Myopic decisions - should have studied the fineprint

A third round of protests are scheduled today, with students protesting at the expected rise of tuition fees from their current levels of £3145 pa up to £9000 pa. This rise would give students in the UK an unprecedented level of debt accrued through studying at university, estimated at around £40,000 for a typical three year degree. These changes to student fees are an attempt by the British government to cut costs and raise revenue, however there are fears that the rise in fees may cost Britain a lot more in the long run, with fewer industry leaders being produced from British universities. Are the student protests too late? Not by weeks but by years. Are current students paying the price for poor decisions made by universities, governments and themselves? All this and more...

Student: An individual with sub-standard personal hygiene. Diet comprising mainly of eating baked beans from a can.

This description has barely moved on in decades. And is (mainly) the result of the financial burden of being a student. I am familiar with the financial ramifications of higher education in this country being a postgraduate student myself, and am aware that for many this looks as though it will get worse. However, I will not be protesting. Not at the rise in fees. This is something that I believe is a direct result of the decisions made by some universities to sacrifice the furthering of knowledge and development in scientific disciplines, instead placing an emphasis on courses more profitable for the university. This hasn’t happened overnight. Chemistry schools have closed in many universities with undergraduate students choosing to undertake degrees in less ‘traditional’ subjects such as business, management and hospitality. These degrees are financial gold mines for universities. A typical week may have six hours of lectures, in a lecture theatre with three hundred students. Compare that to a scientific degree which may comprise of up to thirty five hours per week in classes typically of less than fifty. It doesn’t take a maths degree to work out what is financially best for the university.

The decisions made by universities in what courses they offer are predominantly commercial ones.  Profit seems paramount regardless of cost to reputation for some. But the universities are trying to meet the gauntlet set down by a previous government of having 50% of ‘young people’ undertake a degree. 50%!? Did anyone else see the problem with this? We aren’t all equal (fortunately), and a university education for 50% would make a university education normal. A university education should be a privilege, not a right. The other problem with this is the reduction in the number of tax payers – if people are studying rather than working, who will fill the void left in the governments’ pocket? Instead of questions, a proposed 50% university level was met with pats on backs and hearty handshakes. University for all... that should get a few votes... especially from the great unwashed.

So the student population is reaping (or should that be weeping?) what the government and various institutions have sown. I know there are other reasons for protesting, such as certain promises made and broken by a yellow party. But truly this has been on the cards for a long time. The typically inquisitive minds of students have failed to address what the result of a shifting emphasis from science and technology to sociology will be. And of course, what the financial implications of an increase in student numbers means in the longer term.

I think the increase in fees could preserve the traditional subjects. Students will have to consider whether they need a university degree to achieve their career ambitions and also whether it is financially worthwhile. Perversely the fees increase may help create a new generation of scientists and engineers, through young people choosing degrees that may give them more opportunities.

It would be interesting to learn what the protesting students study, they clearly don’t have many lectures if they have time to protest... And if they are missing a lecture, that is costing them about £60 at the new rates... Or 100 cans of baked beans in old money.

Cloned Mac and fries please

Cloned meat has made front page news this morning. Essentially, the story in a well known national newspaper, discusses the imminent decision of the FSA to follow America and class meat and milk from cloned animals as safe following the results from an independent study. ‘Cloned meat is safe’ said by chief scientist Andrew Wadge at the FSA. Well maybe not quite in those words, but it certainly could be interpreted that way. What he actually said regarding the study was “there was no substantial difference found between the milk and meat from cloned cattle compared to conventionally produced meat and milk. Therefore it is unlikely to present a food safety risk.” This paves the way for the FSA to agree its safety and grant a license. So does this expected move by the FSA, giving the green light to cloned produce, reassure the general public? Also, what actually is cloned meat and milk? What are the fears and failures? What are the potential benefits?

Cloning arguably hit main stream media in the mid 1990’s with ‘Dolly’ the sheep. Since then various animals have been cloned; cats, dogs, monkeys, horses, camels and of course cattle. The general process involves nuclear transfer. Basically you remove the DNA from an unfertilised ‘egg cell’ (oocyte) inject into the nucleus with DNA (cloned) and implant into a female uterus. This sounds a lot easier than it actually is. Aside from the technical difficulty, a significant scientific issue is that the cloned offspring would have shortened telomeres. In theory this results in an accelerated aging rate with higher instances of cancers in the cloned animal. This point has not gone un-noticed by groups such as the RSPCA who fear that cloned animals have a greatly reduced quality of life because of their artificial inception.

If cloning of livestock wasn’t enough to upset those seeking natural foods, the next step is the artificial production of meat, and this has already begun. There are three main positives in the synthesis of artificial meat; it seems the ideal way to overcome the CO₂ and methane impact, with the UN estimating 18% of the world’s current greenhouse gases are attributable to livestock. Laboratory meat may also be a potential solution to global hunger, especially in regions where grazing land is unavailable. Finally it also has less of a social and moral impact for some groups, PETA, the animal rights group, stated they have “no ethical objection” to artificially synthesised meat, with there being no animal involved.

The ‘frankenstein’ produce from the livestock has a fear attached to it due to it being un-natural. This is something I can understand. But when one thinks of the farming and food production methods that have been used for years – selective breeding, pesticides, hot-housing, fertilisers, GM crops, stabilisers, flavour enhancers (the list goes on) The amount of ‘natural’ food available in any mainstream supermarket is minimal at best. It is the uncertainty that generates fear... well that and scaremongering by various media sources.

Although this is far from ‘natural’ I would be reassured knowing exactly what I was eating, synthesised in a lab or not.

Plastic fantastic?

Plastic, since its inception in the mid 19^th century has become one of the widest used materials. The properties; typically insulating and flame retardant, are a perfect suit for electronic applications. These properties can even be tailored, meeting the requirements of the application. A truly fantastic material. Or is it?

Plastics, or if you’re a scientist, polymers, have enabled the progress of science and technology in various different fields, most notably in electronics. Originally acting as the casing and insulators of electronic goods, from early Bakelite to modern polystyrene blends, the new trend is to introduce conducting polymers. These enable the field of electronics to continue to grow with technologies such as organic light emitting diode (OLED) displays – giving a brilliant degree of clarity, potentially surpassing the number of pixels the human eye can detect. Wow! Technology is surpassing human thresholds that have taken over a million years of evolution! But it doesn’t stop there!

Plastics are everywhere! From Formula 1 cars to polyurethane car seats, the polyethylene bags at the supermarket to the Kevlar vest you may wear that covers your polyester shirts, even the bisphenol A water bottle your child drinks from.... “hang on..... bisphenol A... didn’t I read something in the news about that a while ago?” Yes. And there is more.

To explain, bisphenol A (BPA) is the polymer that many typically encounter as the material that makes receipts and common plastic bottles and generally has great properties for this purpose. Unfortunately, it’s toxic. So much so that in September of this year (2010) Canada declared it as a toxic product. And recent research by Zalko et. al. based in Toulouse and Braun et. al. based in Boston will provide justification for Canada’s decision and fuel for other nations to follow suit. The research conducted suggests BPA is not just toxic but absorbed through the skin. Regular contact with till receipts could expose an individual to an increased risk of the toxicity associated with BPA, namely mimicking oestrogen in the body. A significant issue for pregnant women.

BPA has been known to be toxic since the 1930’s. This, however, was overlooked when introducing the polymer as a new material for mass production. The quest for scientific and technological advancement may come with consequences as illustrated by BPA, and who knows what other materials in the future, maybe this is the price to pay for progress? I think this quote sums it up best...

“Technological progress is like an axe in the hands of a pathological criminal”

                                                                                                                A. Einstein

Let's Get Annihilated!

Antimatter made international news recently. Many would envisage an evil villain pursuing this science fiction style substance whilst stroking a cat, but what is antimatter? And why is it currently big news?

Well very intelligent people over at CERN, have isolated antimatter atoms. 38 of them to be precise, and all for a fraction of a second. This is groundbreaking stuff which could aid in better understanding our universe and the laws that govern it. But what is antimatter?

Antimatter is the opposite of matter. Simples. If one to consider anything tangible to be made of atoms... these atoms can then be broken down into smaller moieties such as protons and electrons and so on. This is matter. Equally, through analysis of Schrödinger’s equation (new post coming soon), there should be the presence of an opposite particle. A bit like Yin and Yang or Ant and Dec. So for a positively charged proton (matter) there should be a negatively charged proton (antimatter) equally, a negatively charged electrons antimatter counterpart is the positron, a positively charged species. “What is the significance of this” I hear you cry in unison? When antimatter and matter are present together they collide and annihilate. This releases high energy gamma rays – the ones sought by evil villains!  “Hang on” I can hear you say, “If antimatter and matter collide releasing loads of radiation, why do I not have one eye and six legs?” (Apologies to any hexapedal-cyclops offended) Well there is a complete imbalance in matter and antimatter originating in the imbalance from the big bang. Antimatter is still present throughout the universe but in tiny quantities. This imbalance is known as baryon asymmetry and a bit of a mystery in physics.

The isolation of 38 antihydrogen particles at CERN could help to provide solutions to many questions in physics. Antimatter has a current application in PET scanning (Positron emission tomography) this is a type of medical imaging. As well as this application, antimatter may provide future technologies in fuel production through harnessing the energy produced from annihilation. Exciting stuff!

So next time you are in a pub quiz and the antimatter round comes up, consider yourself well prepared. Alternatively you could get totally annihilated.