[naturenews] from [nature.com]
[naturenews]
Published online 5 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1064
News: Briefing
Lisbon Treaty could give research a boost
European Union set to take a bigger role in climate and space policy.
By Alison Abbott
{{The Lisbon Treaty is the first EU treaty to explicitly mention research.}
Ingram Publishing}
The Lisbon Treaty comes into effect on 1 December. It amends previous treaties of the European Union (EU) to account for its expansion from 15 member states in 1995 to the current 27. The treaty aims to make the EU work more democratically, efficiently and transparently — for example by establishing new voting rules — and to create a president of the European Council, who would be the 'face of Europe'. It also expands the EU's responsibilities to meet new challenges like climate change. Nature examines what the treaty will mean for science.
Does the Lisbon Treaty include research?
Yes. This is the first time that research has been specifically mentioned in an EU treaty, and this raises its status. Previously, research was considered as just a way to support EU objectives, such as to promote industrial competitiveness.
What does the treaty actually say about research?
It sets out an objective of "strengthening [the EU's] scientific and technological bases by achieving a European research area in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely, and encouraging it to become more competitive, including its industry, while promoting all the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other Chapters of the Treaty".
Isn't this the old concept of the European Research Area?
Yes it is. The EU has been working towards the integration of Europe's scientific expertise in a European Research Area for more than a decade. But researchers in Europe are still confronted with the seemingly intractable problem of mobility. It is usually very difficult to transfer a grant from one national agency to an institute in another country, for example. National employment rules differ widely and can make it disadvantageous to move to an institution in a different country. And pensions are often impossible to transfer.
The Lisbon Treaty will not mean that the national laws responsible for these difficulties are going to be harmonized — most are outside the treaty's scope — but the establishment of the European Research Area will help ongoing negotiations on this front.
Will it change the EU's Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development?
No. These multi-billion-euro, multi-year programmes will still be designed to further the objectives of the European Union — to safeguard health or energy sources for its citizens, for example. But now that research is an EU objective in its own right, there will be less need to justify elements in the programmes that might seem to be basic, rather than applied, research.
What about the European Research Council?
The council was founded in 2006 as a Europe-wide agency that awards grants on the sole basis of excellence. Scientists had long been calling for such an agency to raise standards throughout the continent. The European Commission agreed, but, because basic research was not in its mandate, it had a long and bitter fight to get most EU member states to support the proposal. Had the Lisbon Treaty been ratified a few years ago, the creation of the council would gone a lot more smoothly. Now its future will be easier to defend.
What about space policy?
Over the past few years, the EU has been working together on aspects of space exploitation, such as the Galileo GPS satellite system, planned to start operation in 2013. The Lisbon Treaty foresees a greater role for the EU in space, in exploration as well as exploitation. The commission will now create a specific policy for the EU's activities in space.
What about environment and climate?
Climate change and the environment have long been cornerstones of EU policy, and they are reinforced in the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty specifies that environmental protection will be based on the precautionary principle — the idea that no action that may potentially cause harm to the public or the environment should be taken if there is no scientific consensus that harm will not ensue. The treaty also says that environmental damage must be rectified at the source, with the polluter paying. In addition, environmental policy should take account of scientific and technical data, and consider the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action.
A directorate on climate action may be created and this would take over relevant areas now within the energy and environment directorates.
[naturenews]
Published online 5 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1058
News
Oldest American artefact unearthed
Oregon caves yield evidence of continent's first inhabitants.
By Rex Dalton
{{An Oregon cave has yielded the oldest artefact ever found in the Americas.}
Tom Stafford}
Archaeologists claim to have found the oldest known artefact in the Americas, a scraper-like tool in an Oregon cave that dates back 14,230 years.
The tool shows that people were living in North America well before the widespread Clovis culture of 12,900 to 12,400 years ago, says archaeologist Dennis Jenkins of the University of Oregon in Eugene.
Studies of sediment and radiocarbon dating showed the bone's age. Jenkins presented the finding late last month in a lecture at the University of Oregon.
His team found the tool in a rock shelter overlooking a lake in south-central Oregon, one of a series of caves near the town of Paisley.
Kevin Smith, the team member who uncovered the artefact, remembers the discovery. "We had bumped into a lot of extinct horse, bison and camel bone – then I heard and felt the familiar ring and feel when trowel hits bone," says Smith, now a master's student at California State University, Los Angeles. "I switched to a brush. Soon this huge bone emerged, then I saw the serrated edge. I stepped back and said: 'Hey everybody — we got something here.'"
Coprolite controversy
Whether the cave dwellers were Clovis people or belonged to an earlier culture is uncertain. None of the Clovis people's distinct fluted spear and arrow points have been found in the cave.
"They can't yet rule out the Paisley Cave people weren't Clovis," says Jon Erlandson, an archaeologist at the University of Oregon who wasn't involved in the research.
The only other American archaeological site older than Clovis is at Monte Verde in Chile, which is about 13,900 years old.
Last year, Jenkins and colleagues reported that Paisley Cave coprolites, or fossilized human excrement, dated to 14,000 to 14,270 years ago1. That report established the Paisley Caves as a key site for American archaeology.
Analysis of ancient DNA marked the coprolites as human. But in July, another group argued that the coprolites might be younger than the sediments that contained them2.
This team, led by Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, also questioned the 2008 report because no artefacts had been found in the crucial sediments. The Oregon team strongly disputed the criticisms3.
Laid to rest?
The dating of the bone tool, and the finding that the sediments encasing it range from 11,930 to 14,480 years old, might put these questions to rest. "You couldn't ask for better dated stratigraphy," Jenkins told the Oregon meeting.
"They have definitely made their argument even stronger," says Todd Surovell, an archaeologist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie who was not involved in the research.
Other researchers questioned whether the cave's inhabitants would have been mainly vegetarian, as the coprolites suggested4. In his recent lecture Jenkins noted other evidence reflecting a diet short on meat but including edible plants such as the fernleaf biscuitroot Lomatium dissectum.
In late September, a group of archaeologists who study the peopling of the Americas met with federal officials and a representative of the local Klamath tribe to review the evidence at Paisley Caves. The specialists spent two days examining sediments, checking the tool, and assessing other plant and animal evidence.
"It was an impressive presentation," says David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, who attended the meeting. "This is clearly an important site, but there are some tests that need to be done to seal the deal." One key, he says, is to better understand how the specimens got to the cave.
References
1. Gilbert, W.T.P. et al. Science 320, 786-789 (2008).
2. Poinar, H. et al. Science 325, 148 (2009).
3. Rasmussen, M. et al. Science 325, 148 (2009).
4. Goldberg, P. , Berna, F. & Macphail, R.I. Science 325, 5937, 148 (2009).
[naturenews]
Published online 5 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1064
News: Briefing
Lisbon Treaty could give research a boost
European Union set to take a bigger role in climate and space policy.
By Alison Abbott
{{The Lisbon Treaty is the first EU treaty to explicitly mention research.}
Ingram Publishing}
The Lisbon Treaty comes into effect on 1 December. It amends previous treaties of the European Union (EU) to account for its expansion from 15 member states in 1995 to the current 27. The treaty aims to make the EU work more democratically, efficiently and transparently — for example by establishing new voting rules — and to create a president of the European Council, who would be the 'face of Europe'. It also expands the EU's responsibilities to meet new challenges like climate change. Nature examines what the treaty will mean for science.
Does the Lisbon Treaty include research?
Yes. This is the first time that research has been specifically mentioned in an EU treaty, and this raises its status. Previously, research was considered as just a way to support EU objectives, such as to promote industrial competitiveness.
What does the treaty actually say about research?
It sets out an objective of "strengthening [the EU's] scientific and technological bases by achieving a European research area in which researchers, scientific knowledge and technology circulate freely, and encouraging it to become more competitive, including its industry, while promoting all the research activities deemed necessary by virtue of other Chapters of the Treaty".
Isn't this the old concept of the European Research Area?
Yes it is. The EU has been working towards the integration of Europe's scientific expertise in a European Research Area for more than a decade. But researchers in Europe are still confronted with the seemingly intractable problem of mobility. It is usually very difficult to transfer a grant from one national agency to an institute in another country, for example. National employment rules differ widely and can make it disadvantageous to move to an institution in a different country. And pensions are often impossible to transfer.
The Lisbon Treaty will not mean that the national laws responsible for these difficulties are going to be harmonized — most are outside the treaty's scope — but the establishment of the European Research Area will help ongoing negotiations on this front.
Will it change the EU's Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development?
No. These multi-billion-euro, multi-year programmes will still be designed to further the objectives of the European Union — to safeguard health or energy sources for its citizens, for example. But now that research is an EU objective in its own right, there will be less need to justify elements in the programmes that might seem to be basic, rather than applied, research.
What about the European Research Council?
The council was founded in 2006 as a Europe-wide agency that awards grants on the sole basis of excellence. Scientists had long been calling for such an agency to raise standards throughout the continent. The European Commission agreed, but, because basic research was not in its mandate, it had a long and bitter fight to get most EU member states to support the proposal. Had the Lisbon Treaty been ratified a few years ago, the creation of the council would gone a lot more smoothly. Now its future will be easier to defend.
What about space policy?
Over the past few years, the EU has been working together on aspects of space exploitation, such as the Galileo GPS satellite system, planned to start operation in 2013. The Lisbon Treaty foresees a greater role for the EU in space, in exploration as well as exploitation. The commission will now create a specific policy for the EU's activities in space.
What about environment and climate?
Climate change and the environment have long been cornerstones of EU policy, and they are reinforced in the Lisbon Treaty. The treaty specifies that environmental protection will be based on the precautionary principle — the idea that no action that may potentially cause harm to the public or the environment should be taken if there is no scientific consensus that harm will not ensue. The treaty also says that environmental damage must be rectified at the source, with the polluter paying. In addition, environmental policy should take account of scientific and technical data, and consider the potential benefits and costs of action or lack of action.
A directorate on climate action may be created and this would take over relevant areas now within the energy and environment directorates.
[naturenews]
Published online 5 November 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.1058
News
Oldest American artefact unearthed
Oregon caves yield evidence of continent's first inhabitants.
By Rex Dalton
{{An Oregon cave has yielded the oldest artefact ever found in the Americas.}
Tom Stafford}
Archaeologists claim to have found the oldest known artefact in the Americas, a scraper-like tool in an Oregon cave that dates back 14,230 years.
The tool shows that people were living in North America well before the widespread Clovis culture of 12,900 to 12,400 years ago, says archaeologist Dennis Jenkins of the University of Oregon in Eugene.
Studies of sediment and radiocarbon dating showed the bone's age. Jenkins presented the finding late last month in a lecture at the University of Oregon.
His team found the tool in a rock shelter overlooking a lake in south-central Oregon, one of a series of caves near the town of Paisley.
Kevin Smith, the team member who uncovered the artefact, remembers the discovery. "We had bumped into a lot of extinct horse, bison and camel bone – then I heard and felt the familiar ring and feel when trowel hits bone," says Smith, now a master's student at California State University, Los Angeles. "I switched to a brush. Soon this huge bone emerged, then I saw the serrated edge. I stepped back and said: 'Hey everybody — we got something here.'"
Coprolite controversy
Whether the cave dwellers were Clovis people or belonged to an earlier culture is uncertain. None of the Clovis people's distinct fluted spear and arrow points have been found in the cave.
"They can't yet rule out the Paisley Cave people weren't Clovis," says Jon Erlandson, an archaeologist at the University of Oregon who wasn't involved in the research.
The only other American archaeological site older than Clovis is at Monte Verde in Chile, which is about 13,900 years old.
Last year, Jenkins and colleagues reported that Paisley Cave coprolites, or fossilized human excrement, dated to 14,000 to 14,270 years ago1. That report established the Paisley Caves as a key site for American archaeology.
Analysis of ancient DNA marked the coprolites as human. But in July, another group argued that the coprolites might be younger than the sediments that contained them2.
This team, led by Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, also questioned the 2008 report because no artefacts had been found in the crucial sediments. The Oregon team strongly disputed the criticisms3.
Laid to rest?
The dating of the bone tool, and the finding that the sediments encasing it range from 11,930 to 14,480 years old, might put these questions to rest. "You couldn't ask for better dated stratigraphy," Jenkins told the Oregon meeting.
"They have definitely made their argument even stronger," says Todd Surovell, an archaeologist at the University of Wyoming in Laramie who was not involved in the research.
Other researchers questioned whether the cave's inhabitants would have been mainly vegetarian, as the coprolites suggested4. In his recent lecture Jenkins noted other evidence reflecting a diet short on meat but including edible plants such as the fernleaf biscuitroot Lomatium dissectum.
In late September, a group of archaeologists who study the peopling of the Americas met with federal officials and a representative of the local Klamath tribe to review the evidence at Paisley Caves. The specialists spent two days examining sediments, checking the tool, and assessing other plant and animal evidence.
"It was an impressive presentation," says David Meltzer, an archaeologist at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, who attended the meeting. "This is clearly an important site, but there are some tests that need to be done to seal the deal." One key, he says, is to better understand how the specimens got to the cave.
References
1. Gilbert, W.T.P. et al. Science 320, 786-789 (2008).
2. Poinar, H. et al. Science 325, 148 (2009).
3. Rasmussen, M. et al. Science 325, 148 (2009).
4. Goldberg, P. , Berna, F. & Macphail, R.I. Science 325, 5937, 148 (2009).
※コメント投稿者のブログIDはブログ作成者のみに通知されます