– vejledning om aktindsigt og ophavsret
– værktøjer til intern kommunikation
– procedure for udsendelse af pressemeddelelser
– inspiration til arbejdet med at rekruttere nye studerende
– vejledning omkring trykt materiale og videoer
– værktøjer til web
cf https://intranet.ku.dk/kommunikation/Sider/default.aspx
Our conservator Nanna Gardes is working hard right now to preserve and restore artefacts from our collections for the forthcoming exhibition ‘Obesity — What’s the Problem’ (open on October 4th).
One of the central objects in the exhibit is this ‘bicycle’, which the Danish physiologist, and later Nobel Laureate, August Krogh constructed around 1911 Kondicykel fra ca. 1911. Tilhørende Medicinsk Museions samlinger. Kondicyklen skal bruges i den kommende udstilling: Fedme – Hvad er problemet?, der åbner oktober 2012.
Is the marketisation of science coupled to the obsession with RCR?
There’s one example in particular that comes close to summing up the entire argument of What Money Can’t Buy. It concerns an Israeli daycare centre, which responded to a problem with parents turning up late to collect their children by introducing fines. The result? Late pick-ups increased. Parents turned up late, paid the fine, and thought no more of it; the fine had turned into a fee.
The fear of disapproval and of doing the wrong thing was based on non-monetary values, and was a stronger force than mere cash. The daycare centre went back to the old system, but parents kept turning up late, because the introduction of market values had killed the old ideas of collective responsibility. Once the old “norm” of turning up on time had been marketised, it was impossible to change back.
What Money Can’t Buy by Michael Sandel review
John Lanchester
the guardian Thu 17 May 2012
http://www.guardianbookshop.co.uk/BerteShopWeb/viewProduct.do?ISBN=9781846144714
My job at Medical Museion is to is a university museum, and as such we are subordinated to the rules of the university system in Denmark — a system working according to the same rules of neoliberal managerial governance that dominates most Western countries.
Academics are bureaucratized intellectuals: they work in hierarchies, have set positions in the structure, positions defined through required procedures, and elaborate, rule-bound protocols through which they relate to their colleagues. The individuals in this kind of system are easily manipulated by rules—do so much publishing in order to be promoted or, under the Research Assessment Exercise in the UK, to not lose money for your department. If each is also in a competitive rivalry with everyone else, there’s little basis for opposition to the ground rules—which in any living system need constant revision. More importantly, there’s less incentive to innovate, to deviate. In a competitive system, the easiest way to lose is to digress from the core assumptions …
Christopher Newfield, ‘Can the Cognitariat Speak?’ (2008)
http://www.e-flux.com/journal/can-the-cognitariat-speak/
When I was younger I read much more than I wrote. I probably read one book and ten articles for each page of writing. But over time, I’ve noticed that my priorities have changed, and now I sometimes feel I write more than I read. Probably not in terms of number of pages, but definitely in terms of time and energy. It takes me a lot of effort to download and read a scholarly article, not to mention to buy and open a scholarly book — whereas writing comes easily, almost effortlessly.
Today’s science museums operate in two lanes with respect to their pace of action.
The slow lane is the collections. At the extreme, they may contain objects that are hundreds of years old, things that deteriorate slowly and don’t need much more attention than burglary protection. Some of our old surgical instruments move in the slow lane.
Here’s an inspiration for our Museion & The Web Day, namely an excellent post by Mia Ridge about the pros and cons of letting images of cool museum objects go viral on social media(http://openobjects.blogspot.com/2012/02/capturing-visitors-with-steampunk-arm.html).
Enjoy — and note how Mia (apparently effortlessly) juxtaposes her curatorial interest in material objects and her passion for outreach with an insight into the workings of the social web.
I have enjoyed quite a few of Mia’s posts on the Open Objects blog; maybe she would be a good invitee for a MUSE seminar in the late spring/early summer?
Thomas
Jeg har tidligere skrevet om Københavns Universitets intranet. At det er utidssvarende at lægge en masse information bag passwords. At 95% af informationen på intranettet uden problemer ville kunne gøres offentligt tilgængeligt uden password (til gengæld skal de 5% personalefølsomme oplysninger selvfølgelig være låst inde). Og at det ville gavne universitetets ry som en åben institution at lægge de 95% ufarlige og personufølsomme oplysninger frit på nettet.
Men nu har jeg opdaget at KU’s intranet ikke bare er utidssvarende, men også en smule latterligt. Sagen er, at jeg logger så sjældent ind på intranettet at jeg ikke kan huske passwordet og i dag blev jeg nødt til at rekvirere et nyt. Tre sekunder senere fik jeg en mail med et midlertidligt password. Jeg klikkede mig ind og blev bedt om at vælge et permanent paassword som:
must contain at least eight characters … Capitals/upper-case letters, e.g. ABC … Lower-case letters, e.g. abc … Numbers or special characters, e.g. 123!”#
Og så prøvede jeg det jeg vagt kunne huske var mit gamle password — og fik fejlmeddelelsen:
Policy Violation … New password cannot match any of the 24 previous passwords for this account.
OK — jeg er med på at de 5% personfølsomme oplysninger skal sikres som det gjaldt forsvarshemmeligheder. Helt med på.
Men nu prøver man altså at sikre de 95% ikke personfølsomme oplysinger — mødereferater, personalehåndbøger, etc, med “policy violation rules’ som svarer til dem man bruger i Pentagon.
The body has been the topic of some of the most spectacular museum exhibitions in recent years — one only needs to mention Gunther van Hagens ***Exciting developments in the life sciences and their application in biotechnology are helping to provide pioneering cures and therapies for inherited and degenerative diseases. Consider genomics and genetic based therapies, neuroscience and neuropharmacology, ICT implants and prosthetics, nanomedicine and care of the ageing and you will see how the way in which we perceive ourselves and those around us is slowly being recast. As our knowledge and its application continues to grow and expand, the range, scope and magnitude of what we are able to achieve seems to be limitless.
This interdisciplinary symposium is convened in order to build capacity as well as consolidate existing scholarship on perspectives on the human body and identity in the face of new advances in emerging technologies.
FURTHER DETAILS
Technology forecasters point to advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology as an ‘enabling technology’ which opens up further opportunities when combined with other technologies. This “convergence” of new emerging technologies therefore becomes a matter of great debate. This is seen, for example, when advances in nanoscience converge with developments in biotechnology, which also utilise developments in information technology to capture and simulate human abilities using artificial intelligence systems and, more controversially, cognitive science. As the animal–human distinction becomes increasingly blurred, it is plain to see the increasing growth of human power over nature in all of its forms including traditional and contemporary understanding about human nature itself. More than just speculative science fiction, talk of brain implants and neural imaging, cyborg enhancement and virtual reality simulation is suddenly becoming a pressing reality.
At this time we are faced with a key question: what does it mean to be human in the 21st Century? A series of identity crises emerge. Against the backdrop of developments in ICT, and especially in virtual contexts we are keen to ensure that our identities are protected and can be authenticated appropriately, without fear of them being reconstructed by others. Likewise, concern is expressed over the question of privacy and surveillance when we encounter new forms of identifying technologies such as biometrics which could challenge our freedom and dignity. As genetic and neuroscience technologies evolve, they provoke and unsettle some of our traditional perceptions of who and what we are.
It is envisaged that this symposium will contribute to the conversation on this theme and by drawing from insights and ideas from across the disciplines, the aim will be to chart challenges to, and changes in, perceptions of identity and the human body in the 21st century.
Some key questions this symposium will aim to address include the following:
Suggested topics: Ageing and immortality –Artificial intelligence; the Turing test; machine understanding – Artificial life; computational biology – Biometrics – Cognitive science – Converging technologies (nano–bio–info–cogno) – Ethical and social implications of advances in emerging technologies – Genetics – Human enhancement – Implant technology – Medical anthropology – Neuroscience.
SUBMISSION DETAILS
We invite submission of abstracts in the first instance, with a word limit of around 500–750 words (maximum), and not including references. The abstract should clearly outline main arguments and conclusions of the paper. On the basis of these abstracts, the academic organising committee will compose a short list of speakers to be invited to submit full–length papers for presentation at the symposium, which will be held in London in May 2012. All abstracts must be submitted through EasyChair (in a Word attachment; without inclusion of personal details to allow for blind reviewing), which will be available through the symposium webpage. Successful papers will be considered for inclusion in a special publication on the same theme.
IMPORTANT DATES
Tuesday 28th February 2012 – Deadline for submission of abstracts (500–750 word limit)
Monday 30th April 2012 – Final version of papers to be submitted ahead of symposium
18th May 2012 – Symposium, University College London
Have you heard about this: http://www.muziejai.lt/Kaunas/neregiu_muz.en.htm?
The idea of this museum is the sensual experience and means of its expression (such as hearing, smell, touch). Exposition “Catacombs of 21st Century” that evokes the spatial installation, includes 8 different parts: passing, manhole, garden, first step, border, second step, fragments, memory. Exposition is absolutely invisible; visitors can only perceive it through sounds, smells and touching.
(Just read a tweet about it from David Pantalony at the Canada Museum og Sci and Tech, Ottawa, see below:
@SciTechCurator David Pantalony
Is there a really good museum for the blind? Not just token experiences? I know of one in Kaunas #Lithuania. http://bit.ly/tOFdvf
5 hours ago via web Favorite Retweet Reply
from Ottawa, Ontario
The Kaunas Museum for the Blind (Lithuanian: Muziejus neregiams) in Kaunas, Lithuania opened in 2005. It was the first museum for the blind in the Baltic States and one of the first in Eastern Europe.[1]
The museum, located in the catacombs underneath St. Michael the Archangel Church, was created during the course of an international exchange project, “Catacombs of the 21st Century”, organized by students at the Kaunas University of Technology, under the supervision of the sculptor Robertas Antinis.[2] Students from Greece, Turkey, and Italy also participated in the process.[3] The exhibits can be perceived through sound, smells, and touch.[1][4]
Due to its sole reliance on the parish for access, the museum was frequently inaccessible during the late 2000s.[5]
For those of you seeking intellectual sustenance on Christmas Day, and are interested in how science fits in the greater scheme of things, you may find the following of interest:
‘How to think like God’
Steve Fuller
Sunday, 25 December, 8PM GMT
Swedish Twitter University
For more details on how to participate etc: http://svtwuni.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/stu11/
Abstract
Without denying that many – though exactly how many is far from clear – people not only don’t believe in God but also appear to object to the very idea, it might be a good idea to get a sense of what it would mean to think like God. At the very least, this would give both believers and non-believers a clear sense of what they’re talking about. One might think that ‘theologians’, whose name literally means ‘scientists of God’, would offer some straight talk on the subject. And while some theologians do, many if not most are compromised by having to speak within one or another church stricture.
In any case, what better time to discuss this matter than the Christmas season! After all, the sort of God whose mind is worth fathoming is the one that led a motley crew of dissenting European Christians in the 17th century to initiate the Scientific Revolution. It’s this version God, which I believe remains very relevant, that I wish to discuss in my lecture. Even today, it’s pretty difficult to rationalize science – especially if we look at both the positive and the negative sides of its score sheet – unless we imagine ourselves as over time, albeit in fits and starts, getting closer to the mind of this hypothesized God, in whose ‘image and likeness’ the Abrahamic religions maintain that we have been created.
Of course, some believe that science was a big mistake to begin with, or that we’re likely to be doomed if we don’t curtail science’s development. But that’s not my starting point.”
