GM crops that confer benefits to industry and growers alone and towards second generation GM"For this reason, there is a need to move beyond GM crops that confer benefits to industry and growers alone and towards second generation GM which produces added health and nutritional benefits for consumers. The president and CEO of BASF Plant Science Dr. Hans Kast is on record as saying that the Amflora potato represents a potential added value to European farmers of €100 million annually. The company has also pointed out that they are loosing between €20 and 30 million in license income for every lost cultivation season.



Perhaps I’m being presumptuous, but I can’t imagine many Irish or European consumers laying awake at night worrying about lost revenues for BASF. What Irish consumers are concerned about however, are real and tangible benefits from their foods.


In a study carried out in 2005, 42% of Irish consumers surveyed indicated that they would be willing to purchase a hypothetical GM-produced yoghurt if it had anti-cancer properties. In the same study, 44% of consumers said that they would use a GM-produced dairy spread if it had anti-cancer properties.


These second generation GM crops also have a role to play in developing countries, with the development of biofortified foodstuffs to counteract micronutrient malnutrition among the poor.


Undoubtedly, some British and Irish consumers, in common with their European counterparts are reluctant to consume GM crops and see them grown in their countries. The focus of industry on benefits to the grower and seed producer rather than on consumer-centred benefits will prolong this reluctance and hamper the innovation in our food and agriculture industries which is so badly needed at this time.

Our Woman in Brussels

When was the last time you heard some really good news coming form the EU?

 
It seems, despite the EU being very good at extolling its own virtues, some media outlets and indeed the man or woman on the street love to focus on the European Project's mistakes.
But I'm not here to convince you one way or another on Europe and thankfully all that Lisbon business is now behind us.