Back in Brussels

It’s over, and I’m home. Delighted to be here on many levels  - it was lovely being met at the airport by Abi and I’m seeing Rachel tonight, and it’s been joyous being with the cats, even if there was a bit of resentment from them when I arrived! But it’s such a wrench being away from my fellow Fellows – we’ve lived such an intense experience together over the past two months. So there’s a very bittersweet feeling going on.

The closing seminar week was lovely. Sunday was arrivals day and that fun bit of everyone meeting up again. Monday was writing our reports and in the evening we went to Ardrossan, the home of an EF supporter, whose family inspired the Philadelphia Story – how cool is that! Tuesday was show and tell of the artefacts and images we had been asked to bring back from our trip. Then we worked on our presentations – I was in a team with CV, Christian and Somkiat and we went for the low-fi option – 4 slides, a few findings and conclusions. Others were working on theirs for hours, but I think in the end it worked out, because we were able to generate quite a bit of debate among the group when we presented on Wednesday. Tuesday and Wednesday were also about working on the slideshow which Zuzanna and I did for the annual dinner on the Thursday, with a range of pictures gathered from the fellows. Tuesday night was fun – a dinner and reception just fellows and staff. After dinner Mark and I played a couple of songs, so the bass has had its first outing! Then after a few stories from the road, we all moved to the games room and played shuffleboard, babyfoot and pool. A lovely night just hanging out together.

Wednesday was the presentations and also a chance to hear from the Irish alumni about what they have done and stayed in contact. That was pretty inspirational – they had quite a role in keeping channels of communication open during the peace talks – but also quite unsettling- I had a feeling of “oh my, what have I got myself into, this is serious stuff!”. The Irish were immensely successful people, all at the top of their profession – I wonder where we will all be in 20 years?

Then we had the annual meeting on Thursday, which was like a graduation day. We left Villanova at 11.30 and went into Centre City, where we had lunch at EF House. I had bought a new dress at Donna Karan the evening before and changed after lunch. In terms of compliments per dollar, it was possibly the cheapest dress of my life!!! Then we went to this nice hotel, the Rittenhouse and had a seminar with Gen. Colin Powell, the EF Chairman, where we discussed our impressions from our trip. He asked about my new job and clearly found it quite amusing – even mentioned it when I had my photo taken with him at the end. After the seminar we had some time to ourselves, so I wandered in the park with Bori and Sonya – it was a lovely day. then a reception and dinner, during which the slideshow was shown and Sam made his speech as Chairman’s Fellow. The Irish accepted their award and Sen George Mitchell got the Eisenhower medal – he was hilarious! then all too soon, it was back on the bus back to Villanova. We hung out in the Games Room for a while, just saying goodbye. All got a bit emotional really. The next day was departure day and as I had one of the later flights, I had to see everyone off. I did go to the mall for an hour or so with Gil and Deema and had my nails done. Then it was 4.30 and time for my taxi. And then it was over. The flight was fine and I got met at the airport (useful with all my bags!). Went out with Abi and Rachel that night, which was lovely. But it’s a funny feeling to be back. I can’t remember where things are in my kitchen! I can’t deal with having such a large choice of clothes to wear! And I look round and think about packing this place up and my blood runs cold. Anyway, so many things to do now I’m back so I should get on with it.

New York Day 2 and goodbye!

Got a bit behind and so am only writing Friday up tonight-  Sunday. Sorry about that, I know you’ve been hanging on the edge of your seats – cough cough.

I started off meeting Corey Powell, executive editor of one of the big popular science magazines, Discover. We started off talking about this idea of a debate about Science for the 2008 Presidential candidates. We both felt (perhaps for slightly different reasons) that this was not necessarily a good idea, because it could seem elitist and because it “ghettoised” science as something that needs special attention and isn’t part of everyday issues. We discussed top-down/bottom-up approaches to political engagement in science (and scientific engagement in politics, I suppose) and felt that it was more a question of science engaging with the public policy process. But whichever way it was, a popular science magazine was somewhere where people went to get away from policy debates, and be entertained and interested, so this issue was not a big thing for them editorially.

I asked where they got their ideas for stories. It was from a variety of sources: press release services such as EurekAlert, agencies such as Associated Press, Science/Nature, or just ideas coming from the writers through the conferences they attend, people they meet, areas they cover. Or they “reverse engineer” stories to show the science angle of the big stories of the day.

The weather was absolutely foul that day, so I went back to the hotel between meetings to change. And got even more soaked on my way to the next meeting, which was at the Center for Energy, Marine Transportation and Public Policy at Columbia University. What a great hour or so I spent there. It’s so stimulating being around creative, intelligent people who are interested in what you have to say as well. I started with the director, Albert Bressand, who happens to be an advisor to the European Energy Commissioner. Given that theirs is very much a public policy centre, we talked about the role of technology in addressing energy and environment concerns within a policy framework. They mentioned an interesting study by McKinsey about how savings can be made with existing technologies (and apparently it raises how Europe is 15 years ahead of the US in this area. They were very interested in the lead markets initiative as it could apply to energy efficient buildings. The more “hands-on” type of government we have in Europe helps, because through the use of taxes etc it can help people make the financial case much more immediate. However they did see that in the US, there was alot of value in using cities as test beds, and they had done a study on CHP (combined heat and power) in New York, and were also looking at micro-grids and solar. They also do some really interesting work on marine transportation and energy use, could be worth investigating.

While there, I had a phone conversation with the Executive Director of the New York Energy Forum, and they were very keen to work with us to identify possible speakers, or explore other possibilities for co-operation.

Finally I talked with one of the Center’s researchers, Steve Hammer, who had done his PhD at the LSE and looked particularly at urban issues for renewables, particularly in London and NY. They were looking at what was going on in other cities, such as Paris and Shanghai. They are trying to develop a model to identify building-by-building energy use in New York, which could be used to make decisions about eg where to place micro-grids, and also get the real data out of the utility comapnies. They were also looking at attitudes. It would be interesting to see if there is some way to work with the New York side on this from a London and wider European urban centre persepctive – I need to see what can be done, perhaps in the context of the C40 process, which is a UK initiative or the urban climate change research process- but these are great people doing fascinating work. One area that is really surprising is the role of building code enforcement in optimising energy use – apparently proper enforcement of building codes could reduce emissions by 20-30%. It all feeds into the issue I have been getting into, the design of a building to influence positively what goes on in the building.

So, that was it! After that meeting, it was back to the hotel and then today, back to Philadelphia for the closing seminar. I have to give my computer back tomorrow or the next day, so I guess this will be my last post from the US. There may be some follow-up when I get back, so check-in occasionally! Thanks for the comments that have been left and the visits you have made. Keeping this blog has really helped me through the whole fellowship process – it has focused my mind before, during and particularly after meetings and really helped me to filter the information I received and make sense of it. I hope that you’ve found it a little interesting as well!

New York Day 1

Well, I’m in my last city of the trip, and the best has been saved for last – The Big Apple! I arrived yesterday by train from Philadelphia. Checked into the hotel (E44th and 1st) in the early afternoon and went out to get some chores done in the afternoon including laundry (there goes Sally to put another load on…!)

Today I headed over to Hoboken on the PATH (hadn’t been on that before) to meet John Horgan of the Centre for Science Writing at the Stevens Institute of Technology. It was a very informal meeting – we chatted in his office for a while and then went out for lunch with several of his colleagues. Very interesting though. John is one of the science journalists who came at it through the journalism side, not the science side. And he makes it a thing to be critical and questioning, even (especially?) of mainstream science, not allowing things to be taken for granted. A great approach, and a healthy one I think. But this is at a time when science is under attack from several sides and there is a feeling of circling the wagons. He writes a lot about the interface of religion and science, a really interesting subject and one at the forefront of my mind after reading the Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks by Christopher Brookmyre (recommended reading by the way!) and then watching Expelled. He also gave me some other really interesting contacts in the science communication world.

Over lunch discussion was a bit more general, covering the GMO issue in Europe, public attitudes to nanotech and of course the elections – big night last night.

I was supposed to meet a schoolfriend this afternoon, but she got stuck at work so we are meeting tomorrow. Tonight is Korean food with Chak Hee!! I’m very excited! 

Back in Philadelphia for a day

For the first time in this whole trip, I go back to somewhere! I arrived in Philly late last night and checked back into my beloved (haha) Doubletree Hotel. I forced myself to go to bed as early as I could, because of the 3 hour time difference from San Francisco, but first sorted out my bags so I only have to take one to New York – we’re really in the end phase now!

The reason I was back in Philly was today’s meeting at Wyeth, a pharmaceuticals and consumer health company. We started by being met by Anne from the CEO’s office, who took us around the whole day. After a cup of tea in their cafe, we went on a tour of their site. It has a huge fitness centre with three studios for classes (membership $10-20 per month!) and occupational health centre, cafeterias, 3 miles of walking trails across the campus, banking, dry-cleaning and post office facilities… Pretty amazing!

After that we had lunch with some of the executives. The CEO was supposed to have been there, but couldn’t make it then (we met him later). But we had an interesting discussion with the President of the Pharmaceuticals division and some of his colleagues. We talked about the elements behind recent political attacks on pharmaceutical companies. It’s a tricky one, because they are companies after all, not charities, and they have to finance their drug discovery. Nonetheless there is a recognition that they could have done more to explain their business model and the process of drug discovery (88-92% failure of potential drug discoveries) that go into making their prices.

After lunch we went to the Discovery division and found about in particular about their work on uterine fibroids and osteoporosis. Then went to their High Throughput Screening Facility, which was an amazing piece of computer and manufacturing engineering if nothing else! Finally the three of us (Sam, Iyad and me) broke up and spoke to people specific to our interests. I talked to two guys from the government affairs side and we focused on the Innovative Medicines Initiative. They were both convinced that it was a step in the right direction, and an important political signal in itself, but didn’t feel that it was going to directly result in drug discoveries – to do that there needs to be competitive research, company A working with university B, not broad industry-wide partnerships because companies need exclusivity. It made me wonder whether FP8 couldn’t include some kind of “matchmaking” element. Rather than investing large amounts in individual projects, with all the IP entanglements and so on, use the money to facilitate the development of industry/academia partnerships. They also said that they couldn’t use Marie Curie as much as they would like because of visa problems. So the visa issue is clearly affecting things across the board, including from Western Europe. It’s a ticking timebomb for the US I reckon. 

So all in all a day worth coming  back to Philadelphia for. What I particularly liked was that instead of showing us all their corporate social responsibility and citizenship activities, they focussed on their core business. I have to say I wish some of the other big companies we saw had done the same.

Tomorrow I’m off to my last city of the trip, which is…NEW YORK! So I’m a happy lady!!!

Northern California Days 1 & 2

Arrived in San Francisco yesterday. A great city and one I hope to come back to with a bit more time on my hands! I’ve met some really interesting people here too, so all-in-all, worth coming!

Yesterday I met the Chief Communications Officer of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, which was set up by the state to provide funds for research that uses stem cells. The first round of grants focused on human embryonic stem cells, but later rounds were broader. They also fund the building of physical facilities, because scientists can’t use federal equipment – he said that at Harvard equipment was tagged with different colours to let them know what they could and couldn’t use! The centre is funded from a bond system that was approved by the electorate by 59%. When I asked why people were in favour, the view was it was 70% because they saw a value for the future and 30% to give a bloody nose to the federal government! Their aim is to have one therapy developed by the centre accepted by the end of the 10 year cycle and 3 more ready for clinical trials. While their grants are predominantly to universities at the moment, it is envisaged that in the future they will be more and more to industry.

In terms of the human embryonic stem cells they use, they are all derived from supernumerary IVF embryos, like we do at European level. There are very strong ethical standards on what can be used, but he did mention that there are fewer supernumerary embryos here and more multiple births, because there is such a pressure to produce children in IVF.

On the public information side, they are going to work with the grant recipients on getting information out there and will develop the pedagogic/communication side of their website. They’re also forming a partnership with the Exploratorium, the SF science museum, to develop their stem cell information.

So really interesting talking to him and seeing the take they have on this sensitive issue.

Today I hopped on the CalTrain down to Stanford university. Because I am an idiot, i not only left my phone at the hotel, but the very detailed instructions on how to get to my meetings, so thank goodness for a) reading through things the night before and b) a photographic memory! It got me to the meeting there, which was with a senior member of Stanford’s office of technology licensing, just about the best in the country. Astonishingly, practically the first thing he said was that it’s a mistake for people in those jobs in universities to put emphasis on making money. The secret of success is to look at it as a way of getting inventions to the public through proper management of the ownership of inventions. But a pure money focus is counter-productive. He had resisted suggestions to move their centre into the general university management structure because it was not something that would work with a performance system based on income. I think that’s a main point for us in Europe to remember when dealing with this and also many of the places here – that’s the attitude that’s going to avoid the backlash that is brewing.

There are a lot of parallels between this work and the science communication side. You need to get the trust of the scientists, so that they come to you in good time with the appropriate information, and you need to be able to demonstrate to them then it is in their interests, maybe in terms of consulting opportunities or attracting research sponsorship.

A lot of the income that is generated (and they are very successful, for all their broader focus) goes back into the university, not just to the inventors themselves but to their departments and schools. This is another part of the model that could translate into the European situation. The other element of success that was emphasised was patience – if you look at the successful tech transfer offices in the US, they’re all older than 20 eyars. The bulk of money being made now is off inventions from the 1970s.

It was like Tech Transfer 101, and absolutely fascinating. Stanford was an astonishing place – created in 1891 as a tribute to the teenage son of Mr and Mrs Stanford, who died, so they decided to use their fortune to help other people’s children. The university is a small town, with a shuttle bus, a train station, shopping centres, housing… They gave me a little factbook and I found something very interesting in there as part of my women in science interest. For 2007 the proportion of men and women were:

Undergrad level: 49% men, 51% women

Graduate level: 64% men, 36% women

Faculty: 76% men, 24% women

It does beg the question, where are the role models for the young women students? and if you look at the race figures the pattern is similar. Will things ever change?

From Stanford it was the CalTrain and then underground to get to Berkeley. Another lovely campus, though much smaller scale. There I met the Associate Vice-Chancellor for Research, Bob Price. Great discussion with him, firstly on the reasons why they won the BP energy centre, their productive collaborations with industry, and the contradictory attitudes to science within US society about science.

He totally agreed with Jeff Nesbitt at the NSF (see Washington Day 2) that industry were strong supporters of basic science because they valued its input to innovation and the workforce development role of universities.

Once again constraints for the US system were the “decrepit” state of the public school system, coupled with the problems that were growing in attracting and retaining foreign talent.

When I asked about the increasingly interdisciplinary nature of research his first point was that the architecture of the new buildings is planned to encourage interdisciplinary work. Once again this issue of architecture as part of policy comes up – I really think there’s something super important to look at here! Do decision-makers, “leaders” if you like, really take that into account? They obviously did at Starbucks, and Oak Ridge, but I can think of other places where the architecture wasn’t so conducive to what was supposed to be going on in the building.

Oof, sorry, marathon entry! But several great meetings and I wanted to make sure I did them justice!