Well a headache after a long n
ight (see the pic for the stupidity) and 5 hours sleep isn’t the best way to start the day, but Petra (my German land lady) had a big breakfast ready. After making short work of it, it was up on the high Nellie bike, and a short cycle with Martin (German student also staying at the house).
The theme of yesterdays talks was on 2 things; structural biology and climate change. I think, being a person who studies Physics, I know which one I prefer. The morning session started with a talk from each of the 3 Prize winners from 1988, each sharing 1/3rd of the Chemistry Prize for unravelling how a membrane bound protein active in photosynthesis is built up. The 3 lecturers, Prof Johann Diesenhofer, Prof. Robert Huber and Prof. Hartmut Michel (I should say Prof. Dr., they’re very fussy about that title here....) gave talks, and to be completely honest, there was an awful lot that went completely over my head in terms of the biology. Try listening to words such as “pycobilisomes”, “eukaryotic proteasome” and “cytochrome oxidase” when you have never heard the words before and it doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence about the rest of the talk! To be fair, 30 minutes per lecture really isn’t enough for a crash course in the architecture of proteins, not to mind discussing to a Physics audience what they did to win the prize. Interesting about these talks was the technology they used to visualise these proteins, I only wished they talked more about the X-ray diffraction, electron microscopy and NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) rather than wading through the confusing jargon of biology.
ight (see the pic for the stupidity) and 5 hours sleep isn’t the best way to start the day, but Petra (my German land lady) had a big breakfast ready. After making short work of it, it was up on the high Nellie bike, and a short cycle with Martin (German student also staying at the house).The theme of yesterdays talks was on 2 things; structural biology and climate change. I think, being a person who studies Physics, I know which one I prefer. The morning session started with a talk from each of the 3 Prize winners from 1988, each sharing 1/3rd of the Chemistry Prize for unravelling how a membrane bound protein active in photosynthesis is built up. The 3 lecturers, Prof Johann Diesenhofer, Prof. Robert Huber and Prof. Hartmut Michel (I should say Prof. Dr., they’re very fussy about that title here....) gave talks, and to be completely honest, there was an awful lot that went completely over my head in terms of the biology. Try listening to words such as “pycobilisomes”, “eukaryotic proteasome” and “cytochrome oxidase” when you have never heard the words before and it doesn’t exactly fill you with confidence about the rest of the talk! To be fair, 30 minutes per lecture really isn’t enough for a crash course in the architecture of proteins, not to mind discussing to a Physics audience what they did to win the prize. Interesting about these talks was the technology they used to visualise these proteins, I only wished they talked more about the X-ray diffraction, electron microscopy and NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance) rather than wading through the confusing jargon of biology.
In the afternoon there was a panel discuss
ion about something that everybody can have an opinion about, climate change. Although not specifically climate change, the panel of 7 Laureates touched on all aspects affecting future generations such as energy sustainability, climate change, fuel reserves and renewable energy. This issue obviously affects almost everyone on the planet, so it was interesting to see the Laureates tackling this sensitive issue. Colours were pinned to the mast fairly quickly with each Laureate giving their personal understanding of the extent of global warming. The large gap appeared with Prof Giaever appearing to be a complete sceptic of the global warming idea. His thoughts were based on the issues about the fear caused in the general population about acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago. He went on to discuss that the average temperature is a terrible indicator because it varies so widely from place to place, and that it is indeed the temperature of the ocean that regulates the earths surface temperature (specific heat capacity of water is greater than that of air). All the other Laureates were united in stating that global warming is a man made effect, and “it may already be too late” as Prof Deisenhofer put it. They all agreed that serious effort needs to be made to act before it is too late to reverse the trend. On the subject of energy, all were united in saying that more people on the planet is the cause of the energy crisis (look at the cost of petrol!), and that the next 30 years is the most critical period in terms of energy generation. They discussed the future of nuclear power, and all agreed it was the most worthwhile endeavour in the short term. A switch to Thorium as a nuclear fuel was discussed, mainly because for the same energy output you get 1 ton waste with Th but 200 tons waste of Uranium. Its also more available and nuclear grade weapons can’t be made from it. Maybe Ireland could one day have its own reactor? More on this later.....Solar power energy it was decided needs to be harnessed better. If it was so good, then we would have the deserts of the world covered with solar panels, right? Nope, because apparently it takes 2-3 years for a solar cell to regain.
ion about something that everybody can have an opinion about, climate change. Although not specifically climate change, the panel of 7 Laureates touched on all aspects affecting future generations such as energy sustainability, climate change, fuel reserves and renewable energy. This issue obviously affects almost everyone on the planet, so it was interesting to see the Laureates tackling this sensitive issue. Colours were pinned to the mast fairly quickly with each Laureate giving their personal understanding of the extent of global warming. The large gap appeared with Prof Giaever appearing to be a complete sceptic of the global warming idea. His thoughts were based on the issues about the fear caused in the general population about acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago. He went on to discuss that the average temperature is a terrible indicator because it varies so widely from place to place, and that it is indeed the temperature of the ocean that regulates the earths surface temperature (specific heat capacity of water is greater than that of air). All the other Laureates were united in stating that global warming is a man made effect, and “it may already be too late” as Prof Deisenhofer put it. They all agreed that serious effort needs to be made to act before it is too late to reverse the trend. On the subject of energy, all were united in saying that more people on the planet is the cause of the energy crisis (look at the cost of petrol!), and that the next 30 years is the most critical period in terms of energy generation. They discussed the future of nuclear power, and all agreed it was the most worthwhile endeavour in the short term. A switch to Thorium as a nuclear fuel was discussed, mainly because for the same energy output you get 1 ton waste with Th but 200 tons waste of Uranium. Its also more available and nuclear grade weapons can’t be made from it. Maybe Ireland could one day have its own reactor? More on this later.....Solar power energy it was decided needs to be harnessed better. If it was so good, then we would have the deserts of the world covered with solar panels, right? Nope, because apparently it takes 2-3 years for a solar cell to regain. In conclusion to this section, if the scientists cannot agree what the problem is and the extent of it, then I personally can’t see how they can convince politicians and the general public as to a correct course of action, and the rules and regulations we are supposed to trust arguing scientists into making for us. Its a mixture of politics and science, neither of which is flawless, and I foresee tremendous complications in forcing an unnatural combination of both.
Myself Shane and Iris (the rest of the Irish contingent!) also got to interview Prof. Ivar Giaever (pronounced “gavour” so he kindly informed us) for the radio broadcast with freelance journalist Anna Nolan. Shane and Iris questioned him about his dissent from the other Laureates at the climate change debate earlier that day, and about the future of nuclear energy. We had prepared other questions, but changed them at the last minute because the climate change talk was so relative. He seemed to enjoy talking to us anyway (see the pic)!! In his view, the fear of the people is the only reason why we cannot have a nuclear reactor, and made a good argument for one. What makes it ok for a few guys to die in a mine in China digging coal destined for Ireland instead of producing our own energy on our own soil? Or even cheekier, buying energy from the UK which produces energy with nuclear power? Out of sight out of mind seems to be the way in Ireland......this Nobel winner basically told us to cop on and sort ourselves out.
Questions and answers sessions were arranged in the afternoon with the biology Laureates from earlier on in the day but I couldn’t rack my brain for a sensible question. I kept the head down......roll on astro and particle Physics!!
Tschuss
