Goal setting is a task that is often overlooked until the New Year, when people decide to set resolutions. However, these resolutions are nothing more than wishes and are far from what we would call “goals”. Hence these “so called” goals have very little chance of being realized. Just ask any fitness club owner when the greatest number of sign-ups occur and when the greatest number of drop-outs occur. Clearly, these “resolutions” don’t work!

So just what does work?

When it matters and you really want to accomplish your task, you will want to use tried and true goal setting techniques. Among the more successful methods is the SMART method of setting goals. SMART=Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Time-sensitive.

Goal setting starts with making sure that your goals are indeed SMART. Let’s examine this briefly shall we.

A goal cannot be something general. It must be substantial and detailed. The goal must answer the questions who, what, where, when, how, and why.

As an example, if your goal is to get a raise, this is not specific enough and doesn’t meet our criteria. If your goal is to get a 10% raise within 6 months, this is specific.

Measurable means exactly that. Your goal must be able to be measured or quantified. In the above example, a raise is not quantifiable, but a 10% raise is definitely quantifiable because the 10% number can be counted and verified.

A goal is attainable when it is realistic or feasable given your skills and resources. If you wish to be a pilot in 2 days and you have no money and no one to teach you, this may be considered “unattainable”.

Realistic refers to your goal being “reasonable”, meaning you are not 35 years old and setting a goal to have 3 kids before you turn 36! Your goal must be reasonable or surely you will have no chance of achieving it under any circumstances. This doesn’t mean that goals that are “impossible” to achieve should not be attempted. History has shown us that what seems “impossible” to achieve for most people is indeed quite possible for others to achieve under the proper circumstances.

Lastly, “time sensitive” refers to all goals having a completion date. This is what separates goals from activities, activities do not require an end date. This is a very important distinction between a goal and an activity. Using our previous example, obtaining a 10% salary raise during your lifetime is not the same as a 10% raise within 6 months.

We certainly hope the above information will aid you in setting and achieving more goals during your lifetime. For further information, be sure to check out the many goal setting resources available to you online. In fact, make that your first goal!

We build our reality on our beliefs.

And although we don’t admit that they are only our beliefs we do set our lives by them. They become us &ndash our reality - and woe to anyone who tries to ridicule or challenge our faith.

Through the recent discovery of certain biblical-like documents, scholars are now toying with the understanding that Judas was the true buddy of Jesus rather than his traitor. According to these writings, Jesus so trusted Judas that he selected him out of all the other apostles to co-ordinate the role and act as a traitor - to fulfil the prophecy.

Will Judas now be declared as a saint and a martyr? If these writings are accepted to be true what will happen to all Christian believers?

Here is another example.

Millions believe that the American astronauts ascended on the moon and returned back. At this point in time, I am not opening the argument of a moon hoax but, what will happen to these millions when in the not too distant future it will be revealed that it was all a hoax?

Both religion and science could create fanatics from their followers. Belief is a very sensitive and dangerous thing. Confusion and chaos are still the price for many a different belief.

Both God and gravity are still a phenomenon. They are both unproven entities and yet man hold on to what he thinks about them as fact. As regards to gravity, man today is still in the dark as he was when he believed that the earth was flat. Here, may I ask, what if all the planets (including our moon) have the same gravitational forces? It is quite a different story when a non-scientist dares to direct reasoned criticism at science - the majority of professional scientists immediately object. I consider myself as another Faraday.

The sad thing is that we are easily entangled into illusions and let these same illusions direct our lives. We should always question certain issues that are coming from the so-called ‘reliable’ sources (media, government and institutions). There may be hidden agendas behind everything we hear or see - such as marketing issues for purposes beyond our knowing.

To doubt and question is healthy.

It can provide you with an opportunity to explore horizons that previously were inaccessible due to the narrow outlook of the issue.

Getting the flu is bad enough, but getting the flu while you’re pregnant can be a nightmare. There is a greater chance that you will stay sick longer, there are only have a few medications that you can take to safely relieve flu symptoms, and your risk for developing flu-related complications is increased. That’s why the best thing for pregnant women to do during flu season is to take all possible precautions to avoid the virus, including getting a flu shot.

Influenza, or the flu, is a very contagious virus that affects the upper respiratory system causing fever, muscle aches, cough, sore throat, runny nose and weakness. The flu usually makes its appearance in winter and early spring, but it can also strike in the fall and late spring as well. While the virus is a nasty thing for anyone to catch, with pregnancy and the flu it can be particularly risky because a woman’s immune system has weakened slightly during the pregnancy. Because of this, pregnant women are more likely to experience symptoms for a longer period of time, and their risk of developing complications, such as pneumonia, is increased. Studies have shown, however, that pregnancy and the flu poses little risk to an unborn child.

The best way for pregnant women to avoid the flu is to get a flu shot. Flu shots are recommended for nearly all pregnant women and are usually given in October or November right before flu season starts. Getting vaccinated is the best way to protect yourself from the virus and can save you a lot of discomfort during the flu season. Other ways to avoid combining pregnancy and the flu include:

Frequent hand washing:

This is one of the most important things you can do for yourself to avoid illness. Wash your hands thoroughly before and after meals, after using the bathroom and frequently throughout the day. Washing your hands with antibacterial soap to get rid of germs is one of the easiest ways to stay healthy.

Stay away from people who have colds or the flu:

Common sense should tell you to avoid people who are already sick. Coming into contact with contagious individuals is an easy way to get sick yourself, so if possible, just avoid sick people altogether until they are no longer contagious.

Keeping your hands away from your nose, mouth and eyes: Germs like to come in through these particular places, so try not to touch them.

If you are unfortunate enough to get the flu, there are a few things that you can do to ease the symptoms and recover faster. Remember though, with pregnancy and the flu, there are many medications that you cannot take because they could be harmful to you or your baby. Be sure to talk to your doctor before taking any medicine to treat your flu symptoms. The following treatments can help if you come down with the flu:

-Acetaminophen for fever, aches, and pains

-Chlorpheniramine, an antihistamine

-Honey or other natural ingredient lozenges for a sore throat

-Lots of rest

-Increased fluid intake, especially water, juice, and tea

Getting the flu is no fun. Getting the flu while you’re pregnant is REALLY no fun. Pregnancy and the flu just don’t mix, so do your self a favor by getting a flu shot and taking preventative measures to avoid the virus.

7:47 PM 4/24/2006

Author: Lucien Beauley

Lighting Facts…I Wanna Know !

Each one of us, at one time or another has either driven or been a passenger in an automobile and experienced our traffic control lighting system. Originally unique, but now part of a global system.

Situated at every fully functional traffic light intersection is at least one “Red” light which is timed to turn on and off regularly to “Stop” traffic. It employs a 100 Watt(varies between 90 and 120 Watts)incandescent light bulb. Several years ago, these light bulbs began being replaced with the latest LED(Light Emitting Diode) cluster assemblies, as were the other lamps at the same intersection. The newer Led lamps consumed only 10 Watts to accomplish the same light output(mostly greater). The clincher ! The original incandescent bulb only radiates approximately 10 % of the power consumed in visible light. The other 90 % is radiated as “heat”. And with the red filter used on the original assembly to only let through the RED color needed for the “stop” function, another 30 % of the original visible portion of the light is lost, so that only about 7 % of the 100 Watts of power consumed to light the lamp is visible(to the human eye). The real clincher is that our local taxes to pay the utilities have been calculated for the 100 Watt consumption for each bulb( when it is turned on ) and only getting 7 % of the light. We

town citizens and tax payers have been paying for the 93 % wasted as invisible heat for several decades.

Leds, on the other hand, are a different breed of lighting technology and do not radiate light in the form of heat( unless designed specifically for that purpose ) and the Red Led assembly cluster which replaces the original traffic light bulb needs no red filter because it radiates a “pure” Red light. Granted, the initial cost for this lamp cluster

assembly is still higher, but when we consider the LED lamp “life” estimated to be 100,000 hours and therefore lower replacement along with labor cost, the pay-back is quick and fairly permanent. These benefits are not even considering the ongoing 90 % energy cost savings.

========================================================================================

Some Quick Mind Twisters(Awaikeners)

===================================

To shatter an LED lamp would require more than 1,000 G’s of impact force !

To shatter an incandescent lamp would only require less than 10 G’s

===================================

The time it takes for an incandescent light to turn on(to its maximum brightness)is about 1/10 of a second.

It takes much less than 1/1,000,000 of a second for the LED to accomplish the same thing and a generally accepted Led spec.. One might say , “who cares” ? Well, when Led lighting is used for an automobile brakelight, 1/10 of a second greater reaction time can mean the difference between stopping in time, or a collision, with possible severe injury to some, or all of the occupants.

===================================

With all of us feverishly trying to keep up with the latest fads Hollywood exports, finally there is a fashion tip that will truly enhance our lives.

Recently, Tom Cruise’s former sidekick Nicole Kidman was quoted by the Associated Press as saying: “I wish that I hadn’t been born with red hair and fair skin” as she is concerned about the amount sun exposure and its direct link to an increased risk for skin cancer. She should know, too. After all, she hails from Australia where skin cancer is an exploding epidemic.

Subsequently, Australia is the leading the world in heightening the quality of skin cancer prevention education and proactive sun safety behavior. Truth be told, skin cancer is the world’s most common cancer. Americans are no exception to the rule either! Every hour someone in the United States dies from skin cancer, according to the American Academy of Dermatology (.AAD.org). Perhaps, Kidman’s example will encourage the propagation of a new fashion wave - sun protective clothing.

Whereas, sun protective clothing (also known as ultraviolet radiation protective clothing; or “UVR”) is widely used in Australia, Europe, and South Africa, it is still relatively unknown here in the U.S. Sun protective clothing, however, is a highly effective option for individuals to protect themselves from the harmful affects of UV-rays all day, every day.

If you consider that the average white 100% cotton t-shirt is equivalent to only a SPF 6 (which provides about 14% worth of sun protection), clearly there is a need for light-weight, functional, stylish, economical, clothing that also provides exceptional protection from over-exposure to the sun.

On the other hand, sun protective clothing blocks out more than 97.5% of UV rays (which is an equivalent to a SPF 30 sunscreen). This is considered by the Skin Cancer Foundation to be “the best of the best” as it were when it comes to effective sun protection. If you consider that a SPF 20 sunscreen is allowing only five out of every 100 UV protons to reach your skin; it is 95% protective, than sun protective clothing is quite simply the most revolutionary new product available on the market today for those looking for a viable, yet extremely effective, way to protect themselves and their loved ones from sun damage.

Dermatologist-oncologist, Sancy A. Leachman of the Tom C. Mathews Jr. Familial Melanoma Research Clinic at The Huntsman Cancer Institute (.HuntsmanCancer.org) recommends that everyone use a sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 15 for daily, year-round use; SPF 30 is recommended if we are outdoors between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. when UV rays are most intense.

SPF 30 sunscreen is also highly recommended for those of us who possess multiple risk factors for skin cancer such as blonde or red hair, blue or green eyes, fair or sensitive skin, many atypical moles, and even family history of skin cancer &ndash like Nicole Kidman. Wearing sun protective clothing, coupled with proper year-round use of sunscreens, is the quite simply the best protection available, Sancy says. And her colleagues in the field of dermatological medicine agree.

“Appropriate sun apparel should offer effective protection against both short term and long term photo damage [such as wrinkling, skin cancer, and even cataracts],” says Dr. J.M. Mentor, who also teaches dermatology at the Morehouse School of Medicine (.MSM.edu). In other words, effective sun safety apparel ought to protect against both UV-B and UV-A rays, and sun protective products such as those specially manufactured by Stingray in Australia, do exactly that.

Stingray is the original sun protection clothing company to specialize in UV protection swimwear and daily attire for children and adults. “As a result of listening to the needs of our many customers, we are able to deliver products that take the ‘sting out of the sun’s rays,’” says Wendy Lister, Managing Director of Stingray. “[People] are now getting the best possible UV protection.” Those living at high altitudes or near the equator, have the highest risk in for skin cancer, according to the American Academy of Dermatology.

Glen and Liisa Tomson, both natives of South Africa, know first-hand the devastating toll sun damage can take on our health. As such, they have recently partnered up with The Cancer Crusaders Organization (.CancerCrusaders.org) in a five-year international skin cancer prevention education campaign called “Only Skin Deep?” This program aims to actively engage parents and young adults in the fight against the world’s most common, yet preventable, cancer.

“We see a great and pressing need for increased awareness and education here in the U.S.,” says Glen Tomson. “Too many times my wife and I will be at the pool, and see all these children running around sun burnt. Often, we’ll offer shade [clothing] and sunscreen to the parents so they can better protect their children.” Glen and Liisa, in addition to being entrepreneurs and experts, are parents and realize the importance of instilling the practice of sunscreen usage and the wearing of sun protective clothing at a young age so as to develop a lifelong habit of sun safety behavior.

In fact, the American Academy of Dermatology reports that sustaining just one severe “blistering” sunburn before age 18 increases one’s likeliness of a future skin cancer diagnosis by an estimated 60%. In other words, 80% of one’s lifetime skin damage occurs in the first 18 years of life. This is of particular concern the mountain states where high elevation exposes us to more intense UV irradiation.

Dr. Leachman illustrates it best by saying, “Someone standing on the summit of Mt. Timpanogos [Utah] will burn 66-to-77 times faster than someone standing on a beach in Los Angeles [California].” Lechman adds, “Skin cancer incidence is increasing at an alarming rate here in the United States, so it is important that we all take proper precautions to protect ourselves.”

The AAD solidifies Leachman’s remarks, reporting 1.3-million Americans will be diagnosed with some form of skin cancer this year. The risk is real,” Leachman says. “There is a real need for people to take necessary precautions and to teach patients how to advocate for themselves [in reducing their risk for skin cancer].”

“There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time… On the other hand, I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics… Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, ‘But how can it be like that?’, because you will get ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.”

R. P. Feynman (1967)

“The first processes, therefore, in the effectual studies of the sciences, must be ones of simplification and reduction of the results of previous investigations to a form in which the mind can grasp them.”

J. C. Maxwell, On Faraday’s lines of force

” …conventional formulations of quantum theory, and of quantum field theory in particular, are unprofessionally vague and ambiguous. Professional theoretical physicists ought to be able to do better. Bohm has shown us a way.”

John S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics

“It would seem that the theory [quantum mechanics] is exclusively concerned about ‘results of measurement’, and has nothing to say about anything else. What exactly qualifies some physical systems to play the role of ‘measurer’? Was the wavefunction of the world waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer, for some better qualified system … with a Ph.D.? If the theory is to apply to anything but highly idealized laboratory operations, are we not obliged to admit that more or less ‘measurement-like’ processes are going on more or less all the time, more or less everywhere. Do we not have jumping then all the time?

The first charge against ‘measurement’, in the fundamental axioms of quantum mechanics, is that it anchors the shifty split of the world into ’system’ and ‘apparatus’. A second charge is that the word comes loaded with meaning from everyday life, meaning which is entirely inappropriate in the quantum context. When it is said that something is ‘measured’ it is difficult not to think of the result as referring to some pre-existing property of the object in question. This is to disregard Bohr’s insistence that in quantum phenomena the apparatus as well as the system is essentially involved. If it were not so, how could we understand, for example, that ‘measurement’ of a component of ‘angular momentum’ … in an arbitrarily chosen direction … yields one of a discrete set of values? When one forgets the role of the apparatus, as the word ‘measurement’ makes all too likely, one despairs of ordinary logic … hence ‘quantum logic’. When one remembers the role of the apparatus, ordinary logic is just fine.

In other contexts, physicists have been able to take words from ordinary language and use them as technical terms with no great harm done. Take for example the ’strangeness’, ‘charm’, and ‘beauty’ of elementary particle physics. No one is taken in by this ‘baby talk’… Would that it were so with ‘measurement’. But in fact the word has had such a damaging effect on the discussion, that I think it should now be banned altogether in quantum mechanics.”

J. S. Bell, Against “Measurement”

“Is it not clear from the smallness of the scintillation on the screen that we have to do with a particle? And is it not clear, from the diffraction and interference patterns, that the motion of the particle is directed by a wave? De Broglie showed in detail how the motion of a particle, passing through just one of two holes in screen, could be influenced by waves propagating through both holes. And so influenced that the particle does not go where the waves cancel out, but is attracted to where they co-operate. This idea seems to me so natural and simple, to resolve the wave-particle dilemma in such a clear and ordinary way, that it is a great mystery to me that it was so generally ignored.”

J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics

“…in physics the only observations we must consider are position observations, if only the positions of instrument pointers. It is a great merit of the de Broglie-Bohm picture to force us to consider this fact. If you make axioms, rather than definitions and theorems, about the “measurement” of anything else, then you commit redundancy and risk inconsistency.”

J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics

“To outward appearance, the modern world was born of an anti religious movement: man becoming self-sufficient and reason supplanting belief. Our generation and the two that preceded it have heard little of but talk of the conflict between science and faith; indeed it seemed at one moment a foregone conclusion that the former was destined to take the place of the latter… After close on two centuries of passionate struggles, neither science nor faith has succeeded in discrediting its adversary.

On the contrary, it becomes obvious that neither can develop normally without the other. And the reason is simple: the same life animates both. Neither in its impetus nor its achievements can science go to its limits without becoming tinged with mysticism and charged with faith.”

Pierre Thierry de Chardin, “The Phenomenon of Man”

I opened this appendix with lengthy quotations by John S. Bell, the main proponent of the Bohemian Mechanics interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (really, an alternative rather than an interpretation). The renowned physicist, David Bohm (in the 50s), basing himself on work done much earlier by de Broglie (the unwilling father of the wave-particle dualism), embedded the Schr

At the dawn of spring, I am reminded by my children the joy of anticipating new life.

They will usually see a flower or two that has made its way through the soil to a world beyond itself. What starts out as a seedling or bulb is transformed by nature’s capacity to evolve.

Inside each of us lies dormant an awareness, an identity, an ability to grow beyond what we appear to be. Every moment, we are being challenged by others and by circumstances to create a life that exceeds our present state of living.

To move toward our highest good takes a willingness on our part to let go of what we know to what can be known in and through us. You and I are part of the Created Order we see around us, and we are participants in Creating Order out of what we have been given to care for.

With this in mind, let us turn to ways our soul can be described in the characteristics that make up a flower:

1. The Ground.

The ground nurtures, protects, and gives birth to a flower. Inside the womb of the ground, life is taking root long before we can see it. Because we cannot see a flower that has been planted in the earth, does not mean life is not being created. To be full participants in our world means to be fully connected and rooted in the world we have been given.

2. The Stem.

The stem begins its growth in the earth below and into the sky above. This part of the flower is the connecting characteristic of the plant. Much like humanity, we are in this world without being fully of it. This creates a sacredness to our lives. It is our unique ability to live and grow in a way no one ever has, is, or ever will.

3. The Flower.

In full bloom, a flower is the illumination of all the life that has preceded it. The radiance and color that pour out of it create life. Notice the next time you look at a flower how you are affected by it. You may notice your heart open and be filled with joy. Or, you may notice more energy and clarity in your vision for being blessed with great beauty.

4. The Spirit of a Flower.

The spirit of a flower is the life force moving in and through it. It is the essence of a flower that identifies with your spirit. This part of you opens from the inside out and becomes ONE with the spirit of a flower. It is the same energy that runs in and through you. Like a flower, you begin to radiate your own soul from the essence of your own being.

——————————————————————————–

Each spring, take the time to notice the part of you opening up to new life. Just like flowers, we grow from the inside out. What illuminates in our life began inside us. We nurture these inner qualities of attention until they eventually take root and grow into our daily lives. The growth that follows is created from what we attend to or hold our attention on within us.

Like the pedals of a flower opening to the world around it, we create a presence of awareness. In full bloom, the beauty or the lack thereof touches the lives of everyone around us. As our inner patterns of attention move through us, the world illuminates the seeds of awareness contained within us for so long. Here, a life is created. It is the life of our soul.

Samuel Oliver, author of, “What the Dying Teach Us: Lessons on Living”

Who was born on January 15, 1929? A man who believed in equality and peace…Martin Luther King, Jr. Here are some ways to honor this man. NOTE: If you live in a country other than America, adapt these activities for a significant person in your country’s history.

1. Draw a silhouette of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s face against a plain background; then add lines to create a puzzle. Add words that rhyme with ‘king’ in the spaces of the face and words that rhyme with ‘men’ in the background. Color the first set of words brown and the second set of words red. NOTE: Vary the activity by adding equal math problems in the face and unequal math problems in the background (ie: 4+6=2+7+1 versus 5+3=2+3+4).

2. Make a Criss-Cross puzzle with these words: Atlanta, dream, equal, laws, leader, minister, peaceful, and prize.

3. Use the same words in Tip 2 to fill in these blanks:

Martin Luther King, Jr. was born in _____, Georgia. Dr. King received the Nobel Peace _____. MLK worked to change unfair _____. Dr. King gave a famous speech called “I Have a _____.” MLK was a great _____. When he grew up, Martin Luther King, Jr. became a _____. Dr. King believed that all people should be _____. Dr. King believed in _____ protests.

4. Have older children look up the following words in a dictionary, encyclopedia, or the internet: segregation, prejudice, equality, civil rights, nonviolent resistance, protest, demonstrations, equal opportunity, Nobel Peace Prize, assassinated, tribute. What does each word or phrase mean? How can you apply it to Martin Luther King, Jr.’s life?

5. As a culminating activity to your unit, have a panel of ‘interviewers’ ask ‘Dr. King’ questions.

6. As an alternate activity, have children write a play. Different groups of students can focus on various aspects of Dr. King’s life.

I hope these ideas are useful and have inspired your own creative thinking.

And remember…Reading is FUNdamental!

(Answers to Tip 3: Atlanta, prize, laws, dream, leader, minister, equal, peaceful)

In the United States, Congress approved, In February 2003, increases in the 2003 budgets of both the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. America is not alone in - vainly - trying to compensate for imploding capital markets and risk-averse financiers.

In 1999, chancellor Gordon Brown inaugurated a $1.6 billion program of “upgrading British science” and commercializing its products. This was on top of $1 billion invested between 1998-2002. The budgets of the Medical Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council were quadrupled overnight.

The University Challenge Fund was set to provide $100 million in seed money to cover costs related to the hiring of managerial skills, securing intellectual property, constructing a prototype or preparing a business plan. Another $30 million went to start-up funding of high-tech, high-risk companies in the UK.

According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the top 29 industrialized nations invest in R&D more than $600 billion a year. The bulk of this capital is provided by the private sector. In the United Kingdom, for instance, government funds are dwarfed by private financing, according to the British Venture Capital Association. More than $80 billion have been ploughed into 23,000 companies since 1983, about half of them in the hi-tech sector. Three million people are employed in these firms. Investments surged by 36 percent in 2001 to $18 billion.

But this British exuberance is a global exception.

Even the - white hot - life sciences field suffered an 11 percent drop in venture capital investments in 2002, reports the MoneyTree Survey. According to the Ernst & Young 2002 Alberta Technology Report released in March 2003, the Canadian hi-tech sector is languishing with less than $3 billion invested in 2002 in seed capital - this despite generous matching funds and tax credits proffered by many of the provinces as well as the federal government.

In Israel, venture capital plunged to $600 million in 2002 - one fifth its level in 2000. Aware of this cataclysmic reversal in investor sentiment, the Israeli government set up 24 hi-tech incubators. But these are able merely to partly cater to the pecuniary needs of less than 20 percent of the projects submitted.

As governments pick up the monumental slack created by the withdrawal of private funding, they attempt to rationalize and economize.

The New Jersey Commission of Health Science Education and Training recently proposed to merge the state’s three public research universities. Soaring federal and state budget deficits are likely to exert added pressure on the already strained relationship between academe and state - especially with regards to research priorities and the allocation of ever-scarcer resources.

This friction is inevitable because the interaction between technology and science is complex and ill-understood. Some technological advances spawn new scientific fields - the steel industry gave birth to metallurgy, computers to computer science and the transistor to solid state physics. The discoveries of science also lead, though usually circuitously, to technological breakthroughs - consider the examples of semiconductors and biotechnology.

Thus, it is safe to generalize and say that the technology sector is only the more visible and alluring tip of the drabber iceberg of research and development. The military, universities, institutes and industry all over the world plough hundreds of billions annually into both basic and applied studies. But governments are the most important sponsors of pure scientific pursuits by a long shot.

Science is widely perceived as a public good - its benefits are shared. Rational individuals would do well to sit back and copy the outcomes of research - rather than produce widely replicated discoveries themselves. The government has to step in to provide them with incentives to innovate.

Thus, in the minds of most laymen and many economists, science is associated exclusively with publicly-funded universities and the defense establishment. Inventions such as the jet aircraft and the Internet are often touted as examples of the civilian benefits of publicly funded military research. The pharmaceutical, biomedical, information technology and space industries, for instance - though largely private - rely heavily on the fruits of nonrivalrous (i.e. public domain) science sponsored by the state.

The majority of 501 corporations surveyed by the Department of Finance and Revenue Canada in 1995-6 reported that government funding improved their internal cash flow - an important consideration in the decision to undertake research and development. Most beneficiaries claimed the tax incentives for seven years and recorded employment growth.

In the absence of efficient capital markets and adventuresome capitalists, some developing countries have taken this propensity to extremes. In the Philippines, close to 100 percent of all R&D is government-financed. The meltdown of foreign direct investment flows - they declined by nearly three fifths since 2000 - only rendered state involvement more indispensable.

But this is not a universal trend. South Korea, for instance, effected a successful transition to private venture capital which now - even after the Asian turmoil of 1997 and the global downturn of 2001 - amounts to four fifths of all spending on R&D.

Thus, supporting ubiquitous government entanglement in science is overdoing it. Most applied R&D is still conducted by privately owned industrial outfits. Even “pure” science - unadulterated by greed and commerce - is sometimes bankrolled by private endowments and foundations.

Moreover, the conduits of government involvement in research, the universities, are only weakly correlated with growing prosperity. As Alison Wolf, professor of education at the University of London elucidates in her seminal tome “Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth”, published in 2002, extra years of schooling and wider access to university do not necessarily translate to enhanced growth (though technological innovation clearly does).

Terence Kealey, a clinical biochemist, vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham in England and author of “The Economic Laws of Scientific Research”, is one of a growing band of scholars who dispute the intuitive linkage between state-propped science and economic progress. In an interview published in March 2003 by Scientific American, he recounted how he discovered that:

“Of all the lead industrial countries, Japan - the country investing least in science - was growing fastest. Japanese science grew spectacularly under laissez-faire. Its science was actually purer than that of the U.K. or the U.S. The countries with the next least investment were France and Germany, and were growing next fastest. And the countries with the maximum investment were the U.S., Canada and U.K., all of which were doing very badly at the time.”

The Economist concurs: “it is hard for governments to pick winners in technology.” Innovation and science sprout in - or migrate to - locations with tough laws regarding intellectual property rights, a functioning financial system, a culture of “thinking outside the box” and a tradition of excellence.

Government can only remove obstacles - especially red tape and trade tariffs - and nudge things in the right direction by investing in infrastructure and institutions. Tax incentives are essential initially. But if the authorities meddle, they are bound to ruin science and be rued by scientists.

Still, all forms of science funding - both public and private - are lacking.

State largesse is ideologically constrained, oft-misallocated, inefficient and erratic (the recent examples being stem-cell and cloning research in the USA). In the United States, mega projects, such as the Superconducting Super Collider, with billions already sunk in, have been abruptly discontinued as were numerous other defense-related schemes. Additionally, some knowledge gleaned in government-funded research is barred from the public domain.

But industrial money can be worse. It comes with strings attached. The commercially detrimental results of drug studies have been suppressed by corporate donors on more than one occasion, for instance. Commercial entities are unlikely to support basic research as a public good, ultimately made available to their competitors as a “spillover benefit”. This understandable reluctance stifles innovation.

There is no lack of suggestions on how to square this circle.

Quoted in the Philadelphia Business Journal, Donald Drakeman, CEO of the Princeton biotech company Medarex, proposed In February 2003 to encourage pharmaceutical companies to shed technologies they have chosen to shelve: “Just like you see little companies coming out of the research being conducted at Harvard and MIT in Massachusetts and Stanford and Berkley in California, we could do it out of Johnson & Johnson and Merck.”

This would be the corporate equivalent of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. The statute made both academic institutions and researchers the owners of inventions or discoveries financed by government agencies. This unleashed a wave of unprecedented self-financing entrepreneurship.

In the two decades that followed, the number of patents registered to universities increased tenfold and they spun off more than 2200 firms to commercialize the fruits of research. In the process, they generated $40 billion in gross national product and created 260,000 jobs.

None of this was government financed - though, according to The Economist’s Technology Quarterly, $1 in research usually requires up to $10,000 in capital to get to market. This suggests a clear and mutually profitable division of labor - governments should picks up the tab for basic research, private capital should do the rest, stimulated by the transfer of intellectual property from state to entrepreneurs.

But this raises a host of contentious issues.

Such a scheme may condition industry to depend on the state for advances in pure science, as a kind of hidden subsidy. Research priorities are bound to be politicized and lead to massive misallocation of scarce economic resources through pork barrel politics and the imposition of “national goals”. NASA, with its “let’s put a man on the moon (before the Soviets do)” and the inane International Space Station is a sad manifestation of such dangers.

Science is the only public good that is produced by individuals rather than collectives. This inner conflict is difficult to resolve. On the one hand, why should the public purse enrich entrepreneurs? On the other hand, profit-driven investors seek temporary monopolies in the form of intellectual property rights. Why would they share this cornucopia with others, as pure scientists are compelled to do?

The partnership between basic research and applied science has always been an uneasy one. It has grown more so as monetary returns on scientific insight have soared and as capital available for commercialization multiplied. The future of science itself is at stake.

Were governments to exit the field, basic research would likely crumble. Were they to micromanage it - applied science and entrepreneurship would suffer. It is a fine balancing act and, judging by the state of both universities and startups, a precarious one as well.

The topbar beehive is not a new concept. Historical reference to the top-bar hive date back to the 1600’s. Most of today’s top bar bee hives are derived from work in the 1960’s. It was perfected for use in Kenya, Africa, and is often referred to as the Kenya Hive. Today it is also used in many other developing countries for it’s simple design and cost effective management methods. In recent years it has also become more popular in the United States.

The traditional Langstroth beehive consists of several boxes (supers) and numerous other parts that are either difficult to build or expensive to buy. In addition to the beehive, the Langstroth hive requires many other pieces of equipment to harvest honey and manage your bees. Not so with the top bar hive as you can read below.

Simple and Maintenance-Free

The top bar hive has only a few components: the hive body (box), 20 to 30 top bars (frames), and a lid. That’s all you will ever need. Compare that to your Langstroth hive. Bees build their own comb which eliminates the need for costly frames. The top bars are re-used after the harvest.

Non-Invasive Design

The top bar hive is healthier for bees. To check your bees, you will not have to take the whole thing apart. Hence, your bees will be less disturbed by your presence and checking of the comb.

Easy Harvest

To harvest your honey, you simply remove the bars with honeycomb. Unlike traditional methods, you won’t have to take the hive apart and disturb the bees as much. Not only is the top bar hive less stressful to harvest for you, it also does not disturb the bees as much. In addition to honey, the top bar hive has more beeswax to harvest. You also do not need a honey extractor/centrifuge or uncapping knife which saves you thousands of dollars. Smoking is completely unnecessary and many top bar hive users do not wear protective clothing either. (For the beginner I do advise to use some kind of protection, gloves and veil as the minimum!) Once you remove the honey comb, the bees will go about their business as usual. Try that on a Langstroth hive.

Healthier Bees

The top bar hive is designed for the bees’ optimal living conditions. This makes a colony much stronger and enables it to fight off pests and diseases on their own, much better than in a Langstroth hive. Besides healthier bees this will save you hundreds of dollars in medication as well as disappointment.

Why doesn’t everyone use top bar hives?

The top bar hive is not designed for maximum honey production, although there have been reports otherwise. For the hobby beekeeper a few pounds less honey are well worth the ease of management. You will harvest more beeswax with a top bar hive though. Any hobbyist should have more of an interest in keeping healthy bees than in squeezing out a few more pounds of honey from a stressed, overworked colony. With just one top bar hive, you will still have more than enough honey for your whole family and friends.