the lab' report

welcome issue

editorialWe 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 ques-tion 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 evolu-tion. 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)

contentsThe Cell Wall - JURI

The Two Enemy Brothers, Science And Politics ? - ITRE 1

The Car Is A Temporary Phenomena. I Believe In The Car - TRAN

The Future Lies In Our Hands - IMCO

Europe’s Stand On Hydraulic Frac-tion - ITRE 2

Can Europe Achieve Integration ? - EMPL

4

6

8

10

12

14

4

The Cell Wall

JURI

R. Tamer Ozgen

The 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 mo-vement and religion authorities who are strongly against the destruction of a hu-man 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?

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 Ame-rica, it developed into a shape that de-fends 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 struc-ture 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 re-searches were first discovered.

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 destruc-tion 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 mo-vement, 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 ferti-lized egg into a baby is a continuously growing one and any attempt to this li-ving thing is just same with an attempt to an infant. Yet, the others state that an embryo does not have the psychologi-cal, 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 prin-ciples belongs to the mother until a child is born since the embryo lacks of this abi-lity and doesn’t have emotional connec-tion 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-to-be-born and this is the point where I meet the majority of scientists.

5

«How will we be able to find a route that sa-

tisfies both sides ?»

To continue, like we cannot draw a clear line for the personhood, it is also unlikely to draw one for the science. This creates 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

a question mark on people’s minds, ma-king 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. 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 answer Dr. Gregory House gives to his fel-low doctors will be «Apply stem-cell treat-ment» in the future.

6

The Two Enemy Brothers, Science And Politics ?Tuusa Eriksson

ITRE1

Politics 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 go-vernment, for reasons that are quite self-ex-planatory, is very closely tied to politics. There are some general concerns about government-funded research. The big-gest 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 pro-jects that further the goals the government wants to pursue receive funding. Projects that propose ethical dilemmas, like em-bryonic stem cell research, don’t receive that much funding, since supporting re-search 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 mat-ter. In the real world it does. What this ef-fectively means is that when we are talking about government-backed research, poli-ticians are responsible for deciding the va-lue and importance of a scientific project.

A research policy called the Haldane prin-ciple 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 so-cial good that may come as a result of po-liticians 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 pro-ject doesn’t have huge commercial po-tential, like for example a clinical trial for a new drug. So without government funding, some projects are pretty much doomed. 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 ef-fect on the researchers’ work. The objec-tivity of science is its base. If science be-comes 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 re-search projects influences the agenda of these specific projects. This is not only a

7

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? 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 gi-ves 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 in-vented 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 fun-ding and which doesn’t? Government-fun-ded research has produced many inva-luable things over the years, like computers and cell phones. Maybe it doesn’t matter that politics shapes the agenda of govern-ment-funded research. Maybe the more important question is one concerning com-petitive and non-competitive research.

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-competi-tive 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 co-mes down to what kind of research we want to support. We circle back to politics. 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 exact-ly 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.

8

The car is a temporary phenomena. I believe in the horse.

TRAN

Veronika Datzer

The car is a temporary phe-nomena. I believe in the

horse.“ This is what Wilhelm II, the German Emperor ser-ving 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: Especial-ly 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 sta-tistically 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 des-cribed as places of perfect living standards. Conges-

tion, road safety and pol-lutions are issues that 9 out of 10 European inha-bitants depict as urgent. Urban planning is mostly a dilemma. It is a tightrope walk, trying to compromise between traffic and pollution reduction but also move-ment 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 in-habitants and the environ-ment suffer. The current si-tuation of urban living has to evolve to towards sus-tainability by economical, environmental and social means. Higher population density and enormous hu-man features in compari-son to areas surrounding, defines an urban area. Ur-ban areas are usually cities, towns or conurbations and increase through urbaniza-tion, leading to many su-burban areas. These are not necessarily provided with public transportation,

which aggravates mobility. Mobility plays a significant role for the social inclusion, the satisfaction and gene-ral life quality of the indivi-dual. 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 connec-ted with motorized vehicles it is necessary for this defini-tion to change. One should not forget the new oppor-tunities that have been in-troduced 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. Si-milar programs have suc-cessfully been founded in other European cities. However, our mobility should never influence

9

our health. Therefore the contradicting points of both, mobility and public health as well as a certain living standard and ecolo-gical consciousness form the major conflict within this issue. The smog covering industrial giants is the every-day 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 ear-th 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 stress-ful city life but becoming a real Plan B is connected with massive changes such as a better-developed ac-cess to public transporta-tion and local supply of groceries. The plans indeed exists, mostly know as the

Compact City concept or the Transit-Oriented Deve-lopment. Thus, the idea of the perfect city is already among us but has not been enforced. Being part of the fabulous success of the Eu-ropean Union we are lucky to have this institution, sup-porting 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 pro-posal 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, wor-king 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 prospe-rity between the member states and also rural and urban area and therefore helps the different states to

further integrate into the su-pranational institution. The program supports smaller enterprises and transpor-tation projects and provi-des unemployed citizens with advanced trainings. The financial means for ur-ban planning and adjust-ment policy add up to 45 % of the total EU finances. Another project is the so-called Urban Track. It pro-motes an improvement of the rail infrastructure. As main features, Urban Track strives for high perfor-mance, safety, low noise and minimal maintenance. According to the Mercer consultancy, Vienna is the city with the highest living standards concerning po-litical stability, crime rate, economic conditions, health care etc. Out of 215 cities seven European ones made it into the Top Ten. Al-though many facets have to be improved, the Euro-pean cities are some of the most beautiful in the entire world. Let us adhere to this beauty.

10

IMCO

The Future Lies In Our HandsPeter Pölzleithner

No 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 eco-nomically, there are two common factors, which should be given utmost considera-tion: Research and Development (RD). RD is an area that has undoubtedly establi-shed itself as a cornerstone for economic success in the 21st century.The level of in-novations provided by European compa-nies 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 espe-cially 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 environmen-tal 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-eco-nomic riddle can be spotted in the field of RD. Rethinking the principles of cross bor-der 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 prospe-rity 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 ma-jority has unfortunately proven to be ineffi-cient, 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 innova-tions provided by corporations is worryingly insufficient, the research conducted has

11

failed to specifically target the social-eco-nomic problem we Europeans are strug-gling 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. 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-hearte-dly support them. Not only would a com-mon framework facilitate and encou-rage 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 pro-gress, it will eventually only progress to fail The Horizon 2020 is a budget plan issued by the European Union. In this proposed

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, cli-mate change and renewable energy. 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.

12

Europe’s Stand On Hydraulic FractionOnur Can Uçarer

Whatever we do and de-cide, consequences

are to predict. When envi-ronmental issues are invol-ved, the decisions we take should always be deeply re-flected on, as they may lead to further huge problems. European governments are conscious about environ-mental issues. We have lots of plans and control sys-tems in order to preserve our world. The citizens are aware of the environmen-tal threats, however the hy-draulic fracturing system is something new for many of us, myself included. Hydraulic fracturing is a sys-tem that consists in brin-ging the underground re-sources to surface in order to make them available to use. This extraction is taken care of by a well that is im-planted 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 Ameri-ca 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 re-search 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 ex-tract this gas using fraction.

Researchers estimate that 70% of the natural gas re-sources in North America will be extracted with this system in the upcoming 10 years. Many claim that the prac-tice of this system harms the environment: air and water pollution, methane contamination, radioacti-vity and seismicity. Some of the case studies state that farm animals are being af-fected badly from hydrau-lic 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 frac-turing, and also the car-bon emissions released by the equipment used in this practice harms the environ-ment. While some believe that these methane leaks

ITRE213

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 men-tioned 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 go-vernmental pressure and oil companies unwilling to cooperate.

With all these facts, this issue appears to be very tenden-tious. The arguments on both sides lead us to a grey area. In order to give us clear facts, unbiased and unpres-sured researches should be conducted. When we have detailed information on the impacts of hydraulic fractu-ring in the environment, the government’s action towar-ds this practice will be ea-sier to figure out. Nevertheless, the discus-sions over the effects of energy resources on envi-ronment will never be clear as black and white. For ins-tance, there have been

lots of researches over the nuclear energy. We know what consequences can happen in case of a mis-take, 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 pro-jects because it’s easy and cheap to produce energy with nuclear power plants. The approaches of the Eu-ropean Union on the issue of hydraulic fraction will not only show us the practice of this system in Europe, but also the future of our envi-ronment and energy mar-ket.

14

Can Europe Achieve Integration ?Manon Schuerch

EMPL

All 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-handi-capped people. In such situations these disabled people often have a disadvan-tage 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 fee-ling 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 seg-ment. That is why working and society in-tegration of such people, though being a small group, shouldn’t be an issue. In a working environment, which is in cur-rent 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 the-refore 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 de-mographic aging, since mentally challen-ged 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 ex-perience. 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 ex-plicitly smaller amongst severely disabled people than amongst non-handicapped people. The durance of the unemploy-ment 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 indi-vidually. 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

15

chances on the labor market than non han-dicapped 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 inde-pendent activity or practice, an individual and competitive activity on the open la-bor 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 occupan-cy in facilities designed for such people. Generally speaking, a shift in employment within institutions is aimed towards a free la-bor 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 ser-vices instead of a full integration into the working world. But this attitude shows so-ciety 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 la-bor market is made. In addition to that, di-sabled people in this view are shown not to be capable of competing with non-han-dicapped workers, which shouldn’t be the case.