Palestinian and Israeli Chemists Meet in Malta

jhalper — Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:07:21 +0000

“Billions of dollars are being spent on weapons of mass destruction. A small fraction of that could go so far to engage more Israeli and Arab scientists in collaborative projects in order to create a critical mass that will bring about peace.” The speaker is Dr. Zafra Lerman, President of the Malta Conferences Foundation, which organizes conferences in nonaligned Malta for Israeli, Palestinian and Middle Eastern scientists. These bi-annual conferences, attended by researchers from Egypt to Saudi Arabia, focus such neutral topics as materials science, as well as common interests like water and environmental issues. But they are structured to provide an environment in which, according to enthusiastic Malta conference participant Prof. David Cahen, science is the bridge that enables Israelis and Arabs to communicate.

Prof. Hasan Dweik, Vice President for Science and Society at Al-Quds University in eastern Jerusalem, did more than just converse with his Israeli counterparts – he is determined to present an example of cooperation. He is presently on sabbatical, working in a chemistry lab at the Weizmann Institute, and he has encouraged several students in the Palestinian Authority to conduct their PhD studies at the Institute.

Can scientists influence the relations between the two countries?

While it may seem, on the face of things, that scientists have little sway in the politics of their respective countries, Dweik’s story contains a few glimmers of hope. These begin with his personal story: In 1971, he and his brother were standing outside their father’s bakery when a terrorist bomb exploded in a nearby, Jewish-owned restaurant. His brother, Hussein, was killed and Hasan was wounded. For Dweik, the experience led him to understand, on a very deep level, the very heavy price exacted when both sides fail to make the concessions needed to bring about peace.

Dweik is on a sort of mission to “build up a core of scientists who are good educators in order to create our own faculty of science education.” On the one hand, he is helping to create a cadre of Palestinians and Israelis who are learning, both literally and figuratively, to cross bridges to one another. On the other, he is working to expand the PA’s primary network of scientists – people who are trained to ask questions and seek answers – which is essential to creating a modern peaceful, democratic country.

This Weizmann Science Writer (speaking for herself, only) would like to believe that, if not this time then next, Dweik’s voice and that of others who have glimpsed a future of Palestinians and Israelis freely working in collaboration will be heard by those sitting at the negotiating table.

jhalper Mon, 02/03/2014 - 05:07

Toward a New Economics: Supply, Demand and Curiosity

jhalper — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:38:37 +0000

Toward a New Economics: Supply, Demand and Curiosity

Professor Daniel Zajfman, president of the Weizmann Institute of Science, is a physicist in the fields of atomic and molecular physics. He has a strong interest in the popularization of science

George Mallory, the man who almost made it to the top of Everest, is probably most famous for his terse reply when asked why he attempted to climb it: "Because it's there." Scientists often resemble mountain climbers: We want to understand nature because it's there. Why, in today's world, should we be devoting precious resources to finding out what happened in the Universe's first billionth of a second or the ideal arrangement of atoms in a particular molecule?

The answer, in a nutshell, is that when we satisfy our urge to know, we're also benefitting humanity. Granted, the lion's share of research investment rightfully goes into solving the pressing problems: drug development, alternative energy, etc. These are studies designed to meet well-defined goals, set out within strategic plans developed by political or financial leaders; or else they're propelled by market forces. But if we invest exclusively in this kind of research, we'll have no future.

Why? Consider some of the most important technological and medical advances of the last century: Lasers, for instance, were not invented as part of a plan to shoot down enemy missiles, nor were their inventors thinking of new ways to listen to music. The structure of DNA was not solved with cures for diseases in mind; transistors were not invented so we could talk on cell phones; Einstein couldn't have imagined GPS satellites when he came up with the theory of relativity on which they rely; the Web wasn't created to give teens a new form of social interaction.

A thousand useless ideas

Around 115 years ago, J.J. Thompson, the discoverer of the electron, raised a toast "to the useless electron." Can we even imagine the world today without this "useless" discovery? None of these ideas, or any of a thousand others, arose because somebody "needed" it. Electrons, lasers, DNA, transistors: At first, we had no idea what we could do with them, or how they would eventually change our lives. What we really need to ask ourselves is this: Did anyone "mandate" finding the electron? Or did its discovery come about because a scientist had the freedom to think - and to experiment - with his only aim that of understanding how nature works?

If, as a society, the only research we are willing to support is defined by today's problems, our future will be limited to the horizon of our current understanding. If we only invest in solving our most urgent issues -- cancer, global warming, defense, etc. -- we will lose everything still unknown that we MIGHT discover.

Growth engine

True: We can't predict the future impact of today's discoveries, or even which ones will change our lives or when this will happen. Yet history and economics show that few investments are more worthwhile. Indeed: We'll have to abandon strategic and political planning, and there are risks. But such investment can be managed: It must be made wherever there is academic excellence -- even in fields that are "irrelevant" to today's needs. Infrastructure must be provided, along with the freedom to think and investigate. Experience shows that academic freedom and peer review are superb mechanisms for recognizing excellence. The beloved maxim of planners -- only that which can be measured can be optimized -- doesn't always hold true in academia. Sometimes, a broad, even fuzzy, proposal is preferable: It allows for flexibility and enables researchers to adjust quickly to new findings, especially when they're unplanned.

In the end, the investment in curiosity pays off. The payoff can be enormous and the price is low -- considering the return. The freedom to research is the growth engine of the future.

jhalper Mon, 06/28/2010 - 19:38

Investing in the Future

Palestinian and Israeli Chemists Meet in Malta

Toward a New Economics: Supply, Demand and Curiosity