I took the night train from Saigon to Nha Trang last night. After 6 hours on the bus from Cantho to Saigon and 6 hours on a boat on the Mekong I really have enough of being shaken around now. But now I can put up my feet on the beautiful Nha Trang beach and read another book.
Björn unfortunately fell ill with a food poisoning! Fortunately now he feels better again but he was not fit of course to tack along with me. Too bad, but it is alright to keep moving alone now. It would have been more fun of course, but I really need to get moving because my time is short to see Laos. And that is where I want to head already next Thursday.
I have finished an interesting book by Richard Dawkins called “unweaving the rainbow” [1]. It is an easy to read book on the wonders of our world and why science should play a much larger part in our lives than superstition and religion for example. Dawkins argues very convincingly that superstition is not at all a positive force and is unsettled by a common tendency to resort to superstition rather than to knowledge. I could not agree more with him. In fact, people very often harm themselves with their ignorance. And while I do not mind that too much (in the end Darwins natural selection will take of them) they too often harm their fellow beings too. That I mind a lot.
I met some nice Chinese the other day. Over the typical shit-chat about what each one of us does I ended up explaining my professional vocation. I explained that “chemicals” might be found (in a way of course they already have been more indirectly in the shape of all types of drugs we take against health issues) to prolong life. “Chemical!”, a female exclaimed, “but that would be so unnatural! Is that even healthy?”. I must admit that such situations require all my self-comtrol.
I explained to her that chemical are also what composites our food (I should simply have pointed out that she consists entirely of chemicals!), and that I was talking about such substances who might be derived from such sources. Her lack of science went further than just a lack of understanding the terminology.
In another discussion someone thought that you get fat from diet coke. I explained that there are no calories in diet coke, not much more than in pure water. Hence it is hard to imagine how that would work (except you are eating at the same time and the diet coke would exhibit insulin secreting properties for example. A bit far fetched thinking though). However, even to state something like that uncovers a deep lack of scientific knowledge.
In yet another situation someone was very confident that we will continue to drive cars, even if we run out of cheap oil (see my blog for “peak oil”), because we would simply switch to electric cars. His optimism is admirable and I hope (in some way) that he is right. However, his suggested nuclear energy will not do the trick (limited resources of Uranium, Plutonium etc. and not suitable for “peak demands” of electricity in the mornings e.g.). I cannot even begin to explain the problems of all other possible alternatives, and it does not matter. My point is that his statement was poorly reflected and not backed up with any deeper understanding of the science behind it.
Read Dawkins´ book for more. In any case science gives us so much “wonder” and “mystery” that we need not look for more in superstition. But if we do not show any interest in science (and science has no good rep with a lot of the kids) we risk not foreseeing and tackling the major issues that human kind is about to be confronted with, be it peak oil, global warming, overpopulation, food scarceness, water deprivation……
Yesterday I have been to the Mekong delta city of Cantho, where I managed to organize a boat trip to see some floating markets and the daily life (or an impression of it) of the people who populate the small and tiny rivers and streams of the delta. I watched the little boats buzzing around and people exchanging goods. People haggling for prizes, driving a short distance away with their boat, thereby following a ritual that demonstrates to the business opponent that his/her prize is unacceptable, only to come back after a minute and closing the deal at a mutually acceptable prize. Fun to see, hard to do. I have not yet gotten the hang on the haggling. However, one word of advice you see repeatedly in guide books is true: approach it with humor!
Little supermarket on Mekong river
The delta region once again revealed a beautiful though at times a rather poorly maintained environment. And it revealed once more how difficult it is going to be to convince or convey the idea of environmental protection to a people who struggle to survive.
That said, the Mekong is the main agricultural region of Vietnam and feeds much of the rest of the country. I visited some fruit gardens where the lushest plantations are maintained one can think of. Nevertheless, live along the creeks is basic, crude and attached closely to the daily struggle of survival. Seeing the people here exchange their simple goods and lead there simple lives demonstrates rather clearly how detached we have become in industrialized nations from the more dire straits of fighting for survival in its most fundamental ways.
Little river arm of Mekong
However, people here still are in the lucky situation of the ready availability of food. In general I wonder if Vietnam resembles the developing states of Europe (not, obviously, when it comes to the cellphones everyone here seems to have), or whether it reflects the future of Europe rather. This obviously is a question of how human kind handles certain pressing issues. Personally I feel that I rather see our future here and that the future of Vietnam is not as bright as one would wish for these cheerful (if sometimes bugging) people.
Come here and have a look for yourself, it is well worth it and great fun seeing how people so similar to us can live so dissimilar to us.
In research publications are the most valuable currency any scientist has. Hence it is not surprising that there is a lot of struggle and even outright fighting for publications. A scientific publication or so called “paper” has the authors names on it. Usually you will find the name of the person who carried out the practical part of the study first. Then cooperating researchers or students who helped out with the work. At the end there should be the head of the group. It is intended for this person to usually have planed the study to large extends and usually also financed it.
Here the trouble starts; people do not get the position on the paper they think they deserve or are even ignored altogether. That especially happens when someone, lets say a phd student or postdoc has left the group. Suddenly many professors think it is alright to step all over that persons achievement and leave there name out or put them in an unfavorable position (e.g. “hidden” somewhere in the middle).
I have seen much of this in my humble scientific career and have been a victim myself. I have recently written a review (sure, it was no research paper) and have not been credited for it. My name does not appear on the paper at all. Must have to do with my leaving that specific research group. I do not mind too much. My attitude is that everyone has to suit themselves. In the end people often meet twice…
Sure an author- like in that case me- has the possibility to contact the publisher to have things investigated. Fortunately in this instance it is so insignificant that I won´t even consider this step. However, what interests me is, what is your, the readers experience with this topic? What is your experience with similar professional situation and what was the outcome?
Especially if you are a scientist, I am curious to hear your experience! I wonder if this just a case of my specific field of research and/or the characters who are in it, or if this is a more universal science and research problem?
