perjantai, 30. kesäkuu 2017

Höpsähtäneet, väärässä olevat ja haistapaskantieteilijät ärähtivät Donald Trumpia ja Brexitiä vastaan...

Richard Dawkins and Other Prominent Scientists React to Trump’s Win

What the election results mean for science, in gut responses from Scientific American’s Board of Advisers

By Andrea Gawrylewski on November 10, 2016


Richard Dawkins, founder of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Credit: Don Arnold, Getty Images

This week the U.S. elected businessman and reality TV star Donald Trump as its 45th president. As Scientific American has reported in the run-up to the election, Trump's views on science,health and medicine appear unformed at best, ignorant and destructive at worst. To get an idea of what top minds in science, health and re-search are thinking, we reached out to Scientific American's Board of Advisers to get their quick-fire reactions to the election outcome. The excerpts, some of them edited for length, appear below.


HM: Pitää paikkansa, että Uusi-Seelanti on ERINOMAINEN TIEDEMAA, ihan muuta kuin samankokoinen Suomi, ei voi puhua oikein samana päivänäkään... Tämänkin päivän Ernst Rutherfordit ja Maurice Wilkinsit puskevat edelleen kohti uusia tieteellisiä voittoja... Täällä on vähän vertailtu:

Dear New Zealand,

The two largest nations in the English-speaking world have just suffered catastro-phes at the hands of voters - in both cases the uneducated,anti-intellectual portion of voters.Science in both countries will be hit extremely hard:In the one case,by the xe-nophobically inspired severing of painstakingly built-up relationships with European partners;in the other case by the election of an unqualified, narcissistic, misogynistic sick joke as president.In neither case is the disaster going to be short-lived:in Ameri-ca because of the nonretirement rule of the Supreme Court;in Britain because Brexit is irreversible.

There are top scientists in America and Britain - talented, creative people, desperate to escape the redneck bigotry of their home countries.Dear New Zealand, you are a deeply civilized small nation, with a low population in a pair of beautiful, spacious islands.You care about climate change,the future of the planet and other scientifically important issues. Why not write to all the Nobel Prize winners in Britain and America, write to the Fields medalists, Kyoto and Crafoord Prize and International Cosmos Prize winners, the Fellows of the Royal Society, the elite scientists in the National Academy of Sciences,the Fellows of the British Academy and similar bodies in America. Offer them citizenship. The contribution that creative intellectuals can make to the prosperity and cultural life of a nation is out of all proportion to their numbers. You could make New Zealand the Athens of the modern world.

Yes, dear New Zealand, I know it’s an unrealistic,surreal pipe dream. But on the day after U.S. election day, in the year of Brexit, the distinction between the surreal and the awfulness of the real seems to merge in a bad trip from which a pipe dream is the only refuge.


Richard Dawkins, founder and board chairman,Richard Dawkins Foundation

RJK: Notorisen äärioikeistolainen mutta kuitenkin tähän asti hyvällä tahdolla tulkiten tieteen rajoissa pysytellyt genetiikan tutkija ja biologian- ja yhteiskuntafilosofian tutki- ja ja popularisoija,tunnettuja teoksia mm. Geenin itsekkyys ja Sokea kelloseppäMeemiteorian isä.Joskus esittänyt hullunkurisiakin ideoita, jotka kuitenkin ovat ko-keiltavissa. (Mutta sitten kun on kokeiltu, eivätkä tulokset ole olleet odotettuja, ei ole puhuttu mitään.)

Nyt ei voi kuin sanoa, että "vanhuus ei tule yksin"...

Dawkinsista on tullut vanhemmiten pelkkä meediapelle, eikä hän tunne ollenkaan Donaldin jengin ja myös hänen sukunsa/perheensä tieteellistä traditiota!


President-elect Trump's upset election caught many by surprise. We have not heard very much from him or his colleagues on his views on science and basic research,so I can only say that I hope that he recognizes the long-term value of basic research investment and will support the agencies of the U.S. government that support and pursue it, including the National Science Foundation.

Vint Cerf, chief internet evangelist, Google

HM: Internet-bisnesmies, ominut suomalaisten keksintöjä.


Like many, I was caught off guard by these election results. It is the will of the U.S. people, and given the polarity of the power,we can anticipate a number of significant and long-lasting changes. I do think that given the reality of today’s world and the checks and balances built into America, that exactly how these changes will play out is to be determined. I anticipate that many will be surprised by what can be done, and what cannot be done within go-vernment.I personally was born into poverty, and everything I have accomplished I did on my own. The best way to maximize profes-sional success and rewards is to work hard;to maximize society is to be charitable; to maxi-mize equality is to be ethical; to maximize peace is to be peaceful. I see myself taking more personal responsibility for the welfare of others close to me, and continue to be the best possible scientist, for what we are and what we will be is lar-gely governed by the scientific discoveries that we apply to move humanity forward.

Harold “Skip” Garner, director, Medical Informatics and Systems Division and professor, Virginia Bioinformatics Institute, Virginia Tech

HM: Ei havaintoa. Wikisivut näyttäisivät vihjaavan, että puoskari.


A smaller than projected voter turnout (approximately seven million Democrats and two million Republicans less than the 2012 election) was likely the cause of the out-come. Unexpected outcomes are part of scientific life and we are experts at learning from them.

Michael Gazzaniga, director, Sage Center for the Study of the Mind, University of California, Santa Barbara

HM: Haistapaskantieteilijä pahinta sorttia, tahdon ja tietoisen ajattelun kiistäjä väittäen sellaisten olevan "Keenistä lähtevän) toiminnan jälkikäteistä rationalisointia".

Oikeat ja haistapaskantietelijät eivät tee koskaan yhteisjulkaisuja AINAKAAN TIETEESTÄ tai edes TIEDEASIOISTA! Yksi munaa koko kirjan!


Fundamental research, dealing with climate change and the environment, nuclear weapons treaties, international relations, women’s rights, health and welfare, and more generally, public policy based on empirical reality, all have been dealt a blow.

The president-elect has expressed disinterest or disdain for the results of scientific analyses relevant for public policy, and the vice president-elect has been an open enemy of science.

It remains to be seen how this will play out, but a Republican congress seems unlikely to put many checks on this.

Lawrence Krauss, director, Origins Project, Arizona State University

Väärässä ollut (ilmeisesti),mutta yritteliäs ja terävä kosmologi,Dawkinsin aisapari kansainvälisenä tietynlaisen tieteen puolestapuhujana ja popularisoijana.

Oli Stephen Hawkingin ja Lee Smolinin ohella johtava Higgsin bosonin epäilijä en-nen tunnettuja kokeita, jotka näyttäisivät osoittavan, että jolin sellainen hiukkasparvi kuitenkin on olemassa.

Laurence Krauss.JPG

Lawrence M. Krauss, tavallinen mutta väärässä oleva astrofyysikko, edelleen New Yorkissa.

Julkaisi Scientific Americanin numerossa 3/2008 ("Obaman vaalinumerossa") teo-rian ns.sipuli(nkuori)versumista,jonka mukaan gravittatio olisi peräisin eri alkupau- kusta kuin muut fysiikan, standardimallin perusvoimat, samassa numerossa muuten kuin R. Douglas Fields julkaisi otsikolla "White Matter Matters" koetuloksensa pavlovilasen ehdollistumisen biofysikaalisesta mekanismista.

Tähän kampanjaan osallistuminen ei hänen luotettavuuttaan lisää ainakaan minun silmissäni...


Very, very surprised.

Robert S. Langer, David H. Koch Institute professor, Department of Chemical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

HM: Ei sano mulle mitään, mutta MIT on puoskariopisto! Noam Chomsky, Staven Pinker, Böngt Hölmstöm jne.(vaikkakin sen nosti tuntemattomuudesta sotateknisen elektroniikan lippulaivaksi Donaldin setä John G. Trump; kohta alkoi myös alamäki).


First, I think that the forecasting capability of the media and others involved in stu-dying elections and the interaction of the social sciences is flawed.That's clear. Re-gardless, this is a strong country, a strong democracy with great intellectual capacity and good will, with a deep sense of human rights and social justice shared among the people. I think at the end of the day the American people,as a whole,will provide a good balance of judgment.

I think the issue of American international competitiveness in science, technology and arts research will continue to be a centerpiece of policy considerations going for-ward. Importantly,a number of Supreme Court justices will likely be appointed during the next administration, and with one party gover-ning all aspects of the government - the legislative, judicial and executive - the influence on the judicial system and future development of a progressive social policy is of concern.

America's prominence and international influence is largely based on the prestige and trust the U.S. enjoys, in part a result of the last century’s contributions to advan-cing science, medicine, technology and the pursuit of social justice. Our position as trusted members of the global community must be maintained and improved if we are to positively impact global development for the benefit of our own citizens as well as those of the world.

Robert E. Palazzo, dean, University of Alabama at Birmingham College of Arts and Sciences

HM: Taideyliopistosta


At this moment, November 9, 2016, I am sick in heart and spirit, bereft of even a shred of optimism.

All the ideals of the enlightenment on which our country was founded, all the princip-les of reason and open-mindedness that undergird the practice of science that we so fervently cherish, and to which we can rightfully attribute our progress in improving the welfare of humankind,have been effectively and thoroughly repudiated.The signi- ficance of the result of the election - that those opposing these beliefs will now either control or greatly influence every branch of the U.S. government - cannot be overemphasized.

It's a shutout.

In such a moment it’s natural to search the past for lessons.All successful civiliza-tions throughout history have ultimately perished. Further, the evolution of our count-ry's democracy is following an ancient script: the seeds of Trump's philosophical vic-tory can be found in the very multicultural,multi-viewpoint, open-armed inclusiveness of the democratic ideal America has pursued since its beginnings.

In his article in New York Magazine,Andrew Sullivan finds in Plato's Republic, written 2,400 years ago, the view that a “rainbow-flag polity” is the most inherently unstable, and that “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.” It does indeed make you wonder if last night wasn’t inevitable.

My deepest worry is that this transition really could signal the end of the American Republic and the light it tried for 240 years,at least on paper,to shine on all the world.

What it means for the practice of science in this country, the rights of women and minorities, the future of our planet’s health,the survival of all the creatures with whom we share the Earth and for our relationships with other nations, I have no stomach to predict. But it does very much seem right now that the winning faction of the U.S. populace has decided that the Earth really is flat,and that will be the guiding principle for governance from this moment on.

Carolyn Porco, Cassini Imaging Team leader; visiting scholar, University of California, Berkeley; director, CICLOPS, Space Science Institute

HM: Joku kuvitustyöryhmän johtaja


What is there to say? It's especially scary that there won't be separation of powers. It's also shocking (if the numbers are accurate) the percentage of women (and men) who voted for Trump. And of course science, climate, you name it ... you have to wonder.

Lisa Randall, professor of physics, Harvard University

Säieteoriasta ei ole saatu yhtään ainokaista vahvistvaa (tai kumoavaa) koetulosta minun tietääkseni...


The one “plus” from this result is that reducing poverty may move higher on the agenda of the right as well as the left. But it should scare us Europeans into develo-ping stronger and better coordinated pan-European policies to offer countervailing power to the U.S.

Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal and emeritus professor of cosmology and astrophysics, Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge

HM: Royal Societylle tarvitaan uusi puheenjohtaja...


This administration may be the least science- and science education-friendly one in generations. One possible nominee for the education department, Ben Carson, is a young-Earth creationist.Vice President[-elect] Pence has supported antievolution legislation in Indiana and has even pronounced evolution as unscientific on the floor of the House of Representatives. At the National Center for Science Education, we found that creationists are emboldened to act locally and at the state level when the “bully pulpit” of the presidency favors them - even if the federal government has little or no role in determining local curricula. Nominees for Energy [the Department of Energy], EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency], NIH [National Institutes of Health], NSF (National Science Foundation] and other agencies are likely to be equally problematic and, of course, many members of the administration have de-clared their rejection of climate change. Should they and their appointees act upon that belief, agreements made with China and other nations by the current administ-ration are at risk - which means that the future of the planet is at risk. Science and science education did not come out ahead in this election.

Eugenie Scott, founding executive director, National Center for Science Education

HM: Säätiösäätäjä, haistapaskan hallintotantta!

Ämmä valehtelee kuin harmaantunut ruuna:missään ei ole sanottu, että tohtori Ben Carson olisi Nuoren Maan Kreationisti. Kyseinen oppi on vuodelta 1923, eikä se ole sellaisenaan minkään uskotokunnan välttämätön tunnustuksellinen dogmi, mutta sitä pidetään sallittuna ainakin Luterilaisessa,Baptistisessa, Episkopaalisessa ja Kalvinis- tisessa kirkossa sekä seitsemännen päivän Adventisteissa (joka on tuo oppia paljon vanhempi kirkko), jonka jäsen Ben Carson on kuten 18 miljoonaa muutakin, eli se on kuusi kertaa suurempi kuin Donald Trumpin PCUSA-presbyteerikirkko.

Varapresidentti Michael Pence EI OLE ESITTÄNYT MITÄÄN ANTIEVOLUUTIO-LAINSÄÄDÄNTÖÄ MISSÄÄN EIKÄ KUKAAN MUUKAAN! Kyseinen termi on (pöpö-jä näkevien piirien valematerialistipiirien ("amerikan_skepti-koiden") vääristely  Aca-demic Freedom bill -lakiehdotuksista. Pence uskoo "evoltuution taustalla" vaikuttaan "ohjaukseen".


Science was sidelined during the presidential campaign and we will have to wait to see the science policy of the new administration with an open mind.

Terry Sejnowski, professor and laboratory head of Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies

Laskenyteoreetikko. Varmaan saisikin Uudesta Seelannista jonkin viran... Eisiintynyt epämääräisissäkin yhteyksissä ja julkaisuissa (muissakin kuin tässä).


When it appeared Trump would win, the Dow plunged 800 points in after-hours trading, and pundits predicted [Wednesday] would be the worst economic collapse since 9/11 and the 2008 meltdown. As I write this, the Dow is up 265 points, the NASDAQ up 43 points. Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future, particularly in elections and economics. With that caveat I predict:

Markets will be fine and economic growth will continue steady and may even improve one half to 1 percent in 2017.

No wall will be built on the Mexican border (and Canadians will not build a wall blocking us!).

We will not change our nuclear policies, we will not adopt “no first use” policy (as Obama did not either), and we will go another four years without using nuclear weapons.

North Korea...oh who the hell knows what that wingnut will do,but very likely nothing will change and eventually the country will go out of business with their failing econo-my, and North and South Korea will reunite just like East and West Germany did.

Putin will hesitate to challenge NATO or take further territory in eastern Europe.

ISIS will be completely eradicated before the end of 2017,but global terrorism will not be, as no president or government can reduce it to zero, but it will continue to fail as a means of bringing about political change.

Tensions in the Middle East will continue as they have since I was in college and voted for the first time in 1972. Some things never change.

Stay calm everyone. We have a strong republic that will continue growing stronger. We have lots of checks and balances in place to prevent any extreme actions taken by anyone, and as Pres. Obama has been reiterating this past year to those pessi-mists who think things are bad and getting worse, this is and will continue to be the best time there has ever been to be alive.

Michael Shermer,publisher,Skeptic magazine; monthly columnist, Scientific American; Presidential Fellow, Chapman University; author of The Moral Arc

HM: Skeptikko/höpstikköliikkeen tappi (varmman sikäläinen Jukka-Pekka Häkkinen)...


Advancement of science transcends partisan boundaries and is fundamental for human health, and is a bedrock for U.S. technological advances and the economy. Hopefully, this will continue under any new administration. Al-though there is a rise in nationalism around the world, I think it is important that the international openness of science, its collaborations and its benefits be maintained for the benefit of all.

Michael Snyder, professor of genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine

HM: En ymmärrä. Voi olla vaikka haistapaskantieteilijä.


The main questions are whether Trump/Pence will

1) support science research as a core to the economic engine and American competitiveness and

2) use science outcomes to inform policymaking.

The rhetoric on the campaign trail implies “no” on both counts,but the desire to make good on campaign promises to promote our economic interests implies that they should.

Michael E. Webber, co-director, Clean Energy Incubator, and associate professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

HM: Mekaniikkainsinöörikollega. Emme päätä tieteen suunnasta.


It took the U.S. two decades to go from climate obstructionist to climate leader, and one ugly season to throw it away. Now we will see if we are truly a nation of laws and due process,or as weak as we tend to characterize some dictatorships.

I am embarrassed for my generation and am having trouble facing a younger generation that have very basic questions about our selfishness.

If there is a “silver lining” it is that we are a nation of strong institutions and now we shall see, are our ideals up to the task? My state of California - hardly popular to the Trump voters - offers a hopeful perspective.

The problem today is that the U.S. has truly “hit its stride” on climate, and, while also far from perfect, was progressing. Now, advocates of sustainability and intra- and international equity and partnership must retool, but without any buffer or luxury of time.

Above all, this new strategy and route to integrate and partner must evolve fast, and must find common ground with an electorate infused with the sad anger and pessimism that led to the Trump victory.

What California - and Morocco,Kenya, Denmark, Bangladesh,The Vatican, Germany, Nicaragua, and others - offer are imperfect but very real examples that show that our energy and material system can actually evolve much faster than previously thought. It takes steadily evolving technology. But more important is the development of a coherent plan.

What we have just done is to steal from our children's future — and personally from my two dear daughters.

Daniel Kammen, founding director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University California, Berkeley

This article has been updated to include comment from Daniel Kammen. 

HM: Ilmastotaistelija Al Goren tallista. Pääsee varmaan Uuteen-Seelantiin toisin kuin useimmat muut tuosta...


Policy & Ethics

Why the Science Community Says No to Brexit

Many fear a loss of funding, talent, business and collaboration, a former science minister says

By Karl J. P. Smith on June 22, 2016


Former UK Minister of Science Paul Drayson.

Credit: Robert D. Ward/U.S. Government/Wikimedia Commons

The United Kingdom on Thursday is taking a historic vote on whether to remain a part of the European Union or to exit the economic and political bloc in a scenario re-ferred to as “Brexit”.The run-up to the referendum has been caustically divisive in the U.K., and polls have indicated a nearly even split among voters. [Update June 24, 2016: The BBC called the race for the Leave campaign shortly before 5 a.m. in London.]

According to a report from the House of Lords and recent polls, a strong majority of the scientific community believes the U.K. should remain. Scientific American spoke to Lord Paul Drayson, PhD FREng, about why this is the case, and what effects lea-ving would have on U.K. research and on British technology industries. Drayson was Britain’s Minister of Science from 2008 to 2010 and is now CEO of London-based start-up Drayson Technologies,which develops wireless energy devices and wireless sensor networks.

Why is the scientific community so strongly opposed to Brexit?

I think there’s this almost philosophical component to it, which is that people who work in the science community grow up with the concept that through collaboration great scientific insights happen. And so the very idea that a country would voluntarily withdraw from Europe seems anathema to scientists. Science benefits from the way in which our scientists based here in the U.K. are able to freely collaborate with scientists in Europe,and there are so many examples of how the scientific communi-ty as a whole has benefitted from that interaction. And for some of the really big pro-blems we’re trying to tackle in science, whether it requires big facilities or research across multiple regions, the fact that we are part of this wider community is clearly helpful. Whether that’s things like CERN or the Horizon 2020 projects — there are all sorts of examples of specific projects which have been facilitated through that natural collaboration which comes from being part of the European community.

Do you think that leaving would affect the U.K.’s ability to attract and retain top talent? Would scientists see this and go elsewhere?

I’m on the board of the council of Oxford University, and Oxford is very clear that its ability to maintain its position as a world-class university would be negatively affec-ted by Brexit, because it would not be able to attract the very best talent in the way in which it has been able to do up till now. I’m also running a technology company in London, and we’re working in some areas of cutting-edge science around radio fre-quency antenna design, wireless energy, and machine learning software. Now, we’re a small company, forty people, but because we’re based in London, and because London is part of the E.U., it’s been possible for us to attract people from places like Romania, France,Spain,Portugal,who have come with PhDs in these subjects to join our team here and to make a major contribution. So not only would it affect our lea-ding universities, but it would affect the technology businesses too. Here we are, it’s London technology week,we’re celebrating the powerhouse we have here in London now around technology companies. Brexit would be a real blow to the momentum that the London tech scene has developed.

The U.K. receives about 10 percent of its science funding from E.U. grants, but on the Brexit side it has been argued that those levels would not necessarily fall, as various legal arraignments could allow U.K. researchers to still receive E.U. grants. Couldn’t this work?

Having been the science minister who was responsible for negotiating these things, I know what it’s like to negotiate from the position of a country that’s inside the tent, and it’s different from the countries that are outside.It’s better to be inside. It gets at a pretty obvious point, which is that if you’re part of something,then your partners re-cognize that you have a voice in setting the agenda. If you’re not, then it’s fair and right for those parties to say, “I’m sorry, you’re not part of this. You may collaborate, but you’ll collaborate on our terms.” It’s not that you couldn’t negotiate, it wouldn’t mean that there would be no collaborative research projects, it’s just that the terms under which those research collaborations would be done, the percentage of the re-search that would come from the U.K.,and therefore the quality of the science based here in the U.K., would go down.

Are there any particular areas of science or tech that would be disproportionately hurt?

As an example, take Aerospace technology, where Europe has got a vibrant and successful industry.Who is the competitor to Boeing? Well it’s Airbus.Why is Airbus competitive? Because you’ve got very clever people here in the U.K. who know how to design wings using composites. Now, to be able to undertake research into next-generation aerospace technology you have got to have an industrial base which is able to sustain very expensive and large facilities necessary to do that research.

Part of the consequences of us being part of Europe, as the global airspace industry has consolidated, is that it has meant that Europe has done some intelligent identi-fication of where the critical mass of expertise lies. For example, [the southwestern England city of] Bristol is a place which back in the 1940s had real expertise in the science of aerodynamics and wing designs, and that had led to the fact that they’re still a very successful part of the aerospace industry. If we were no longer part of Europe,that would have a pretty significant impact on the future direction of develop- ment at Airbus, and we would lose out. That’s just one industry. Also, I think people often talk about and complain about bureaucracy, but they don’t talk about regula-tions across Europe actually helping people live better and healthier lives. And ha-ving such a regulatory framework makes it so that small technology companies like my own find it much easier to develop products which, if they get approval, are approved across the whole of the European market and not just each member state.

Therefore they can market their product efficiently, and that market is then open to them in a way which would not be the case if we were not a member.So you can see the whole innovation chain - from invention, discovery, research on one end, through to the commercialization of that research and bringing new products to market, therefor generating wealth,all of it would be negatively affected by a decision to with- draw. Yes, we could continue as a nation, but we would be diminished by leaving.



Kuva: Bob Harvey / Wikimedia Commons

Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan kansalaiset äänestivät Euroopan unionista eroamisen puolesta ja lopputulos yllätti poliittisen valtarakennelma niin reilusti,että seurauksena oli kaaos ja poliittinen epätasapaino.

Häviäjien puolella David Cameron erosi pääministerin paikaltaan ja käsienpesuun osallistuivat voittajien puolelta Boris Johnson ja Nigel Farage. Uudeksi pääministe-riksi on nousemassa Theresa May, EU:ssa pysymisen puolella kampanjoinut, mutta nähtävästi oikeasti EU-eroa kannattava sisäministeri. Tällä hetkellä ei ole mitään tie-toa koska seuraavat parlamenttivaalit järjestetään, saati koska varsinainen eroilmoi-tus jätetään. Tämä saattaa tavallaan lohduttaa työväenpuoluetta,joka on hajoamassa sisällissotaan.

Täältä kauempaa katsoen vaikuttaa siltä, että Skotlannin pääministeri Nicola Stur-geon on ainoa poliitikko, jolla on suunnitelma. Brittien harmiksi tähän suunnitelmaan liittyy Skotlannin itsenäisyys.

Tutkijat olivat joukoin EU-eroa vastaan. Syytkin ovat ilmiselvät: brittien tutkimusrahoi- tus on pysynyt matalalla tasolla jo pitkään ja viime vuosina rahoitusta on uhattu lei-kata usein. Nimellisarvoisesti summat ovat pysyneet samoina, mutta inflaatio on vä-hentänyt rahoituksen arvoa. Jokainen Euroopasta tuleva tutkimusrahoituspenni – ja niitä pennejä on paljon – on arvokas. Noin 17% brittien tutkimusrahoituksesta tulee EU:sta ja tutkijoiden luottamus näiden rahojen korvaamiseen Westminsteristä on hyvin pieni.

Euroopan lääkevirasto sijaitsee Lontoossa.Tämä virasto tullee siirtymään muualle, ja eurooppalaiset lääkevalmistajien suosimat kaupungit ovat jo kieli pitkällä odottamas- sa viraston mukana siirtyviä lääkeyhtiöiden työntekijöitä. Kukaan ei tiedä miten käy Oxfordin eurooppalaiselle fuusioreaktorille.

Brittien loistoyliopistot ja tutkimuslaitokset ovat myös vetovoimatekijä, jonka ansiosta heidän tiede-elämänsä voi rekrytoida helposti työvoimaa koko EU:n alueelta. Esi-merkiksi luonnontieteissä 21 prosenttia työvoimasta korkea-asteen koulutuksessa on muualta EU-alueelta kuin Briteistä. Tietenkin yliopistot voisivat vielä palkata EU-kan-salaisia töihin, mutta vapaan liikkuvuuden loppuminen tarkoittaa rajusti kasvanutta byrokratiaa rekrytoinneissa ja palkkauksissa.

Yksinkertaisesti: EU-ero tulee vähentämään tiederahoituksen tasoa entisestään.

Raha ei tietenkään ole kaikki kaikessa.Kansainvälisen yhteistyön ajatellaan tehosta- van tutkimusta, nopeuttavan tieteellisten saavutusten tahtia ja tuottavan yksinkertai-sesti parempaa tulosta kuin maan sisällä tehty tutkimus. Monilla aloilla kansainväli-nen kokemus on tärkeää tutkijan urakehityksenkin kannalta. Yhteistyötä liukastaa usein kaikkein tehokkaimmin yhteinen tutkimusrahoitus. EU:n rahoitusjärjestelmät ovatkin ennen kaikkea tehneet yhteistyökumppanien etsimisestä luontevan toimin-non. Britit tippuvat helposti ulos tästä järjestelmästä,elleivät he nopeasti keksiä uusia rahoitusmuotoja. Tutkijoiden mielipide on tietenkin EU:n Horizon2020-mekanismissa pysymisen kannalla, mutta sitä voi olla vaikea sovittaa yhteen kansanäänestyksen tuloksen ja EU:n vaatiman vapaan liikkuvuuden kanssa.

Henkilökohtaisemmin: olen myös huolissani tapahtumista, koska britit - erityisesti englantilaiset ja skotlantilaiset yliopistot - ovat voimatekijä evolutiivisessa ja ekologi-sessa lois- ja tautitutkimuksessa. Yhteistyö heidän kanssaan tulee varmasti jatku-maan, mutta rahoitusmuutokset voivat koitua tappioksi molemmin puolin Kanaalia.

Toistaiseksi Yhdistynyt kuningaskunta jatkaa EU:n täysivaltaisena jäsenenä, mutta vaikutukset näkyvät heti. Poliittinen epävakaus tekee siirtymisestä Britteihin vähem-män houkuttelevaa. Maassa jo olevat muiden EU-maiden kansalaiset eivät tiedä mi-ten heille tulee käymään.Kahden miljoonaan EU-kansalaisen oleskelulupien käsitte- lystä ei tule erityisen sievä hallinnollinen prosessi. Useammat tutkijat ovat kertoneet, että heidän yhteistyökumppaninsa ovat jättäneet heidät pois EU:n rahoitushakemuk-sista epävarmuuden takia. Äänestyksen jälkeinen rasismin nousu ahdistaa tutkijoita. Suomalainen tutkija joutui rasismin (tai ehkäpä nationalismin?) kohteeksi. (Myös sveitsiläiset ovat huolissaan tiedeyhteistyönsä tulevaisuudesta: he pelkäävät että neuvottelut brittien ja EU:n välillä syövät arvokasta aikaa Sveitsin ongelmien ratkaisemiselta.)

Tiede on tottunut ylittämään rajoja ja on lähtökohtaisesti kansainvälistä ja maailman- laajuista. Siksi uskon, että uusia keinoja kansainväliseen yhteistyöhön tulee varmasti löytymään, jos britit poistuvat EU:n järjestelmien ulkopuolelle. Tiedelehti PeerJ onkin jo laskenut julkaisuhintojaan briteille,koska punnan arvon romahtaminen olisi muuten nostanut hintaa. Pahinta onkin epätietoisuus, joka tulee kestämään yhtä kauan kuin brittien eroneuvottelut tulevat kestämään.