By Helen Soteriou
“A hearty kiss with dynamic 3D ultrasound”, “How Gollum got his gong”, “Whiplash: more than a pain in the neck”: these were some of the posters on offer at Perspectives, a competition in which young scientists discussed social and ethical implications of their research. “I came to the festival when I was 13 and it’s cool to be back again,” said competitor Hannah Dee, from the University of Leeds.
“Are you lifting properly?” referred to work on the way we injure ourselves when lifting objects, and “Daylighting: let’s get it on!” concerned research on the benefits of natural lighting in buildings.
“Could big brother be a computer program?” was the title of Hannah Dee’s poster. She has devised a computer program which monitors individuals in car parks, and rings an alarm whenever people move in unexpected directions. Although there are 6 million CCTV cameras in the UK, they are not watched all the time, which means that crime goes unnoticed. The cameras are positioned over car parks, and the program works out where the exits and obstacles are, and how people plan their path past any obstacles towards their goals. It tracks people and cars actually moving around the scene, and compares the way they move with how we expect them to move. If there is a difference, the alarm will alert a security guard.
Another candidate, Victoria Williams, from Imperial College, London, looked at ways to cut global warming by air travel. Her work is on vapour trails which last for hours, and spread over very large areas, trapping heat, and warming the surface. She believes that flying lower can stop them forming.
The owners of these oversized, visually attractive pieces of paper enjoyed the process of wording something that was free of technical jargon. All presented as confident and enthusiastic about their work, which was nice to see, as so many on the PhD treadmill very easily become jaded as part of the experience. A few, did, however, seem overly enthusiastic, which may have been due to their desire to win.
The winner was Alexis Vlandas, a DPhil student from the Department of Materials at Oxford University. His poster was on nanotechnology. “I’m worried about military funding,” he said. “One-third of all R&D in the UK goes for military purposes: £1 billion of £3 billion. I’m worried we might create something we cannot contain.” As nanotechnology has implications for biology, chemistry, materials science and other areas, Vlandas’ fears are for military developments across the board.
“There’s a lot of secrecy about research that is funded by the military,” he said. “In the UK, you can’t compile a list of which university receives what funds for what project. Openness and public responsibility are crucial.”