Was good to see some friends from Manchester up north. Michael Parkin and Dean Kuo came up and talked about a protocol that they are developing which is based around contract law; the idea is that this is a form of negotiation which they should just be able to lift and reapply to computer science.

It was a good talk which caused lots of interest. Indeed, I was surprised that they got through all their slides; there were so many questions; felt like much more of a discussion session.

Should we teach creationism in science? I have to say, I think, we should. I don't like the notion that you should separate out science from the rest of the world; is it alright to teach creationism outside science, but not in it; should we not be teaching, within science, the impact that science has on society?

I'm happy for science to stand up on its own merits; by attempting to protect it from creationism, we are also preventing from describing its strength.

Had a slightly daft conversation in the pub last night, covering science, industry and economics. As is inevitable from such a conversation, this failed to reach any big conclusions.

Thinking about it later, though, I've decided that research and teaching have fundamental economics. Thinking back into the past, my educational experiences have all been valuable to me; just not that valuable, at least not for a given piece of teaching. Teaching, then, seems to pay off, in that it's for a given course you chances of getting some return are high, but the return is likely to be small: anything you learn you are going to use, just not that often.

Science and research in general are very different; most of the research done in the world, more or less by definition, comes to nothing at all. Some of it, however, pays off in a huge way. Occasionally, a small piece of research changes the world. So, the chances of getting a return are small, but the potential return is huge.

It's odd that two such different activities have been combined in the education sector. From a practical point of view, the combination seems natural to me; my research provides the foundation to my teaching. But from an economic point of view, is the combination of the two sustainable?

Interesting story on the news about the first commercial wave power system. This is happening in Portugal, despite the technology being developed in this country because Portugal gives preferential treatment to energy from renewable sources.

It's great to hear that this is happening, regardless of where it is happening. It fits quite nicely with stories earlier in the week about gas prices. Currently, the problem with all renewable energy supplies is there high, up-front costs. But, energy supplies are getting less dependable and more expensive with time, and renewable technologies are getting cheaper as they are moving toward mass production.

The quote is from a listener to the radio. I'm not sure it makes sense. The system was a pelamis system (pipes which hinges, which pump hydraulic fluid, while they bend). As most waves occur as a result of the wind, rather than tidal movements, the pelamis system would be susceptible to becalming; just not very often.

Finished teaching today for year; well, ignoring the research projects, which might be a mistake. I don't understand exactly why I find the teaching so tiring; probably the main reason is getting on top of so much background material. Still, it's been a good thing; I've needed to get on top of MIAME for quite a while.

The lecture actually went okay. Rather than go through the data model, which would have been dull, I think, I did a "clustering exercise", which I learnt at last weeks LSI meeting: everybody wrote down terms on post-it notes; then, they get arranged on the board, into related clusters. In the end, we got clusters which fell neatly into the six points from the MIAME checklist. Fairly pleasing, really.

This quote was from the local student newspaper.

It's perhaps not surprising that students (like most of the population) are unaware of what academics actually do. Teaching, itself, takes a lot of effort, time and thought. Few students wonder where the knowledge that we try to teach actually comes from; it's in the creation of this knowledge that we spend the rest of our time on. It's the reason that we don't go on holiday, when the students go home.

There is a lot of cynicism among academics; when you feel part of the degree awarding, paper writing, grant applying treadmill, it's not that surprising. But academics are hamstrung in their industrial dispute not by their cynicism, but their naivety; most of us still get a thrill and excitement out of our subjects; the pleasure in the knowledge that we teach, the excitement of extending it palpable. It's for this reason that most of us work silly hours. It's the reason that most of us will spend the time on strike working at home.

We find it hard to withhold our labour, because in doing so we hurt ourselves as much as we hurt others.In our market driven society, the value we put on the process of science subtracts from the value that society puts on us. Despite this, I will go on strike tomorrow; perhaps I am naive, but perhaps I like it this way.

There has been an interesting discussion on data standards for systems biology. This theme seems to repeat itself again and again. Despite the obvious difficulties in getting scientists to work together, slow, steady, building of standards with as broad a consensus as possible has to be the best way of doing things.