Voices of Scholars

 

A*STAR Scholars at the World Knowledge Dialogue 2008
Participants of the Students programme at the World Knowledge Dialogue 2008
 
Date: 25 September 2008
From: Beh Weijie Cyrus, Ho Hui Boon Vincent, Ho Sook Yuin Jessica, Ooi Chin Chun
REPORT ON THE WORLD KNOWLEDGE DIALOGUE 2008
SYMPOSIUM HELD ON 10TH – 13TH SEPT 2008
SUMMARY
The second World Knowledge Dialogue (WKD) symposium, which was organised by the WKD Foundation took place between 10th and 13th September, 2008 at Crans-Montana, Switzerland. The objectives of this symposium were manifold. A principal goal was to provide grounds in which scientists from various fields and disciplines can engage in interdisciplinary dialogue and in doing so, attain a better understanding of the human condition and major issues that face society today. Another desired outcome of the symposium was to seek a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of a scientist in today’s world. Lastly, the symposium sought to provide opportunities for young students and scientists to interact with senior scientists and researchers, and in doing so, inspire the next generation to take a more pro-active stance towards realising the dual goals mentioned above.
The WKD 2008 was structured into two major discussion themes which were (1) Collaborative Behaviour, Altruism and Conflict: From animal behavior to economics and prevention of violence, and (2) Collective Network Knowledge and Human Individual Intelligence: convergences and divergences.
Each theme was discussed by a panel of speakers, first through individual presentations that put their work within the context of the theme, and later through a panel discussion. These discussions were meant to be interactive, and the audience was expected to participate actively in them. Beyond these lectures and panel discussions, participants of the WKD could also attend several dialogue labs that revolved around these two broad themes.
Participants were also given ample time to interact with one another, through breaks between the various sessions and other organised events like the welcome cocktail, and the gala dinner.
The Students programme, which we attended, was made up of 20 students who hailed from different disciplines and institutions in Europe. As part of the programme, students were expected to attend and participate in the various sessions. At the end of the program, the students gave a final presentation, stating their analysis of the symposium, and also their feedback and suggestions for improvement.
LEARNING POINTS
1.       The need for modesty in communications
This theme was alluded to very early in the discussion, and was first raised by Prof. Richard Ernst. Prof. Ernst mentioned that for one to take an interdisciplinary approach to problems it was crucial that one acknowledges the limitations of one’s knowledge, and be open to the ideas of another branch of knowledge. Participants were encouraged to put their differences aside and engage in a dialogue.
2.       The need to differentiate between the Classical and Practical problems
A key question that was continually raised in the symposium was: what would be the problems that a modern humanist, one who manages to bridge the interdisciplinary gap, applies his/her expertise to? A majority of the participants acknowledged the urgency of solving the practical problems that were most relevant to the global society, including Jean-Pierre Hocke, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. While acknowledging these responsibilities, scientists and panelists present demurred from making any concrete suggestions towards solving these practical problems mentioned.
3.       Knowledge dissemination and Responsibility
Knowledge has become increasingly compartmentalised over the last few decades. A main reason for this is the increasing privatisation of science, as well as the increasing influence that politics and economics have on the pursuit of knowledge. Participants agreed that it was essential that knowledge be shared, but no concrete solution was obtained for this problem. There was also a tendency for scientists to blame the media and popular culture for the falsified perception that the society at large has of science. However, a conclusion reached was that it was not sufficient for the media to spread knowledge alone, and that scientists must take an active role in education on science, and spreading its culture. This would be a key step in bringing science closer to the community. Science should be for the common good, rather than for itself.
4.       Different Cultures and Languages in Disciplines
This being the WKD, the highlight was quite rightly, supposed to be the process of bi-directional (or multidirectional) communications. Undoubtedly, bringing people of different fields of science together can cause considerable distress due to the unique language that each brings. This challenge was intensified when one tried to initiate a conversation amongst fields that not only speak different languages, but also have different goals, methodologies, assumptions and norms. 
5.       The wish to engage in dialogues
Many participants came in with varying expectations of what would be discussed or what would result. Ultimately, much effort was expended during the WKD searching for a common ground upon which to proceed, rather than actually working for progress of any kind. What was missing was the desire of participants to open their minds and be willing to engage in dialogues with others, without assuming any superiority of knowledge and be welcoming of new ideas.
Suggestions
1.       Dialogue – To improve the attempt at initiating and sustaining dialogues between various disciplines, a number of suggestions are listed below:
a.       Create forums, workshops and dialogue practice groups within the academia and between various institutions so that they get more practice outside of this conference setting. It is an ongoing effort and requires significant will, but it is vital that the dialogue does not stop when the symposium takes a break for the next couple of years;
b.      Mediate meetings, of any sort, to discourage condescension and rudeness, but at the same time encourage debates. Speakers and panelists alike must be encouraged to respond to challenges or questions positively and engagingly. Only a lively interaction among the panelist and with the audience will serve the purpose of seeking a common understanding;
c.       Define topics for discussion much more explicitly prior to the event. While there is much to be said for allowing free and wide-ranging discourse on the topic of altruism for example, the practicalities of the matter has to be taken into account. Each panel session lasts for little more than an hour, and one just cannot expect to have a conversation of any reasonable depth on multiple topics within that time;
d.      Have panelists meet each other prior to the event. The problem of eminent academics talking past one another is compounded when panelists were complete strangers prior to the discussion, as Scientist in Residence Prof. Wilson so frankly admitted, as much of that initial time is spent by the panelists trying to find their footing. If they had been given the chance to interact prior to the event, the panel discussions could have been much more fruitful than being yet another demonstration of the urgent need for multi-disciplinary training for scientists. 
2.       Knowledge – At this meeting, the discussions have been carried out in a strongly natural sciences setting, with a mere sprinkling of social sciences and philosophy. While the effects of science on society are most evident, it does not need a voice as much as the other fields of knowledge. Fields like art (aesthetics), history, philosophy, political science, economics, sociology, and psychology – all these have been under-represented in the conference. To promote active exchange of ideas, we need to know that the world, besides being natural, is also at once historical, political, social and financial. Therefore, there is a need for scientists to listen to other non-scientists, in order to understand how science relates to the whole world.

World – The participants of this WKD came mostly from Asia, Europe and the United States. There was a lack of representation from the rest of the world such as Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. For a symposium to be truly global, as what its name aspires to be, future dialogues ought to include participants from these neglected regions.

“Gone are the career suits - it's now jeans, sneakers and a red bicycle helmet for me.”
Lynette Cheah, NSS (PhD), 2004

Returning to student life after a foray as a research administrator at the A*STAR headquarters took quite a bit of getting used to. Who would have thought I'd have to use integral calculus again? Gone are the career suits - it's now jeans, sneakers and a red bicycle helmet for me. And while my peers back home decorate their new flats and start families, I'm shopping online for a new book bag to haul my cheap Clementi textbooks. I like pizza delivery, instant sauce mixes and I can sniff out free food on campus a mile away.

But it's no free lunch. Between hunting for a research topic, attending seminars and getting humbled in classes, I'm also trying to make sure I can remain as a student - only half of my department's candidates pass their qualifying exams. I'm slowly beginning to relate to the characters in the Piled Higher and Deeper comic strip about graduate student life (http://www.phdcomics.com/).

While most graduate students have their research topic defined through a research assistantship, mine took a while to develop. The scholarship gave me lots of freedom in this aspect. I read lots of journals, talked to professors and peers, and now I'm working on transportation energy models. If things work out fine, I hope to help reduce fuel consumption in the transportation sector.

I'm learning that research is like picking at a loose thread. The more you tug at it, the more it unravels. Research questions and possibilities are endless, and the researcher's job is to sieve through the avalanche of information that exist in the chosen field, develop and communicate one's expertise, and finally make an addition to the existing body of knowledge. The one thing to remember, though, is not to get too carried away with over-specialization. Don't pull that thread until you forget you're destroying your favorite sweater.

"It was graduation week at Brown, and it sure was one big party.”
Tee Yun Shou Louis, NSS (BS), 2001

Moment of a Lifetime

The raucous applause, the boisterous crowds, the exuberant sunshine – the streets have been transformed into a loud, ecstatic carnival. The juxtapositions were glorious: the grand, ancient colonial buildings next to the colorful balloons, signs and confetti; the arcane, majestic Latin commands (which used to be understood by all) against the uninhibited whoops and heart-warming laughter; the line of professors striding in their grand regalia versus the sea of fresh graduates in their colorful leis, cool sunglasses and sashes with ethnic designs.

It was graduation week at Brown, and it sure was one big party. The streets in the city were closed; the sidewalks were crammed with beaming parents wielding camcorders and cameras; the weather blisteringly hot with the sun pouring its rays ruthlessly down, the typical New England summer. We paraded down past the historical Main Green, through the famed Van Winkle Gates, walking through a strip of asphalt surrounded by a sea of loud, cheering parents, friends, alumni and well-wishers.

The first people we noticed cheering us on from the sidewalks were our professors. Noticing a number of familiar faces among them applauding us, our hearts welled up with pride. Soon, it was our turn to cheer on the rest of the contingent, as we stood at the sidelines. Leading the pack were the alumni – the first an octogenarian in a wheelchair, waving a Brown alumni flag spiritedly like a little child, followed by streams of other alumni, carrying class banners as they stepped forward, from the distinguished Brown and Pembroke (the women’s college Brown merged with) Classes of 1932 to the vibrant Class of 2005, from great-grandparents to mums and dads to swinging singles. Then, the professors came forward, some came to shake our hands and congratulate us, and others beamed to us contented smiles. We then headed over to the Baptist church and then the Main Green, where commands were given by our beloved president Ruth Simmons in Latin, Class Speeches by our fellow graduates in English, and encouraging cheers by family and friends in a Babel of languages. Finally, President Simmons said the magic words (in Latin and English), cheers ensued, graduation hats were propelled into the azure sky, and we were officially graduates.

This very ceremony has happened every year for close to three centuries, and not much has changed. We graduates might speak teenage jargon and not Latin, we might be working in modern labs and sieving through electronic archives instead of toiling away under kerosene lamps, and the crowds are in jeans and T-shirts under rather that top hats and corsets, but the event is still as boisterous, fun and enjoyable as before. I can imagine how the first graduates must have felt as they walked down the same streets, with inspirational names like Friendship, Benevolence and Hope: a sense of achievement at having attained something great, something significant, something special.

Indeed, my time at Brown has been something truly special. Never have I had the opportunity to learn simply to feed my curiosity. Brown boasts a feast of departments – from Anthropology to Urban Studies, from Computer Science to Visual Art – for undergraduates to choose from. There is no core curriculum, but hardly anyone sticks to the sciences or the humanities, when there are so many fascinating options available. The students are bright, but not selfishly competitive; the professors are committed to research, but can always find the time to give advice to undergraduates. It was a beautiful balance of excellence and compassion, ancient and modern, competition and cooperation. In fact, as I grabbed the graduation hat descending from above, exchanged warm hugs with friends, and posed for the umpteenth time for pictures, I firmly believed that this was truly a moment of a lifetime, something I will never forget for many years to come.

"I always like to imagine that the present state I am in would be the most challenging I will ever encounter.”
Adeline Lin, NSS (PhD), 2001

Hmm… this experiment should have worked according to the published protocol.

Oh dear, I’ll need to prepare my presentation for tomorrow’s lab-meeting.

And 3 papers to plough through by tonight…

My experiment should have worked…

Gosh, its 10pm already?

I really really hope there’s still a sandwich left at home for dinner.

Reminder: need to pay my rent earlier as I’ll be attending a conference in 1-week’s time.

So what do I tell my PI when we meet this Thursday?

Oh well, I just have to repeat this experiment and optimize the conditions.

Oops… out of this reagent at this time of the day?

I always like to imagine that the present state I am in would be the most challenging I will ever encounter. Although I am usually wrong, hypothetically, this should be true for a 3rd year PhD student like me. The youthful euphoria of starting graduate school has worn off. Retorts like “I am busy with my prelims” or “I just started on my project” no longer suffice in explaining my productivity in graduate school. Well, hypothetically, with no classes or prelims to worry about, the 24/7 devotion to research should then equip me with better responses when discussing my project.

Well, hypothetically.

If there were anything similar between a PhD student and Christopher Columbus, it would be the uncertainties that we face as we embark on our journeys. We certainly make long journeys and who knows what we will discover? In fact, we cannot be entirely sure that our toil would eventually be rewarded. One PI even summarily concluded that my research ‘lives or dies’ with me. I have come to appreciate that part of the grill is learning how to navigate through all these uncertainties.

Besides fresh enthusiasm and seasoned gumption, it takes plenty of hard work to wade through the rough and uncertain waters of failed experiments and inexplicable observations. When it comes to their projects, most PIs would expect students to be ahead of the game. Oftentimes when the amount of work becomes unnerving, I would remind myself that I go to school everyday and spend hours at my bench for an education. Although that may have sounded corny, as I wriggle through the heaps of daily work pondering about the possibility of completing my PhD successfully, it is easy to become oblivious to the significance of my daily work.

I think there must be a few sayings that describe how a journey is more important than the destination. Although scientists are not known to be particularly idealistic, I firmly believe that we gain something at the end of everyday’s toil. It is in this toil where true learning takes place. Well, Hemingway’s The Old Man And The Sea comes to mind, where the old man comes back with no fish. Fish or no fish, research is really about the journey. To frame it into the size of a certificate or a key to employment would ironically devalue its worth. I shall cheer myself on.