Público
Quarta-feira, 29 de Dezembro de 2004
O sismo e o tsunami de 26 de Dezembro constituíram uma catástrofe cujas dimensões ainda não estão totalmente avaliadas. Nos próximos dias o número de mortos e desalojados irá impiedosamente subir, sublinhando a grande fragilidade das regiões litorais.
O mecanismo físico que gera os sismos está bem estudado: a convergência oblíqua das placas Indiana e Australiana (a oeste) com as placas de Burma, Sunda e Eurásia (a este), ocorre com uma velocidade relativa de cerca de 6 cm por ano, ao longo da fossa de Sunda, criando um ambiente tectónico de elevada perigosidade sísmica. A tecnologia disponível, sismológica e geodésica, permite determinar estes valores com grande fiabilidade, pelo que se não pode considerar qualquer surpresa a ocorrência desta catástrofe.
As determinações já realizadas para a fonte sísmica apontam para uma profundidade do foco inferior a 10 km e para uma enorme extensão de ruptura, atingindo os 1000 km. Estes dois factores combinaram-se para uma geração de tsunami muito eficiente, cujos efeitos devastadores ultrapassaram os do sismo.
A geração de um tsunami é um fenómeno que se pode considerar bem conhecido: quando ocorre um sismo existe movimento relativo entre as duas faces do plano de ruptura; este movimento gera deformação do fundo do mar cuja amplitude pode atingir dezenas de metros. A deformação do fundo do mar, muito rápida, transmite-se à superfície do oceano e esta perturbação propaga-se como uma onda. Esta onda é semelhante à onda de maré, e não se confunde com uma vaga, de muito menor período e onde a "subida" e a "descida" são observáveis simultaneamente. A onda de tsunami aparece como uma "parede de água" ou uma "subida repentina do nível do mar". Próximo da costa ocorrem fenómenos de espraiamento e inundação, que ainda ampliam o impacto.
Os ambientes tectónicos convergentes são geradores de tsunamis. É isso que ocorre no SW de Portugal, onde a placa Núbia se desloca para NW, convergindo com a placa Euroasiática com uma velocidade de quatro a cinco milímetros por ano. O sismo de 1755 gerou um grande tsunami que inundou as costas de Portugal, Espanha, Marrocos e foi sentido em locais muito distantes como as Caraíbas. O sismo de 1969 gerou também um tsunami que foi observado nos marégrafos e que atingiu 80 centímetros em Lisboa. Outros sismos de menor magnitude deram origem a tsunamis cuja amplitude é pequena e que apenas os marégrafos podem detectar. Neste sentido pode dizer-se que o risco de tsunami é real em Portugal, sendo particularmente significativo nas regiões do Algarve, da costa alentejana e de Lisboa.
Que se pode fazer?
A primeira medida tem a ver com a monitorização da actividade sísmica que gera os tsunamis. A instituição nacional responsável por este acompanhamento (o Instituto de Meteorologia) possui meios de observação muito escassos. Basta uma observação mais cuidada das estações sismográficas utilizadas para a localização do sismo de 16 de Dezembro para se perceber que a rede algarvia, a mais importante para a monitorização da fronteira de placas, quase não possui estações!
A segunda medida tem a ver com a existência de sistemas de alarme. À semelhança do Indico, também o Atlântico europeu está desprovido de uma rede de alarme funcional. Apenas indirectamente será possível utilizar informação sísmica em tempo real para desencadear um alarme e é necessário preparar as populações para as acções de defesa.
A terceira medida tem a ver com a ocupação do território e a fragilidade das ocupações turísticas do litoral, em particular das primeiras centenas de metros.
Portugal pode resolver de forma satisfatória o primeiro problema. Basta para isso direccionar de forma mais razoável os recursos existentes e assegurar os serviços públicos mínimos. Quando for feito o balanço (será feito?) das opções que levaram à desmoralização e destruição dos laboratórios de Estado, perceber-se-á que um país de recursos limitados como o nosso deve gerir os recursos de que dispõe de forma rigorosa e não multiplicar iniciativas descoordenadas de observação.
Portugal pode resolver parcialmente o segundo problema integrando o risco de tsunami nos planos de protecção civil e colaborando de forma activa nas iniciativas de monitorização sísmica e maregráfica do fundo do mar na região da margem ibérica. Existem iniciativas em curso para o VII Programa Quadro que deveriam ter uma participação nacional activa, à semelhança do que ocorre com a participação no CERN, ESO e ESA.
Portugal poderia resolver parcialmente o terceiro problema, mas aqui a ciência e a tecnologia apenas podem fornecer cálculos de risco. Cabe aos decisores políticos a cultura e a coragem para a adopção de medidas restritivas do uso do litoral. Espero que os cenários das alterações climáticas previstas para Portugal e as imagens do desespero das populações no Indico, sirvam para fornecer a energia necessária a uma alteração real de comportamentos.
Presidente do Instituto Geofísico do Infante D Luiz, Universidade de Lisboa
Wednesday, December 29, 2004
Monday, December 27, 2004
Kodak Updates Its Brownie to Compete in a Digital Age Michael J. Okoniewski for The New York Times
Kodak Updates Its Brownie to Compete in a Digital Age Michael J. Okoniewski for The New York Times
Kodak's LS 753 digital camera, on an EasyShare dock that prints photographs without a personal computer.
By SAUL HANSELL
Published: December 27, 2004
Michael J. Okoniewski for The New York Times
Ten years ago, Kodak manufactured the first digital camera aimed for sale to retail consumers, the $749 QuickTake 100, sold by Apple Computer. But by 2000, Sony had muscled in as the leading digital camera maker and Kodak was hovering near 5 percent of the market, a dire position, while the film business -which it had dominated for a decade - was starting to collapse.
Kodak called in anthropologists and other social scientists, who observed camera users in an effort to learn how taking and printing pictures fit into their daily lives. They also followed prospective camera buyers into stores to understand how they chose certain models from the crowded shelves.
The research was part of Kodak's effort to reorganize its digital camera product line by transforming product design, manufacturing and marketing. The company's big decision was to focus on low-priced, easy-to-use cameras that would appeal to women, who take the majority of snapshots, rather than Sony's forte - shiny toys for gadget-loving men.
That strategy paid off as digital cameras moved into the mass market. This year, Kodak's EasyShare brand has almost 19 percent of digital camera sales in the United States, a very close second to Sony and ahead of Canon, according to IDC, a technology research firm.
"Kodak is up because they are really committed to ease of use and they communicate that very well," said Michelle Slaughter, the director of digital photography trends at InfoTrends/CAP Ventures, a market research firm. "Kodak tends to excel at the touchy-feely side of the market that tends to appeal to first time buyers and mainstream consumers, especially woman," she said.
Kodak certainly needed a success. Since selling its pharmaceutical and chemical divisions a decade ago, the company has shed a third of its jobs and has seen its revenue fall from $15 billion in 1995 to $13 billion last year. Now the company expects to eliminate as many as a quarter of its remaining 64,000 jobs over the next three years.
Sales of film and other traditional products were down 20 percent in the third quarter, even more than expected. But digital products-consumer and professional cameras as well as printing systems sold to drug stores and the like-were up 39 percent. (The company recently stopped selling reloadable film cameras in the United States.)
Profitability in digital products has been harder to achieve than sales. Kodak has said that 2004 will be the first full year in which its digital camera division would be profitable. And it will say only that the line is profitable when its high-margin accessory sales are included.
To the great relief of camera manufacturers, buyers have not yet pressed for lower prices, as they have in some markets, like DVD players. The average price has remained just under $300, but consumers expect that the makers will continuously provide more features-especially megapixels of resolutions and zoom capacities-at those prices. Any maker with a model that doesn't match up to its rivals is forced to liquidate at a loss.
"The lifetime of digital cameras is measured in months, while the life of a film camera is years," said Elliot Peck, a vice president for sales at Canon. "Someone always has overstocks, and that disrupts the market."
Mr. Peck said that Canon's camera business, which has concentrated on more technically sophisticated buyers by offering digital single lens reflex cameras and the unusually small and sleek Elph line, is also profitable. And Sony, which charges a premium for its unusual designs, also makes money in digital cameras, although the company does not break out figures for the business.
Four years ago, it was not so clear that Kodak would have any credibility in the digital world, despite its place as a photography pioneer and its 1,000 digital photography patents. So Kodak's engineers developed a system meant to streamline the process of moving pictures off of the camera, onto a computer and then to either a printer, Kodak's Ofoto online printing service or e-mail.
This involved new cameras, new software and an optional dock that cradled the camera, allowing it to recharge its batteries and transfer pictures to the computer at the same time. The working name for the system was "Dock and Go," but Pierre Schaeffer, who had just taken over as marketing directors for digital cameras, did not like phrase.
"We had been trying to play catch up with Sony while we were trying to see what Canon was going to do," he said. "We needed something crisper that we could own and push forward with confidence."
After several brainstorming sessions, he came up with the EasyShare brand, which captures what the company hopes differentiates its line from competitors.
"The reason people buy a Canon is not fundamentally ease of use, and the reason they buy Sony is not ease of use," Mr. Schaeffer said. It was a position that resonated with the history of Kodak, which popularized the Instamatic camera, and long before that, the Brownie, which had the slogan "You push the button and we do the rest."
The EasyShare brand was named a month before the first products were announced in early 2001. When they were introduced, Kodak's designers were criticized that the first generation of products were not as stylish as their Japanese competitors.
Balancing these demands was Paul Porter, Kodak's director of design and usability. "We want something that looks really new," Mr. Porter said. "Because if it is new, people think it is more sophisticated, faster or may allow them to do things that others cameras don't allow."
One innovation that did pass the test was a "share" button, which allows users to select pictures as they take them that will later be printed or e-mailed as soon as the camera is returned to the dock.
"There is an emotional moment at the time of capture," said Gregory R. Westbrook, Kodak's vice president and general manager of its digital and film imaging systems unit. "The button lets the consumer express that emotion."
Mr. Porter also supervised the staff of anthropologists and cognitive psychologists who studied how to make the cameras easier to use. And Mr. Porter made the idea clear: When there are conflicts, as there inevitably are, "the usability tests will win out."
One of their first insights is that Kodak's target market was annoyed and sometimes intimidated by the need to use a personal computer in order to print pictures. Many women, the anthropologists found, wanted the center of their picture taking and viewing to be the kitchen rather than the home office.
So in 2003, Kodak introduced what would become the signature technology of its camera line: a printer dock that housed the camera directly - no computer needed - to print four-by-six-inch glossy photos using a dye sublimation printing process.
Kodak sold a million printer docks in the first year. Printers have the potential to be far more profitable than cameras, because customers are locked into years of buying ink and paper. Even more important, the printer dock helped Kodak's cameras stand out in crowded electronics stores, as Kodak convinced many retailers to put its printers right in the aisle that sold cameras, not in the printer section.
"The dock just resonated with consumers," Ms. Slaughter said.
Of course, innovations do not remain exclusive for very long in the electronics world. Canon, for example, added the equivalent of the share button to its Elph line. And Sony, which is promoting its own four-by-six-inch printer, has been fighting back with a refreshed product line. Sony's T-1 model is even thinner than the Canon Elph and features a 2.5 inch display, larger than those of its rivals.
Still, Sony is losing market share. In the first nine months of the year, Sony had 20.8 percent of the digital camera market in the United States, according to IDC, down from 21.7 for all of 2003. Kodak is up to 18.8 percent of the market from 17.9 percent. Canon is now the No. 3 digital camera player, with 15.2 percent.
Kodak is hoping that the company will stay competitive with new technology that permits better pictures in low light. But there are many more innovations in the marketplace: Canon is trying to create more hybrid digital still and video cameras. Sony has technology it says reduces the lag between the time when a photographer presses the shutter and when the picture is taken. And all of the makers are offering cameras in a rainbow of colors besides silver.
"At times we have had 30 or 40 competitors," Mr. Westbrook said. "Only the strong survive, but it takes time."
Kodak's LS 753 digital camera, on an EasyShare dock that prints photographs without a personal computer.
By SAUL HANSELL
Published: December 27, 2004
Michael J. Okoniewski for The New York Times
Ten years ago, Kodak manufactured the first digital camera aimed for sale to retail consumers, the $749 QuickTake 100, sold by Apple Computer. But by 2000, Sony had muscled in as the leading digital camera maker and Kodak was hovering near 5 percent of the market, a dire position, while the film business -which it had dominated for a decade - was starting to collapse.
Kodak called in anthropologists and other social scientists, who observed camera users in an effort to learn how taking and printing pictures fit into their daily lives. They also followed prospective camera buyers into stores to understand how they chose certain models from the crowded shelves.
The research was part of Kodak's effort to reorganize its digital camera product line by transforming product design, manufacturing and marketing. The company's big decision was to focus on low-priced, easy-to-use cameras that would appeal to women, who take the majority of snapshots, rather than Sony's forte - shiny toys for gadget-loving men.
That strategy paid off as digital cameras moved into the mass market. This year, Kodak's EasyShare brand has almost 19 percent of digital camera sales in the United States, a very close second to Sony and ahead of Canon, according to IDC, a technology research firm.
"Kodak is up because they are really committed to ease of use and they communicate that very well," said Michelle Slaughter, the director of digital photography trends at InfoTrends/CAP Ventures, a market research firm. "Kodak tends to excel at the touchy-feely side of the market that tends to appeal to first time buyers and mainstream consumers, especially woman," she said.
Kodak certainly needed a success. Since selling its pharmaceutical and chemical divisions a decade ago, the company has shed a third of its jobs and has seen its revenue fall from $15 billion in 1995 to $13 billion last year. Now the company expects to eliminate as many as a quarter of its remaining 64,000 jobs over the next three years.
Sales of film and other traditional products were down 20 percent in the third quarter, even more than expected. But digital products-consumer and professional cameras as well as printing systems sold to drug stores and the like-were up 39 percent. (The company recently stopped selling reloadable film cameras in the United States.)
Profitability in digital products has been harder to achieve than sales. Kodak has said that 2004 will be the first full year in which its digital camera division would be profitable. And it will say only that the line is profitable when its high-margin accessory sales are included.
To the great relief of camera manufacturers, buyers have not yet pressed for lower prices, as they have in some markets, like DVD players. The average price has remained just under $300, but consumers expect that the makers will continuously provide more features-especially megapixels of resolutions and zoom capacities-at those prices. Any maker with a model that doesn't match up to its rivals is forced to liquidate at a loss.
"The lifetime of digital cameras is measured in months, while the life of a film camera is years," said Elliot Peck, a vice president for sales at Canon. "Someone always has overstocks, and that disrupts the market."
Mr. Peck said that Canon's camera business, which has concentrated on more technically sophisticated buyers by offering digital single lens reflex cameras and the unusually small and sleek Elph line, is also profitable. And Sony, which charges a premium for its unusual designs, also makes money in digital cameras, although the company does not break out figures for the business.
Four years ago, it was not so clear that Kodak would have any credibility in the digital world, despite its place as a photography pioneer and its 1,000 digital photography patents. So Kodak's engineers developed a system meant to streamline the process of moving pictures off of the camera, onto a computer and then to either a printer, Kodak's Ofoto online printing service or e-mail.
This involved new cameras, new software and an optional dock that cradled the camera, allowing it to recharge its batteries and transfer pictures to the computer at the same time. The working name for the system was "Dock and Go," but Pierre Schaeffer, who had just taken over as marketing directors for digital cameras, did not like phrase.
"We had been trying to play catch up with Sony while we were trying to see what Canon was going to do," he said. "We needed something crisper that we could own and push forward with confidence."
After several brainstorming sessions, he came up with the EasyShare brand, which captures what the company hopes differentiates its line from competitors.
"The reason people buy a Canon is not fundamentally ease of use, and the reason they buy Sony is not ease of use," Mr. Schaeffer said. It was a position that resonated with the history of Kodak, which popularized the Instamatic camera, and long before that, the Brownie, which had the slogan "You push the button and we do the rest."
The EasyShare brand was named a month before the first products were announced in early 2001. When they were introduced, Kodak's designers were criticized that the first generation of products were not as stylish as their Japanese competitors.
Balancing these demands was Paul Porter, Kodak's director of design and usability. "We want something that looks really new," Mr. Porter said. "Because if it is new, people think it is more sophisticated, faster or may allow them to do things that others cameras don't allow."
One innovation that did pass the test was a "share" button, which allows users to select pictures as they take them that will later be printed or e-mailed as soon as the camera is returned to the dock.
"There is an emotional moment at the time of capture," said Gregory R. Westbrook, Kodak's vice president and general manager of its digital and film imaging systems unit. "The button lets the consumer express that emotion."
Mr. Porter also supervised the staff of anthropologists and cognitive psychologists who studied how to make the cameras easier to use. And Mr. Porter made the idea clear: When there are conflicts, as there inevitably are, "the usability tests will win out."
One of their first insights is that Kodak's target market was annoyed and sometimes intimidated by the need to use a personal computer in order to print pictures. Many women, the anthropologists found, wanted the center of their picture taking and viewing to be the kitchen rather than the home office.
So in 2003, Kodak introduced what would become the signature technology of its camera line: a printer dock that housed the camera directly - no computer needed - to print four-by-six-inch glossy photos using a dye sublimation printing process.
Kodak sold a million printer docks in the first year. Printers have the potential to be far more profitable than cameras, because customers are locked into years of buying ink and paper. Even more important, the printer dock helped Kodak's cameras stand out in crowded electronics stores, as Kodak convinced many retailers to put its printers right in the aisle that sold cameras, not in the printer section.
"The dock just resonated with consumers," Ms. Slaughter said.
Of course, innovations do not remain exclusive for very long in the electronics world. Canon, for example, added the equivalent of the share button to its Elph line. And Sony, which is promoting its own four-by-six-inch printer, has been fighting back with a refreshed product line. Sony's T-1 model is even thinner than the Canon Elph and features a 2.5 inch display, larger than those of its rivals.
Still, Sony is losing market share. In the first nine months of the year, Sony had 20.8 percent of the digital camera market in the United States, according to IDC, down from 21.7 for all of 2003. Kodak is up to 18.8 percent of the market from 17.9 percent. Canon is now the No. 3 digital camera player, with 15.2 percent.
Kodak is hoping that the company will stay competitive with new technology that permits better pictures in low light. But there are many more innovations in the marketplace: Canon is trying to create more hybrid digital still and video cameras. Sony has technology it says reduces the lag between the time when a photographer presses the shutter and when the picture is taken. And all of the makers are offering cameras in a rainbow of colors besides silver.
"At times we have had 30 or 40 competitors," Mr. Westbrook said. "Only the strong survive, but it takes time."
Manifesto pela Ciência Tecnologia e Inovação Por LUÍS MONIZ PEREIRA
Público
Domingo, 26 de Dezembro de 2004
Ciência traz valores importantes, formativos, de ginástica mental. E se os jovens devem fazer exercício físico, também devem exercitar-se a pensar, a ter sentido crítico, a escolher. Talvez por isso certas ideologias, certos partidos políticos, não estejam muito interessados em ciência. Mas certas políticas, que pensam mais na tecnocracia e na instrumentalização da rendibilidade do ser humano/robot, preferem o jovem consumidor/votante acrítico.
Contudo, a Ciência tem razões e valores que a Economia desconhece, e desconhecerá... Por exemplo, o maravilhamento perante o conhecimento; a sua construção e herança histórica como valor partilhado da humanidade; o preferir a verdade a ter razão; a cooperação global como valor essencial que se sobrepõe à competição; a procura do rigor intelectual, segundo o qual somos os primeiros críticos de nós próprios; a atenção dada à crítica alheia e aceitação da argumentação como modo de dirimir diferenças; a crença na existência de uma realidade externa que não pode ser convencida com propaganda ou emoções humanas...
Há uma diferença entre a Esquerda e a Direita na forma como se relacionam com a Ciência. A Direita, em contraposição à Esquerda, preocupa-se menos com a Ciência e mais com a Tecnologia como forma de negócio. Menos com o global e social, e os tais valores intrínsecos à Ciência, e mais com o lucro tecnológico. E quando a Direita investe em Ciência é mais como subsídio encapotado às empresas em geral e, nos países desenvolvidos, àquelas associadas à defesa e à guerra.
Hoje, tem havido em Portugal uma pressão grande para transformar as universidades num mero laboratório das traseiras das empresas, enquanto estas abdicam de contratar o verdadeiro produto das universidades, que são as pessoas qualificadas de alto nível e experiência científica. Pretende-se matar a galinha em vez de a deixar produzir.
A Economia imediata parece ser a medida de todas as coisas. Simplismos para quem não quer, não é capaz, de pensar no global comum. Afinal o lucro é a única medida, porque o Mercado pensa magicamente por nós. Os problemas são demasiado complicados para os tecnocratas, e estes simplificam-nos à medida do seu utilitarismo egoísta. A Ciência não é rentável certamente porque não compatível, em Portugal, com os balanços anuais de contas ao Mercado que esquecem o longo prazo. Também, obter produtos estrangeiros chaves-na-mão é sempre mais cómodo para o gestor que afinal não quer arriscar na capacidade nacional.
A distinção entre Ciência e Tecnologia é essencial. A primeira define o possível, a segunda escolhe em que vamos concretizá-lo. O financiamento no entanto já influencia antecipadamente o possível, com vista a uma escolha de realização. A Tecnologia tem mais a ver com opções políticas do uso da Ciência. Mas que Ciência de apoio à Tecnologia é que devemos financiar? Muitas escolhas existem.
Podem-se valorizar as ciências humanas (os tecnocratas invariavelmente diminuem-lhes o financiamento); ou podem-se subsidiar encapotadamente as empresas; ou poupar na contratação na administração pública, por via de bolsas temporárias, ao invés de criar emprego científico. Pode-se atender à opinião e conhecimento científicos para informar os problemas complexos da nossa sociedade, ou pode-se remetê-los antes para a decisão política desinformada.
Embora não haja propriamente uma ciência portuguesa, é importante defender uma ciência portuguesa. Mas a Ciência não tem nacionalidade, é como as leis da Física. Por isso, e porque beneficiamos da Ciência internacional, devemos também contribuir para ela. Defendamos a Ciência portuguesa porque defendemos a Ciência não portuguesa! Mas estamos atrasados em fazê-lo.
A actividade excessiva como docente atrapalha frequentemente a actividade de investigador, mas é na Universidade que se encontram mais de 300 centros de investigação. A investigação científica precisa de investigadores a 100%, pelo menos em certos períodos da sua vida, e de gestores qualificados. A boa gestão universitária no entanto não existe, porque não tem verdadeiros instrumentos de gestão. Dinheiro não tem, lugares de quadro são poucos e esparsos, avaliação regular e consequente do mérito pessoal não existe. Em qualquer caso, a docência complementa a investigação, e reproduz o sistema de conhecimento.
Os sindicatos são uma via importante para travar o combate pelo mérito. Não há muito eram avessos a ele. Quando começaram a pensar em termos de quadros de dotação global perceberam que a avaliação por mérito era indispensável. Depois reconheceram-lhe outras vantagens: como instrumento de gestão, e de apoio dos próprios sectores departamentais à progressão por mérito dos seus membros.
A Lei 10/2004 de 22 de Março "Cria o sistema integrado de avaliação do desempenho da Administração Pública", e veio colocar o assunto na ordem do dia. Mas assistimos ao Ensino Superior a fugir-lhe porque embora avaliemos outros não queremos ser avaliados individualmente.
Em que nos ajuda a estratégia definida na Cimeira de Lisboa? Queremos de facto a sociedade do conhecimento? Ou apenas acenar com poeira mediática? Os nossos jovens vão de facto aprender os valores do conhecimento, ou continuarão alienados à engrenagem do consumo e da competição antropofágica? Como é possível uma sociedade do conhecimento em que estes temas se não debatem? O conhecimento só interessa para criar empregos mais sofisticados, ou vai justamente ao cerne dos valores que pretendemos promover?
Portugal continua com enorme iliteracia científica. O atraso aumenta porque outros do espaço Europeu movem-se melhor e mais depressa. Aprovou-se na UE o aumento para 3% do PIB em 2010 do financiamento à Ciência e Tecnologia, mas depois logo vem um nosso ministro dizer que a meta não é para nós, nem metade, só para os outros.
Mas não é difícil nem secreto o que fazer: primeiro mudar de Governo, depois voltar a ter um ministro como José Mariano Gago, que continue o que se iniciou. Que novo Governo fará o que tem a fazer? Professor Catedrático, UNL. Comunicação ao Encontro "Inovação, ciência e tecnologia: condições para o desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico do País - bloqueios, estratégias e soluções", 18 Dezembro 2004, ISCTE, Lisboa
Domingo, 26 de Dezembro de 2004
Ciência traz valores importantes, formativos, de ginástica mental. E se os jovens devem fazer exercício físico, também devem exercitar-se a pensar, a ter sentido crítico, a escolher. Talvez por isso certas ideologias, certos partidos políticos, não estejam muito interessados em ciência. Mas certas políticas, que pensam mais na tecnocracia e na instrumentalização da rendibilidade do ser humano/robot, preferem o jovem consumidor/votante acrítico.
Contudo, a Ciência tem razões e valores que a Economia desconhece, e desconhecerá... Por exemplo, o maravilhamento perante o conhecimento; a sua construção e herança histórica como valor partilhado da humanidade; o preferir a verdade a ter razão; a cooperação global como valor essencial que se sobrepõe à competição; a procura do rigor intelectual, segundo o qual somos os primeiros críticos de nós próprios; a atenção dada à crítica alheia e aceitação da argumentação como modo de dirimir diferenças; a crença na existência de uma realidade externa que não pode ser convencida com propaganda ou emoções humanas...
Há uma diferença entre a Esquerda e a Direita na forma como se relacionam com a Ciência. A Direita, em contraposição à Esquerda, preocupa-se menos com a Ciência e mais com a Tecnologia como forma de negócio. Menos com o global e social, e os tais valores intrínsecos à Ciência, e mais com o lucro tecnológico. E quando a Direita investe em Ciência é mais como subsídio encapotado às empresas em geral e, nos países desenvolvidos, àquelas associadas à defesa e à guerra.
Hoje, tem havido em Portugal uma pressão grande para transformar as universidades num mero laboratório das traseiras das empresas, enquanto estas abdicam de contratar o verdadeiro produto das universidades, que são as pessoas qualificadas de alto nível e experiência científica. Pretende-se matar a galinha em vez de a deixar produzir.
A Economia imediata parece ser a medida de todas as coisas. Simplismos para quem não quer, não é capaz, de pensar no global comum. Afinal o lucro é a única medida, porque o Mercado pensa magicamente por nós. Os problemas são demasiado complicados para os tecnocratas, e estes simplificam-nos à medida do seu utilitarismo egoísta. A Ciência não é rentável certamente porque não compatível, em Portugal, com os balanços anuais de contas ao Mercado que esquecem o longo prazo. Também, obter produtos estrangeiros chaves-na-mão é sempre mais cómodo para o gestor que afinal não quer arriscar na capacidade nacional.
A distinção entre Ciência e Tecnologia é essencial. A primeira define o possível, a segunda escolhe em que vamos concretizá-lo. O financiamento no entanto já influencia antecipadamente o possível, com vista a uma escolha de realização. A Tecnologia tem mais a ver com opções políticas do uso da Ciência. Mas que Ciência de apoio à Tecnologia é que devemos financiar? Muitas escolhas existem.
Podem-se valorizar as ciências humanas (os tecnocratas invariavelmente diminuem-lhes o financiamento); ou podem-se subsidiar encapotadamente as empresas; ou poupar na contratação na administração pública, por via de bolsas temporárias, ao invés de criar emprego científico. Pode-se atender à opinião e conhecimento científicos para informar os problemas complexos da nossa sociedade, ou pode-se remetê-los antes para a decisão política desinformada.
Embora não haja propriamente uma ciência portuguesa, é importante defender uma ciência portuguesa. Mas a Ciência não tem nacionalidade, é como as leis da Física. Por isso, e porque beneficiamos da Ciência internacional, devemos também contribuir para ela. Defendamos a Ciência portuguesa porque defendemos a Ciência não portuguesa! Mas estamos atrasados em fazê-lo.
A actividade excessiva como docente atrapalha frequentemente a actividade de investigador, mas é na Universidade que se encontram mais de 300 centros de investigação. A investigação científica precisa de investigadores a 100%, pelo menos em certos períodos da sua vida, e de gestores qualificados. A boa gestão universitária no entanto não existe, porque não tem verdadeiros instrumentos de gestão. Dinheiro não tem, lugares de quadro são poucos e esparsos, avaliação regular e consequente do mérito pessoal não existe. Em qualquer caso, a docência complementa a investigação, e reproduz o sistema de conhecimento.
Os sindicatos são uma via importante para travar o combate pelo mérito. Não há muito eram avessos a ele. Quando começaram a pensar em termos de quadros de dotação global perceberam que a avaliação por mérito era indispensável. Depois reconheceram-lhe outras vantagens: como instrumento de gestão, e de apoio dos próprios sectores departamentais à progressão por mérito dos seus membros.
A Lei 10/2004 de 22 de Março "Cria o sistema integrado de avaliação do desempenho da Administração Pública", e veio colocar o assunto na ordem do dia. Mas assistimos ao Ensino Superior a fugir-lhe porque embora avaliemos outros não queremos ser avaliados individualmente.
Em que nos ajuda a estratégia definida na Cimeira de Lisboa? Queremos de facto a sociedade do conhecimento? Ou apenas acenar com poeira mediática? Os nossos jovens vão de facto aprender os valores do conhecimento, ou continuarão alienados à engrenagem do consumo e da competição antropofágica? Como é possível uma sociedade do conhecimento em que estes temas se não debatem? O conhecimento só interessa para criar empregos mais sofisticados, ou vai justamente ao cerne dos valores que pretendemos promover?
Portugal continua com enorme iliteracia científica. O atraso aumenta porque outros do espaço Europeu movem-se melhor e mais depressa. Aprovou-se na UE o aumento para 3% do PIB em 2010 do financiamento à Ciência e Tecnologia, mas depois logo vem um nosso ministro dizer que a meta não é para nós, nem metade, só para os outros.
Mas não é difícil nem secreto o que fazer: primeiro mudar de Governo, depois voltar a ter um ministro como José Mariano Gago, que continue o que se iniciou. Que novo Governo fará o que tem a fazer? Professor Catedrático, UNL. Comunicação ao Encontro "Inovação, ciência e tecnologia: condições para o desenvolvimento científico e tecnológico do País - bloqueios, estratégias e soluções", 18 Dezembro 2004, ISCTE, Lisboa
O Regresso da Religião Por VASCO PULIDO VALENTE
Público
Domingo, 26 de Dezembro de 2004
A América de Bush, a "América vermelha", tornou a pôr a religião no centro da política contra a "América azul" e, sobretudo, contra a Europa. O desprezo que a Europa sente pela América, que reza na escola, que vai à igreja, que prega a abstinência, que não admite o aborto e que vota Bush, é igual ao que essa América sente pela "velha" Europa secular e pelo seu lento "suicídio demográfico". Não se trata aqui de uma discordância temporária ou acidental. Há uma separação drástica entre uma cristandade militante, como nunca o tinha sido desde meados do século XIX, o secularismo que a nega e o Islão por quem ela se julga, ou de facto está, ameaçada. O homem (ou a mulher), que no Texas acredita na literalidade da Bíblia, na santidade da família, na pena de morte e na guerra justa, não pode aceitar, não pode mesmo tolerar, o europeu (ou nova-iorquino) céptico, agnóstico ou francamente ateu,"egoísta demais para fazer filhos" e, sobretudo, desinteressado de um futuro que não verá e que nada o impele a defender.
Um exemplo. Este Natal, a presença incómoda da "América Vermelha" levou a "Newsweek", a "Time" e até Larry King a falarem longa e seriamente da Natividade, isto é, do nascimento de Cristo. O resultado foi desastroso. Porque, para falar da Natividade, ou se repetem as piedades do costume (em parte inspiradas no Evangelho de Lucas e no Evangelho de Mateus), coisa que não leva longe, ou se entra numa exegese que destrói a narrativa tradicional. A "Newsweek", a "Time" e Larry King tentaram escolher o meio caminho e naturalmente falharam. As duas visões não são compatíveis. Pior ainda: uma exclui a outra. A exegese transforma o episódio de Belém, da manjedoura, dos reis magos, da estrelinha e por aí fora num acréscimo tardio com intenções de legitimação e propaganda, com datas claramente erradas, com elementos da literatura apologética grega e latina. A "América Vermelha" não ficou com certeza comovida. E a "América Azul" como a "velha" Europa ficaram com certeza confirmadas na sua indiferença. Os dois mundos não comunicam e o exercício só conseguiu mostrar a distância que os separa. Já não existe um Ocidente, existem dois, de novo divididos pela religião
Domingo, 26 de Dezembro de 2004
A América de Bush, a "América vermelha", tornou a pôr a religião no centro da política contra a "América azul" e, sobretudo, contra a Europa. O desprezo que a Europa sente pela América, que reza na escola, que vai à igreja, que prega a abstinência, que não admite o aborto e que vota Bush, é igual ao que essa América sente pela "velha" Europa secular e pelo seu lento "suicídio demográfico". Não se trata aqui de uma discordância temporária ou acidental. Há uma separação drástica entre uma cristandade militante, como nunca o tinha sido desde meados do século XIX, o secularismo que a nega e o Islão por quem ela se julga, ou de facto está, ameaçada. O homem (ou a mulher), que no Texas acredita na literalidade da Bíblia, na santidade da família, na pena de morte e na guerra justa, não pode aceitar, não pode mesmo tolerar, o europeu (ou nova-iorquino) céptico, agnóstico ou francamente ateu,"egoísta demais para fazer filhos" e, sobretudo, desinteressado de um futuro que não verá e que nada o impele a defender.
Um exemplo. Este Natal, a presença incómoda da "América Vermelha" levou a "Newsweek", a "Time" e até Larry King a falarem longa e seriamente da Natividade, isto é, do nascimento de Cristo. O resultado foi desastroso. Porque, para falar da Natividade, ou se repetem as piedades do costume (em parte inspiradas no Evangelho de Lucas e no Evangelho de Mateus), coisa que não leva longe, ou se entra numa exegese que destrói a narrativa tradicional. A "Newsweek", a "Time" e Larry King tentaram escolher o meio caminho e naturalmente falharam. As duas visões não são compatíveis. Pior ainda: uma exclui a outra. A exegese transforma o episódio de Belém, da manjedoura, dos reis magos, da estrelinha e por aí fora num acréscimo tardio com intenções de legitimação e propaganda, com datas claramente erradas, com elementos da literatura apologética grega e latina. A "América Vermelha" não ficou com certeza comovida. E a "América Azul" como a "velha" Europa ficaram com certeza confirmadas na sua indiferença. Os dois mundos não comunicam e o exercício só conseguiu mostrar a distância que os separa. Já não existe um Ocidente, existem dois, de novo divididos pela religião
Friday, December 10, 2004
Best schools are in Finland and the far east , The Guardian
Best schools are in Finland and the far east
Polly Curtis, education correspondent
Tuesday December 7, 2004
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,14062,1368239,00.html
Finnish teenagers today topped the most rigorous global poll of education standards.
Finland, where there are no wholly-private schools, beat the top-ranking schools in Hong-Kong, Japan and Korea in maths and science - but the UK was left out of the study after the government failed to deliver the statistics.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international Paris-based thinktank, published the results of its second tri-annual study of the abilities of 15-year-olds in 41 countries today. Some 250,000 teenagers sat a test of their maths, science and reading skills in 2003, and were also asked about their attitudes to education. The results have been compiled into a 400-page comparative study of education systems known as Pisa - the Programme for International Student Assessment.
In mathematics Hong-Kong tops the table, with Japan and Macao in China also in the top ten, which also features a number of Scandinavian countries, along with Finland at number two. The bottom-ranked country is Brazil, with America coming 33rd, just below Latvia.
In reading, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all feature in the top ten, and Finland is rated best in both reading and science.
Finnish reading skills remained broadly the same as in the 2000 survey, but the country's mathematics and scientific skills have improved since 2000.
Most other countries' relative positions in the 2003 survey remained broadly similar to those in 2000, but some showed notable changes. A 1999 major reform of Poland's education system paid off with big improvements among lower-performing students. Smaller but still noteworthy improvements in at least two assessment areas also occurred in Belgium, the Czech Republic and Germany.
The tops of the tables are dominated by wealthier countries, but some poorer nations also do well. Korea's national income, for example, is 30% below the OECD average but its students are among the best performers in OECD countries.
The UK's figures are not included after the Department for Education and Skills failed to collect enough data to comply with the OECD's stipulations - not enough students and schools took part in the tests to fulfil their quota.
However, an annex to the report suggests that the UK's international standing has slumped. It reveals that the UK has dropped from fourth place to 11th in science, seventh to 11th in reading and eighth in maths to 18th - the DfES said that the data, because it was not complete, was not comparable.
In 2000 the government hailed the results as proof that its education policies were working.
Other findings include:
· Students whose parents have better-paid jobs, are better educated and have more "cultural" possessions in their homes perform on average significantly better in all countries than those without such advantages.
· In Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland and Sweden, parents can rely on high and consistent standards across schools. By contrast, variations in student performance in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Turkey are largely accounted for by performance differences between schools.
· While girls outperform boys in reading in all countries, gender differences in mathematics tend to be small. Most countries have more boys among top performers, resulting in a slight overall advantage for boys over girls in average terms. But boys and girls tend to be equally represented among the low-performers.
· Student interest in mathematics is far lower across countries, than in reading. Among OECD countries, about half of the students report being interested in the things they learn in mathematics, but only 38% report that they do mathematics because they enjoy it.
Polly Curtis, education correspondent
Tuesday December 7, 2004
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,14062,1368239,00.html
Finnish teenagers today topped the most rigorous global poll of education standards.
Finland, where there are no wholly-private schools, beat the top-ranking schools in Hong-Kong, Japan and Korea in maths and science - but the UK was left out of the study after the government failed to deliver the statistics.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international Paris-based thinktank, published the results of its second tri-annual study of the abilities of 15-year-olds in 41 countries today. Some 250,000 teenagers sat a test of their maths, science and reading skills in 2003, and were also asked about their attitudes to education. The results have been compiled into a 400-page comparative study of education systems known as Pisa - the Programme for International Student Assessment.
In mathematics Hong-Kong tops the table, with Japan and Macao in China also in the top ten, which also features a number of Scandinavian countries, along with Finland at number two. The bottom-ranked country is Brazil, with America coming 33rd, just below Latvia.
In reading, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all feature in the top ten, and Finland is rated best in both reading and science.
Finnish reading skills remained broadly the same as in the 2000 survey, but the country's mathematics and scientific skills have improved since 2000.
Most other countries' relative positions in the 2003 survey remained broadly similar to those in 2000, but some showed notable changes. A 1999 major reform of Poland's education system paid off with big improvements among lower-performing students. Smaller but still noteworthy improvements in at least two assessment areas also occurred in Belgium, the Czech Republic and Germany.
The tops of the tables are dominated by wealthier countries, but some poorer nations also do well. Korea's national income, for example, is 30% below the OECD average but its students are among the best performers in OECD countries.
The UK's figures are not included after the Department for Education and Skills failed to collect enough data to comply with the OECD's stipulations - not enough students and schools took part in the tests to fulfil their quota.
However, an annex to the report suggests that the UK's international standing has slumped. It reveals that the UK has dropped from fourth place to 11th in science, seventh to 11th in reading and eighth in maths to 18th - the DfES said that the data, because it was not complete, was not comparable.
In 2000 the government hailed the results as proof that its education policies were working.
Other findings include:
· Students whose parents have better-paid jobs, are better educated and have more "cultural" possessions in their homes perform on average significantly better in all countries than those without such advantages.
· In Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland and Sweden, parents can rely on high and consistent standards across schools. By contrast, variations in student performance in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands and Turkey are largely accounted for by performance differences between schools.
· While girls outperform boys in reading in all countries, gender differences in mathematics tend to be small. Most countries have more boys among top performers, resulting in a slight overall advantage for boys over girls in average terms. But boys and girls tend to be equally represented among the low-performers.
· Student interest in mathematics is far lower across countries, than in reading. Among OECD countries, about half of the students report being interested in the things they learn in mathematics, but only 38% report that they do mathematics because they enjoy it.
The schools that Finnish top, The Guardian
The schools that Finnish top
In a study of the test results of 15-year-olds in 41 countries, Finland came out on top. But what do the Finns do that the Brits don't? Polly Curtis reports
The Guardian,
Tuesday December 7, 2004
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,14062,1368428,00.html
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international Paris-based thinktank, Finnish education is the best in the world. The study of test results from 250,000 15-year-olds in 41 countries ranked it number one in science and reading and second only to Hong Kong in maths.
The UK, meanwhile, did not submit enough information to be included in the study. However, a crude analysis, which was dismissed by the Department for Education and Skills as incomparable and relegated to the annexes of the 400-page report, suggested that in the three years since the survey was last undertaken, the UK has dropped from fourth place to 11th in science, seventh to 11th in reading and eighth to 18th in maths.
So what is Finland doing right?
Ted Wragg, emeritus professor of education at Exeter University, says just about everything. "They have no league tables, no Ofsted, no literacy/numeracy hours, no heavy government interference generally.
"The lessons from that is screamingly self-evident; dismantle much of the intervention machinery and have just a thin outline of policy."
Which is what the Finns do. There is a national curriculum, but it's more of a guide on which teachers base their lessons around. The only national exams are the school-leaving ones at 18. In comparison, English children are tested on a national basis at seven, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 18. Instead of national tests and the school league tables constructed from them, the Finns do an annual sample test to gauge school standards. Essentially, schools are given much more autonomy.
Erno Lehtinen, a professor of education at the University of Turku, the second largest university in Finland, and policy advisor to an influential thinktank of the Finnish parliament, says the idea that schools should be run from the centre, or even have their test results published, is unthinkable in Finland.
"Apart from those at 18 all the examinations are local so that teachers themselves are not controlled. They [the government] are not allowed to publish the results of individual schools, because according to our policy all that will do is increase the differences between the schools and it doesn't help very much," he says.
What is unique about the Finn system, says Professor Lehtinen, is that in the 1960s a decision was made to have a comprehensive system - a decision that has been stuck to. "There is very little variation in standards. There are differences in achievement because of background, but the quality of teaching is as good in inner city working class areas as in upper class areas."
This is made easier partly because there is less social variation in Finland. The country has a more homogenous population, but even where deprivation does exist, school standards are maintained. There is practically no private system to drain-off the brighter pupils, and where private schools do exist it is because they are specialist - such as Steiners, foreign language and the odd Christian school - but all are state subsidised, meaning all children have access to them.
But there may be an even simpler reason why Finnish education is such a success. "There is a very strong support for education. It's very highly valued in the culture," says Professor Lehtinen. "In the lower social groups, among the working class, education is very highly valued. That's one very important reason that means across the whole society there is very strong support for schools."
This is particularly felt towards teachers; the profession is seen on a par with law and medicine, although still not as well paid. In Finland, even primary school teachers have to be educated to masters level. Professor Wragg says this is a marked difference from the UK. "I'm afraid that teachers are paying the price of being rubbished by successive governments."
Both professors agree there's a lot to learn from the Finnish system, although the social differences are, in many ways, harder to overcome - a more diverse population in the UK, for example.
But Professor Wragg adds: "The 2002 Education Act stipulates that teachers are supposed to apply in writing to ministers with their plans to innovate. In Finland the idea that you should have to ask to innovate and fill in a form is unthinkable. In Finland you're permitted organic growth. You try to improve and if it works better you carry on. I think we've got the wrong educational climate."
In a study of the test results of 15-year-olds in 41 countries, Finland came out on top. But what do the Finns do that the Brits don't? Polly Curtis reports
The Guardian,
Tuesday December 7, 2004
http://education.guardian.co.uk/schoolsworldwide/story/0,14062,1368428,00.html
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international Paris-based thinktank, Finnish education is the best in the world. The study of test results from 250,000 15-year-olds in 41 countries ranked it number one in science and reading and second only to Hong Kong in maths.
The UK, meanwhile, did not submit enough information to be included in the study. However, a crude analysis, which was dismissed by the Department for Education and Skills as incomparable and relegated to the annexes of the 400-page report, suggested that in the three years since the survey was last undertaken, the UK has dropped from fourth place to 11th in science, seventh to 11th in reading and eighth to 18th in maths.
So what is Finland doing right?
Ted Wragg, emeritus professor of education at Exeter University, says just about everything. "They have no league tables, no Ofsted, no literacy/numeracy hours, no heavy government interference generally.
"The lessons from that is screamingly self-evident; dismantle much of the intervention machinery and have just a thin outline of policy."
Which is what the Finns do. There is a national curriculum, but it's more of a guide on which teachers base their lessons around. The only national exams are the school-leaving ones at 18. In comparison, English children are tested on a national basis at seven, 11, 14, 16, 17 and 18. Instead of national tests and the school league tables constructed from them, the Finns do an annual sample test to gauge school standards. Essentially, schools are given much more autonomy.
Erno Lehtinen, a professor of education at the University of Turku, the second largest university in Finland, and policy advisor to an influential thinktank of the Finnish parliament, says the idea that schools should be run from the centre, or even have their test results published, is unthinkable in Finland.
"Apart from those at 18 all the examinations are local so that teachers themselves are not controlled. They [the government] are not allowed to publish the results of individual schools, because according to our policy all that will do is increase the differences between the schools and it doesn't help very much," he says.
What is unique about the Finn system, says Professor Lehtinen, is that in the 1960s a decision was made to have a comprehensive system - a decision that has been stuck to. "There is very little variation in standards. There are differences in achievement because of background, but the quality of teaching is as good in inner city working class areas as in upper class areas."
This is made easier partly because there is less social variation in Finland. The country has a more homogenous population, but even where deprivation does exist, school standards are maintained. There is practically no private system to drain-off the brighter pupils, and where private schools do exist it is because they are specialist - such as Steiners, foreign language and the odd Christian school - but all are state subsidised, meaning all children have access to them.
But there may be an even simpler reason why Finnish education is such a success. "There is a very strong support for education. It's very highly valued in the culture," says Professor Lehtinen. "In the lower social groups, among the working class, education is very highly valued. That's one very important reason that means across the whole society there is very strong support for schools."
This is particularly felt towards teachers; the profession is seen on a par with law and medicine, although still not as well paid. In Finland, even primary school teachers have to be educated to masters level. Professor Wragg says this is a marked difference from the UK. "I'm afraid that teachers are paying the price of being rubbished by successive governments."
Both professors agree there's a lot to learn from the Finnish system, although the social differences are, in many ways, harder to overcome - a more diverse population in the UK, for example.
But Professor Wragg adds: "The 2002 Education Act stipulates that teachers are supposed to apply in writing to ministers with their plans to innovate. In Finland the idea that you should have to ask to innovate and fill in a form is unthinkable. In Finland you're permitted organic growth. You try to improve and if it works better you carry on. I think we've got the wrong educational climate."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
