In this summary I would like to raise a few objections about the evaluation system that has been in use at the University of Iceland for a few decades now. The objections fall into four main categories. First are concerns about the role and output of Universities. Second is the problem of trying to measure the unmeasureable. Third is the increased corporatization of western universities and the fourth concerns the specifics of the Icelandic evaluation system. My conclusion is that the evaluation system used at the University of Iceland is fundamentally broken, should be disbanded and a new structure put in place to evaluate the performance of the teachers/researchers at the University.
I. Roles of Universities.
First I would like to highlight the roles of Universities in the modern age. Scholars, like our former rector Pall Skulason, have categorized three major roles for Universities. Skulason identifies the French (Napoleonic) university, a utilitarian institution aimed at serving the nation, solving problems at hand (concerning health, agriculture, industry, army) – often with top down administration, the German (Humboltian) university which is concerned with gathering knowledge for its own sake – letting basic research run free so to speak – obviously with the scholars them selves in charge of administration, and the English (Newtonian) university, aimed at providing the government with skilled personel to run an empire (administrators, officers, priests, lawyers, bankers etc) – the board of these universities obviously respond to the needs of governments.
Fungal and cyanobacterial gene expression in a lichen symbiosis: Acclimatization and adaptation to temperature and habitat
Sophie S Steinhäuser, Ólafur S Andrésson, Arnar Pálsson, Silke Werth Fungal and cyanobacterial gene expression in a lichen symbiosis: Acclimatization and adaptation to temperature and habitat
Accepted in Fungal Biology.
The capacity of species to cope with variation in the physical environment, e.g. in temperatures and temperature fluctuations, can limit their spatial distribution. Organisms have evolved cellular mechanisms to deal with damaging effects of increased temperature and other aggravation, primarily through complex molecular mechanisms including protein refolding and DNA repair. It is of interest to see whether these responses vary with geographic location, with high vs. low elevation and on the coast vs. inland, indicating longterm acclimatization or genetic adaptation. As mutualistic symbioses, lichens offer the possibility of analyzing molecular stress responses in a particularly tight interspecific relationship. For this study, we have chosen the widespread cyanolichen Peltigera membranacea, a key player in carbon and nitrogen cycling in terrestrial ecosystems at northern latitudes. We ask whether increasing temperature is reflected in mRNA levels of selected damage control genes, and do the response patterns show geographical associations? Using real-time PCR quantification of 38 transcripts, differential expression was demonstrated for nine cyanobacterial and nine fungal stress response genes (plus the fungal symbiosis-related lec2 gene) when the temperature was increased from 5°C to15°C and 25°C. Principle component analysis (PCA) revealed two gene groups with different response patterns. Whereas a set of cyanobacterial DNA repair genes and the fungal lec2 (PC1 group) showed an expression drop at 15°C vs. 5°C, most fungal candidates (PC2 group) showed increased expression at 25°C vs. 5°C. PC1 responses also correlated with elevation. The correlated downregulation of lec2 and cyanobacterial DNA repair genes suggests a possible interplay between the symbionts warranting further studies.
When in college I discovered the joy of throwing decent party. Of late this has taken more respectable form, in us taking part in organizing various meetings, workshops and lectures. This winter I participated in a project unlike most other I had previously. Organizing Jane Goodall’s visit to Iceland, which culminated in her talk at the University theater on June 15th. There were more than 10 associations and institutes that put in hours, money and effort to bring Jane here, make arrangements, gather funds and handle publicity.
This was truly a delightful cooperation, and getting to meet the grandest of primatologists was a big honour. Jane took part in a master class for the graduates students at the University of Iceland, and few other international students here, and then gave a brilliant lecture to a full auditorium. Vigdis Finnbogadottir, the former president of Iceland introduced Jane.
It was a true honor to help out in this adventure, and to commemorate that I indulge by posting figure of Jane, Mary Lewis her right hand, and the organizers.
Nordic committee on bioethics in junction with the Norwegian biotechnology board, organized a miniconference on the new Crispr/Cas technology and the genetic modification of human embryos. The conference was held at the University of Oslo, June 2nd. The title was Gene therapy and human germline editing: new opportunities, new challenges.
We heared great talks by Fredrick Lanner, Gunnar Kvalheim, Johanna Ahola-Launonen, Jacob Wang, Anne-Marie Gerdes and Nils-Eric Sahlin, and were then given the task to summarize the meeting.
I will not attempt to do that here, because my notes were incomplete and the things I said didnt quite follow the notes (either a plus or minus, Im not sure).
The new technologies open some new opportunities, for studying the effects of mutations and systems on human cells and early development. There is also the future possibility of using this technology to modify the human cells, to correct serious errors in DNA to treat (somatic) or to prevent (germline) devastating diseases. The current seems to be flowing in that direction, granting of course that the technology will become efficient enough and side effects can be minimized. In fact this is the first moment that I felt that steps towards germline could and perhaps should be taken.
To counter, there were several issues raised with further developing the technology for modifying human embryos, including the slippery-slope argument, side-effects, dont-mess-with-nature, and a few others. But in general they are no unique to this technology.
The only new concept is that we may alter the genetic makeup of our species directly with this new technology. But in fact we have been changing our genetic makeup, indirectly with choices in lifestyle and human history and technological development.
In sum, I learned a lot but am still confused about the subject.
Those who want to read more should check out a new statement and report by the Danish council on ethics which summarized these issues quite well.