World Association of Young Scientists

Logo or Venue image: 

In summer 19-30 June 2010 in Moscow - the capital of Russian Federation - is going to be held International Research School for youngsters from 13 to 18.
Students will work in project groups making researches in different fields of science. The project is held under the support of MILSET (milset.org) and the Russian Academy of Science.
We invite young specialist to work at IRS 2010 as assistant trainers in chemistry and entomology projects.
More info you can find here: http://interschool.redu.ru/

Logo or Venue image: 

((english / french invitation cards)):

.

On Saturday, November 29th, please join us for an informal discussion panel bringing together Scientists, Technologists and Designers to weigh in about the current and future influence of each of these disciplines on one another. The Mother-Child Health International Research Network, The World Association of Young Scientists and the Canadian Centre for Architecture invite you to a public conversation on collaboration between these three critically important – and increasingly interdependent - fields of knowledge.

This session will be structured around a series of questions posed to our guest panelists, followed by a discussion and open exchange with the audience.

• Saturday November 29th, 2008, from 2:30pm until 4:00pm

• Canadian Centre for Architecture: 1920 rue Baile, Montréal, Québec – Shaughnessy House.
• Refreshments will be provided.
• Contact Us for more information.

View Larger Map

Dr. David Levy musing about whether scientists should have a say in how their research gets used:

TECHNOLOGY OUT OF CONTROL

What do you think?

• Should scientists have a say in how their research gets used in society and the world at large?
• Will the rapid pace of technological advance bring about cataclysmic events for the human race?
• Finally, are robots going to annihilate us? ;)

Seeding Labs is a non profit organization that reclaims and refurbishes laboratory equipment from universities, hospitals and biotechnology companies in order to equip talented scientists and clinicians living and working in the developing world.

Seeding Labs was founded in 2002 by graduate students at Harvard Medical School to address this lack of infrastructure. Since then, they have shipped over $300,000 worth of equipment to labs on three continents, with a total budget of under $10,000.
http://www.seedinglabs.org

if you are interested by this program -whether because you look for, or because you have scientific equipment in good working order you can contact them here:
http://www.seedinglabs.org/contactus.html

The African Network of Scientific and Technological Institutions (ANSTI), has established the Conference of Vice-Chancellors, Deans of Science, Engineering and Technology (COVIDSET) as a forum for University leaders responsible for Science and Engineering Education to meet and dialogue on strategic issues in Science and Engineering Education. COVIDSET is a forum both for the exchange of ideas and experiences as well for the sensitization of University Leaders on trends in science and engineering education in the region and globally.

Date: 5 - 27 Sept. 2007
Johannesburg,
South Africa

Lately, I've been thinking more and more about the dichotomy between scientists and engineers. While similar in many ways, scientists and engineers have proven to be very different in terms of adaptability, use of resources, and application of theories. While these and other differences are essential to both groups, I can't help but feel that both scientists and engineers would stand to gain much from opening up dialogue with each other a bit more.

I myself studied civil engineering here in Montreal, though I later abandoned that career choice because, well it was a career choice, not a personal choice. In other words, it seemed like a good idea because I could get a decent job afterwards, with a decent starting salary. That's the reason so many of us do what we do in this capital-driven economic system we've built(indeed, we're programmed to think this way from a very young age), but in the end, it seemed like an awfully shallow reason to become an engineer, scientist or anything, really.

How many scientists here became scientists because they *really* love science? How many of us really grew up loving science itself, and knew from an early age that this is really what we wanted to do, regardless of the career path / job opportunities?

And how many of us followed a scientific career path because it would provide us with a comfortable living, a good salary, and a secure future? Or for some other superficial reason, such as going into a "well-respected" field, or making our parents proud?

One of the most important differences between a pure science versus an engineering degree is that there is a career path from an undergraduate degree in engineering. Engineering graduates are qualified to pursue their professional license. Not so in science, where one typically requires graduate work to be employable in that field.

Science primarily involves using experimentation to uncover new things about the physical world, while engineering is about applying that scientific knowledge to create useful products and services for society. While science is firmly rooted in research, engineering relies on both research and design. Both disciplines require a strong knowledge of scientific theory, math and computing.1

While both engineers and scientists know how to "tinker" with things, it seems to me that engineers like to tinker with everything around them that they don't yet fully understand, while scientists prefer to restrict their exploration to topics that fall within their own scientific grasp. A good example of this is the Internet - most engineers I know are much more web-savvy than most scientists I know. They both had the same starting point, but it's the engineer who was quicker at asking questions, figuring things out, not only trying to understand the "how" of the way things like blogging, wikis, distributed social networks, etc. work, but also figuring out the "why". These engineers seem to understand the importance of sharing and the value of open information, where the general attitude I've gotten back with my years of working with the global scientific community has been one of "This is my research, this is my information, etc.

Also - and this might have something to do with the aforementioned understanding of social networks - engineers accept the fact that they are just a very small part of a much larger system. When I think of engineers, the visual that appears in my head is one of mechanical engineers working in teams, of computer engineers spread across the world working on an open-source project, or of civil or mining engineers together on a surveying mission. When I imagine scientists, I see a lone elder man with a white beard surrounded by flasks, or - at best - a sterile lab with people in lab coats, completely quiet, each staring down their own microscope.

These are, of course, hilariously inaccurate caricatures. But it's undeniable that science has been - and still is - a much more rigid and impenetrable topic, while engineers have been quick to assimilate with the technology that's around them. Scientists seem to accept to use this technology - without trying to understand it - only if it serves in their field of research.

Scientists want to understand the theories behind something and they're willing to use tools when necessary to get to the core of why/how. Engineers want to build things and they're willing to use theory when it will help the construction.

[...]

The scientist vs. engineer relation is simple, without one, the other could not exist. No scientist can get a thing done, without a half-way descent machinist, (whether it be programming, or actually maching of instruments) Engineers on the other hand, must use every bit of applicable theory, whether it be from pure nature, or academic elitists, to produce something of value. Fuller's edict was "If it works, then it is beautiful." I believe functionality is the key to beauty as well, as functionality is a trait that is quantitative, as well as qualitative. That is where raw science and engineering form a unity, in pure functionality. It is their most common bond, and strongest.2

As for me, well after I left engineering I registered as an independent student, which is a status I retain to this day. I take courses that interest me because I want to learn more about them, things like psychology, languages, history, philosophy, and some science and engineering classes. I sit in on classes sometimes even when I'm not enrolled in them. With the absence of the usual pressure about grades and studying, I retain so much more from every course than I used to when I was "a student".

There are probably enough credits for a degree (or two) in there somewhere, but I'm not interested in even pursuing that right now. I find that the most fascinating thinking often occurs in the cracks between topics (a great example of this is the remarkable symbiosis we see in interdisciplinary science), not at their summits, so I try to build (myself, my work and my "research") horizontally, not vertically. Finding out how to apply existing ideas to areas where innovation is needed is more valuable to me than constantly trying to push the boundaries and discover "the next big thing" in a selected topic.

You've achieved success in your field when you don't know whether what you're doing is work or play. -- Warren Beatty

Does that make me an engineer or a scientist? Probably neither.

Or maybe a "mad scientist"...

1. 1. From Queens University
2. 2. From Zephoria.org