Winter Olympics: With Glowing Hearts

I'm not a big friend of sports, and I can never get excited about the olympics. But I have to say, the Vancouver Winter Olympics have surprised me - it must be the ice and snow that lures me in! Just as they're coming to an end, I'm trying to reap the last fruits of the competition.

It's not only because snow and ice bring both aesthetical value and an added adrenaline kick to sports. Winter Olympics are just cool to watch. Well, not every type of winter sport. I mean the curling isn't even a sport, it can really only be described as a housewives or witches' sport, after all it consists of people waving a broom on the floor. Bobsledging and luge are more a thrill ride than they are a sport (they must be going 'wheeeeeEEEEE!' in their heads while they plummet down that icy tube) - although I shouldn't say this for respect to the recently deceased Nodar Kumaritashvili, may he rest in peace. As for skeleton - let's all admit it's a sport for those of us who wish they were superheroes, but because of the sad fact of laws of physics, can't!

By 'cool' sports I mean something like freestyle aerial skiing. Imagine it, 'Hi, I'm Jack, and yes, I get paid to flip and turn in the air like a clown'. It's kind of like gymnastics with skiis on their feet, which is very inventive of the sportsmen! I had to wonder how you train for aerial skiing, does it not end in a heap of broken bones and cracked skulls bobbing upside-down a few metres above air? I found the answer on the Olympics website, and I recommend you watch it here (trampolines and water are involved!).

Skicross also belongs to the 'cool' category. It's the newest winter sport added to the Olympics. I get a massive kick from watching people fly effortlessly down mountains, with a quartet of skiiers all racing to the goal. This is again being thanks to my mirror neurones, given that I'm myself sat on my behind on my home sofa.

The snowboarding version of skicross is even cooler, of course. Simply because it's snowboarding, which is always going to be cooler than skiing. This is the reason why I'll never be cool, namely because I can not master boarding. I've tried a few times in my life in Norway and Germany, but even with lessons I constantly end up with hip bruises and a wet bum. Which would be fine, if there would be even the slightest hint of improvement. But there never is, so I have given up and stick to good old, boring skiing, where your feet are free to move, as opposed to being glued to a weird piece of plastic. You can see why I respect snowboarders so much - they can do something I can't!

Meanwhile, Korean figureskater Kim Yu Na always makes me cry, mainly because she cries and my mirror neurones go berserk and empathy kicks in. But also because she simply is the most graceful and elegant performer on ice I've ever seen. She lives in her movements and perfects every twirl and landing like she was born on skates. Although I know that figure skaters get technical points for their lutzes and quadruple jumps, but honestly, isn't ice skating more of an artform than a sport? The judging can't avoid subjectivity, surely.

I'm going to end this blog on a sad point - no, nobody died (had enough of those lately) - except for perhaps a smudge of my national pride. Finland got beaten by the Americans 6-1 in the ice hockey semifinals last night. It was painful to watch. On the first goal I let out a disappointed sigh. At 2-0 it was just annoying. The third one was significantly embarrasing. 4-0 was a moment of despair. Five down I wanted to cry. And by the sixth, my mind had gone blank - it was pure disbelief. I was hoping the Lions (the Finnish national emblem is a golden lion) would score just one pity goal, so they wouldn't get quite so drunk tonight when drowning their sorrows. This they managed, thank God. Tomorrow I'll be watching the bronze match against the Slovakians, who funnily enough have a player called Satan in their team.

Alas, in 2010, I can't take pride in my athletic kinsmen, who stem from the land of snow, yet fail to impress when moved a few thousand kilometres westward. So instead I turn to my cultural kinsmen, the Norwegians - who are currently at 4th place in the competition, overall. Heia, Norge! After all, it's sometimes better for your self-esteem to cheer for the winners, than the losers.

It doesn't a l w a y s need to be 'fine'.

Warning; this blog entry contains analyses of human behaviour and emotion.

I recently wrote a pretty steep critique on with Katherine Heigl as the leading lady. As much as I loathed the film there's something about her girl-next-door-y cinematic aura that made me want to watch The Ugly Truth27 Dresses again on my sickday at home. And while the latter film is heaps cuter, there's one thing that majorly bothers me in it. Not because they decided to put it in the film, but because countless teenage girls will watch this film, and subconsciously decide that the way Heigl is acting in it, is the way society expects us to act.

But let's get to the point here. The character played by Heigl, Jane, is remarkably bad at speaking her mind. Even to the people closest to her. Even when the people closest to her are making her hurt more than ever. Even when she loses the guy she has been madly in love with for years, to her sister. Even when her father gives her deceased mother's wedding dress to her sister, who is to marry her dream man.

Yet, in all these situations, a forced smile stretching from New York to Calcutta is observable on her baby-skinned face, and the words "I'm fine" and "that's great" are repeated as if she'd just had an orgasm (albeit a fake one). Why, oh WHY? As someone raised to have a mind of her own, this fact baffles me no end.

I can get behind the tying her boss' tie, doing his laundry etc, as this is clearly just an attempt to be close to, and needed by him. What I can't seem to answer is whether this really is accepted, normal - or even worse - expected, behaviour? Then I thought that probably is the case, in the United States, or the States of Smiles and Sunshine, where everything always IS f***ing fantastic! I can't say I have lived in the States since I was the age of a Kindergardener, but if this kind of behaviour is the reality over there - I can't say I particularly want to in the future, either.

I've seen hints of this in England, where mostly everything is meant to be 'alright'. In fact this word is so ingrained in the culture over here, that people exchange this word as a question itself - supplemented with a 'y', short for 'you' in the form of 'y'alright?' Luckily, the Britons have a commonplace reply to this which is much better than simply lying and saying 'good, and yourself?'. This being namely 'not too bad'. This very expression nearly comes close to the bleak expression of the Germanians and Scandinavians 'it's going', which leaves the questioner neutral for an answer, after all things can't ever really be so great that you'd want to brag about them to your fellow human being!

OK so we have slightly moved off topic here, but I truly think that the 'everything is fine, always, and if it isn't - don't freckin' show it'-mentality is unhealthy. And no, I'm not saying this because my boyfriend is a psychologist and has brainwashed me to think so. I honestly belive that if you can't tell your own sister that she's just stolen the man of your dreams and that she's walking all over your heart in the process - then there will be serious consequences to your mental health. More importantly, it's probably a sign of you not having very much self-respect.

So to all the Jane's out there: speak up or move to Northern Europe for a while to learn a thing or two about a beautiful thing called honesty.

Japanese chemists make plastic from water and mud

In January, top science journals Nature and New Scientist reported the invention of a new type of plastic, made by mixing clay and water. The new material, which has been nicknamed “smart mud”, was made by a Japanese research team, led by award-winning chemist professor Takuzo Aida. In a simple reaction, which takes less than a minute, the chemists have succeeded in making what can be viewed as the world’s first “green” plastic.

Conventional plastic is made using oil, and with experts warning us that this non-renewable resource will run dry in the next 40 years or so, there is an aching need for alternatives. It seems the first step towards this goal has now been taken.

The new plastic is based on a water-based gel, also called a hydrogel. This novel substance is not much different from plastic as we know, namely elasticity, transparency and strength. What’s more, it is remarkably simple to produce, and it forms in the matter of seconds. The hydrogel is made by mixing 2-3 grams of clay in half a glass of water, with tiny amounts of so-called “molecular glue” and sodium polyacrylate, thrown in. Clay is naturally found as a mineral salt formed of several layers. In the hydrogel, the layers are stuck together by the molecular glue. The sodium polyacrylate is added to absorb as much water as possible, as it can soak up up to 300 times its own weight in water. That’s the same as you trying to support three elephants on your shoulders!

The new plastic offers many advantages to conventional plastic, including an array of environmentally friendly qualities. The hydrogel is degradable and does not require any recycling facilities. Also, with the majority of the gel being clay and water, the material are generally safe. The organic compound, known as “glue” that holds the gel together, has even been approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Meanwhile, sodium polyacrylate is conventionally used in baby diapers as a urine-absorbant powder, and is not classified as hazardous.

The elegant simplicity of the manufacturing process means that “smart mud” could potentially be made by anyone, without any knowledge in chemistry. This means it can be feasibly produced, even in developing nations lacking industrial facilities.

The new plastic promises to provide hope into a political climate where an “oil crisis” is at hand, and green solutions are at high demand.

This article was also published on the Student Direct : Mancunion website.

BBC to celebrate science in 2010

Science enthusiasts will be delighted to learn that the BBC has announced that 2010 will be it’s Year of Science. The choice was made in support of the Royal Society, the oldest natural sciences society in the world, in celebrating their 350th birthday.

Science is a topic that is very “in vogue” in the media these days. Stories of Nuttgate, the Hadron Collider and the MMR vaccine were amongst the biggest stories of 2009. However, science in the media has been said “to be in rude health”, according to Fiona Fox of the Science and Media Expert Group. The BBC is doing their bit towards trying to correct this, as their third Impartiality Review will focus on the accuracy and impartiality of its science reporting. Richard Tait, the company’s Chair of the Trust's Editorial Standards Committee, said “the BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that licence fee payers expect”. Focusing on science is a new turn for the broadcasting giant, as previous reviews have been directed at coverage of business news and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In support of the scientific theme of the year, Liberal party-leader Nick Clegg announced in a talk to the Royal Society three weeks ago, his views on the importance of science and innovation in re-building the British economy. ”The challenge that faces us is the reinvention of our economy according to new principles. Science, maths, engineering and technology must be at the heart of that project.” Clegg also stressed the need to improve science education in schools, to cultivate “children’s natural curiosity”. He also addressed the imbalance of the female-to-male ratio that exists within the scientific community. As the nation’s most widespread channel of free education, it is likely that BBC’s efforts in 2010 will help in these two areas.

So, what to look out for? Well, you can expect a number of science-focused TV programs, and also look out for country-wide events relating to science. The idea is not just to educate, but also to stir up debates in order to engage the public in decisions about the philosophy, and policy of conducting science. BBC’s Director of Vision Jana Bennett told the Royal Society that the objectives of Year of Science are “to illuminate, celebrate and evaluate science in the 21st Century and how it’s shaped our history and culture”.
Expect to see and hear popular science figures, such as Sir Richard Dawkins for some heated God versus science-debating. Also, keep your eyes peeled for big-name actors such as Brian Cox getting their feet wet in some serious science action in TV shows including Seven Wonders of the Solar System.

However, there’s no need to stay at home, as there’s plenty to get involved with. For example, BBC Radio 4’s Material World programme is launching a competition called So you want to be a scientist? If you’re wondering why chicken soup boils faster fish soup, or you have a dazzling theory on why some people need umbrellas in the drizzle, while others don’t – throw any self-doubt out of the window and enter the competition! After all, “it's not just working scientists who have light bulb moments. Anyone, anywhere can have a brainwave that's worth investigating.”

Who knows, you might even learn something new!

A shortened version of this article was published in Student Direct : Mancunion on Monday 8th of February, 2010 and can be accessed here.

My appetite for destruction

I stopped today on my way home to admire St Mary's Hospital being torn down by a giant crane. In case you're wondering, "admire" is the right word. I was in awe of this event I was witnessing for the first time, and found myself having to stop and stare at the demolition process, with my mouth slightly open. Soon, more people joined me.

As I was watching the spectacle, it came to me that cranes must have been modelled on dinosaurs, not birds - as the name suggests. Its big jaw, hungry for concrete and metal, was happily devouring the building, floor by floor, window by window. It reminded me of the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park tearing off bits of buildings - and occasionally people's heads, of course. These "bits", sometimes the size of buses, smashed down five or six stories down to the fenced grounds. I could feel the thud of the impact on the pavement below me. I thought to myself that the vibrations must, ironically, feel much like it would when a Tyrannosaurus Rex takes a step towards you (and then eats you). Yet I was safe, as this was only an urban T-Rex, roaring away within its enclosure.

There was a method to the gluttony, however, as the beast had to chew through pipes and supportive cables, before it could rip off a separable chunk. It was probably just more playful than hungry though, since it spat out everything it could bite off. Sparks were visible in the nightly dark as concrete slabs frictioned against each other on their plummet down.

I guess the correct term for these monsters is "excavator", although the machine was doing more munching away, than it was "excavating" - a word which to me only conjures up images of archaeologists dusting away excess sand from an ancient clay pot.

I let out a faint "wow" blended in an indetectable sigh, grabbed my LIDL shop and walked on home with a smile on my face.

Dr Ellen ’t Hoen: Changing the face of drug policy

In November, I was humbled to meet politician and eager humanist, Dr Ellen 't Hoen, when she visited Manchester as a key speaker at the inaugural event for Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM). The article was my first one-page article, but I learned alot from it. Not only as a journalist, but also about the capitalism of the drug industry. I recommend this as a read for anyone interested in how drug companies actually manage to reel in those big bucks.

The article was published in Student Direct : Mancunion on the 7th of December 2009, and can also be accessed here.


Scientists tend to get caught up in a so-called ‘research bubble’, forgetting to consider the real world-implications of their research. An interview with Dr Ellen ‘t Hoen, key speaker at the Universities Allied for Essential Medicines (UAEM) inaugural event that took place two weeks ago, is evidence enough that this bubble is in need of some serious bursting.

Dr Ellen ’t Hoen has been ranked as one of the top 50 most influential people in intellectual property for two years running. When confronted with this, ’t Hoen responds with a humble smile: “Well, anyone can draw up a list, right?”. Despite such humility, she has an impressive resumé as an advocate for the Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines. In addition to a ten-year history at the Médecins Sans Frontiers’ (MSF) Policy Director, she is currently Senior Adviser for UNITAID, an international interest organisation that aims to initiate a patent pool for HIV/Aids medicines.

The idea of a HIV/Aids medicines patent pool was first suggested by MSF in 2006, where ’t Hoen was working as Policy Director. While at MSF, ’t Hoen gained personal experiences of the reality faced by those out of reach of medical treatments. This period in her life undoubtedly helped shape the motivation with which she drives her patent pool cause forward today.

For those who may not be familiar with the subject, a patent is a form of intellectual property that describes the details of a drug, thus serving as a list of instructions for its manufacture. Currently, pharmaceutical patents last 20 years, meaning that a company can charge whatever price they choose during this time period. After the patent expires, other pharmaceutical companies can start producing the drug at a lower cost.

The current patenting system finances research into improved drug treatments through revenue from sales. This system is effective in developed nations, such as the UK, thanks to what ‘t Hoen refers to as the “safety net” that we take for granted – namely the social security system. In Britain, Aids patients are offered anti-viral treatment by the NHS at no cost. However, in developing nations, patients are required to fund the cost of these drugs themselves. “In a world where the patent system is globalised, but not the social security systems we’re used to in Europe, we will face huge problems. Developing countries must at the same time comply with these rather stringent ideals (of intellectual property rights), but there are no safety nets to deal with the consequences.”

Thus the pharmaceutical patenting system does not work in favour its main patient group, i.e. Aids sufferers in low and middle-income countries. ’t Hoen explains that this problem stems from the fact that Aids drugs are developed mainly in the US and the UK. “Most of Aids research goes toward developing new drugs for Western countries. After that we try to figure out how they can be used in developing countries. There isn’t a specific research and development (R&D) agenda for Aids in the developing world”. There are many disadvantages to this system.

A staggering six million Aids sufferers (that’s more than the population of Scotland) are without access to existing drug treatments. This results in a few million yearly deaths among Aids sufferers. Now imagine how large this number will be in the space of 20 years – how long it takes for a patent to run out.

Can we really afford to wait 20 years to make Aids treatments affordable? Dr ’t Hoen feels passionately about this. “If lives are lost because our R&D system is based on exclusion of people, then we need to think of another way to finance R&D – because at the moment it is done through high drug prices. We can hardly call it useful medical innovation, if it is based on as system of excluding people.”

’t Hoen is referring to exclusion on two levels. Firstly, patents prevent the competition allowed in a free-market economy and lead to monopoly on life-saving treatments. Secondly, an estimated 80 per cent of the world’s population cannot afford the newest Aids drugs, due to their high prices. This notion violates the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Human Rights declaration, which states: “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being.” By subscribing to the current Aids drugs patenting policies, we are indirectly allowing this violation to continue.

The Aids drugs patent pool initiative by UNITAID aims to change this injustice, by joining several organisations to share their patents. Third-party pharmaceutical companies can then, against a fee, use these patents to produce affordable drugs. This incurs no profit loss for initial patent holders, as they would receive royalties from third-party sales. More importantly, patent pools allow combining several drugs into one pill. Combined treatments have the advantage of being effective for those resistant to traditional Aids therapies.

However, combining drug formulations is only possible if no legal boundaries exist. Until 2005, this scenario was a reality in India, as product patents for medicines were not allowed. This intellectual property freedom allowed the Mumbai-based company Cipla to join three anti-HIVdrugs into one pill, known as a triple fixed-dose combination. ’t Hoen refers to this event as “revolutionary” for Aids care in the developing world. “They could achieve this only because no initial patents existed. Here in the UK, combining treatments would not have been possible, due to different parties owning the intellectual property rights to each treatment”.

The sharing of drug patents has already been carried out on a country-wide scale. This can be achieved by the government imposing a so-called compulsory licence, which involves forcing a pharmaceutical corporation to give up its exclusive rights to a drug patent. “When Thailand issued a compulsory licence, it was facing a huge backlash from the industry for doing so. Following this, people around the globe mobilised in support of the Thai Government’s decision, gathering in Thai embassies in ten different capitals in the world.”. ’t Hoen underlines this particular case as a good example of the solidarity that is necessary to mobilise the HIV/Aids drugs campaign on a global scale.

’t Hoen explains that another advantage of a patent pool is that it makes scientific innovation more available. This aspect makes the initiative attractive for particularly university researchers. Indeed, The University of Edinburgh has already embraced the patent pool initiative by signing a global access policy, with no reported losses in profit. As one of the largest research organisations in the UK, the University of Manchester is also encouraged toward changing their intellectual property policies. This is the main aim of the student-driven UAEM Manchester.

I asked what the response has been from the pharmaceutical companies, such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). “The opposition is huge. Some companies are more willing to cooperate than others.” ’t Hoen coins a term for this opposition, “GSK attitude.” In spite of this, she remains hopeful in terms of the future. “There is willingness amongst the pharmaceutical industry to be more flexible with its intellectual property, and allow others to work with it.” At the moment, the Aids medicines patent pool implementation plan awaits a board decision on whether to move ahead.

So, what can we do as students? ‘t Hoen is convinced that university students “really have the potential to change things.” In particular, she praises the achievements of UAEM, which started in the U.S. in 2001 as a student movement. UAEM campaigners at Yale University were successful in lowering Aids drugs prices in South Africa from an annual price of $1,600 per year to $55.

Dr ’t Hoen stresses that in order to change people’s attitudes, it is vital to reach as wide an audience as possible. To achieve this, ’t Hoen has made her recently published book entitled The Global Politics of Pharmaceutical Monopoly Power, freely available online. As I was handed a copy of the book, the humanitarian in me felt a tingle of hope, in knowing that I was holding what could potentially change the lives of millions of people.

To find out more visit www.essentialmedicine.org and www.unitaid.eu

Will ‘smart pills’ make it to campus?

The article investigates the notion of psychostimulants, also nicknamed "smart drugs", entering the British student population. Across the pond the scenario already exists. However, the drugs work in the same way as amphetamines, thus causing much controversy in the eyes of the health industry. I interviewed Manchester-based bioethicists John Harris for his rather unorthodox views on these drugs and their safety.

The article was published in Student Direct on December 7th, 2009 and can also be accessed here:

We’ve all been guilty of the odd Red Bull and ProPlus to boost our problem-solving skills. But what do we turn to when these hailed methods stop working?

Over the pond, a good chunk of American college students are resorting to so-called psychostimulants, which mimic the actions of amphetamine. These drugs are prescribed for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), as they help sharpen one’s focus. The most famous example is Ritalin, which has somehow found its way out of this patient group.

Although the use of psychostimulants among British university students remains anecdotal, Manchester-based bioethicist John Harris predicts that this may soon become a reality. Harris would like to see Ritalin legalised and freely prescribed to healthy adults. At the moment, a five-year prison sentence is in store for those in non-medical possession of Ritalin. Harris argues that if Ritalin is safe enough to give to children, it should be safe enough to give to adults. Earlier this year, Harris expressed his views on the website of the esteemed British Medical Journal, causing much media attention. Despite being controversial, it seems Harris’ views are already having an effect; the Home Office has commissioned an enquiry into whether the regulations for the use of psychostimulants should be re-evaluated.

One of the reasons this topic is under hot debate is that psychostimulants, just like amphetamines, are potentially addictive. But why should we restrict their use when we can freely consume other addictive stimulants like nicotine and caffeine? The answer lies in that the vast array of associated side-effects, such as hallucinations and insomnia. Medical experts also warn of detrimental effects on the cardiovascular system, including palpitations and blood pressure changes.

Another danger of “smart drugs” is that they will inevitably make us lazier. John Harris, however, disagrees. Harris claims that students that work hard in the first place will be the main consumers of these pills, as being the top of their class is their priority. This clearly bears the risk of dividing the student population into those who take “smart drugs”, and those who choose not to. Harris responds: “Ritalin will create no more of a barrier between students, than that which already exists between those who work hard and those who do not”. Harris emphasises that if cognitive enhancers are to be used off prescription this process must be carefully monitored. In these circumstances, “I wouldn’t mind if my students were taking Ritalin, as it might make them better students,” Harris concludes with a smile.