Two Red Wires And Two Black And Red

Living in a virtual society. Interview with Raul Trejo Delarbre


Living in a virtual society
Interview with Raul Trejo Delarbre
Ariel Ruiz Mondragón

product of a formidable scientific and technological revolution, the Internet has become a fundamental part of a phenomenon of gigantic dimensions in the different aspects of the life of mankind: by some called the Information Society, which exists around the vast amount of information and communication facilities with formidable allow us to quickly and easily digital media, especially network networks.

As the Internet has opened many opportunities for development and welfare, has also deepened existing inequalities in the world, to be a resource that is not yet available to large sectors of the global population, mainly the poorest. In this regard, one of the most important challenges and aspirations for the future will generalize and democratize access and its use as a way to reduce social and economic gaps. On these issues

Raul Trejo Delarbre published a couple of years ago his book Living in the Aleph . The Information Society and its labyrinths (Barcelona, \u200b\u200bGedisa, 2006), then take this opportunity to talk with the author on issues like inequality and exclusion in the society, public and educational policies to extend the freedoms, rights and duties of citizens surfer, the choice of valuable information, their use in democracy and main advantages and risks in the future.

Delarbre Trejo is a researcher at the Institute of Social Research and professor den UNAM Faculty of Political and Social Sciences at the university. National System of Researchers, author of 15 books, founded the magazine Etcetera and has worked in newspapers as El Universal, La Jornada , Unomásuno , El Nacional and today's Chronicle, as well as in magazines and Links socket.

Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why write and publish a book like yours? Raul Trejo Delarbre

(RTD): I'll give you an answer in simple principle: first, because it is my job. At the Institute of Social Research of the UNAM, where I work, one of my projects is on the Information Society in Latin America, and this book fulfills part of that project that has many aspects. So it is, of course, part of my obligation.

That is an obligation one is fortunate to have the choice, and I found some time in the Internet, and more broadly in the information society, issues likely to have a look beyond technology and beyond a specific discipline. I was struck how there are economists, historians, sociologists, lawyers, physicists, mathematicians who write and study about the Internet. I want to benefit from input from a large number of authors and an interdisciplinary view, of course with the bias of my own personal training.

has long had a huge amount of data and information resulting from exchange with colleagues from other countries, resulting from my own observation and practice on the Internet, and also because ten years ago, in 1996, I had occasion to publish a book in Madrid called The new carpet. Uses and abuses of the Internet, Red Network, and since then I had answers, suggestions and criticisms of colleagues from many sites, which have benefited me to have a more specialized, I do not know if more analytical, less descriptive perhaps than that which was pioneered very early Internet. This book, incidentally, has the opportunity to appear ten years after that magic carpet, so I wrote and that is circulating.

Hopefully readers of this talk are readers of this book. I sincerely believe that it is a readable book, which is covered by numerous alibis I've searched the literature, particularly in that of Jorge Luis Borges and hence the title, pretentious but wants to be more a tribute to the appropriation of this great author Argentina.

AR: The book is about the information society. You point out that this is typical of a globalized world, a society in which they also reflect social inequalities. In that sense, who, how and why they are excluded from it?

RTD: Varies indicator we use, and depends on what we understand by information society. I assume a broad definition of it, and understand how the context is created by a wide variety of technological resources. The information society is one that is hinged on the Internet, first (I insist on calling the book "backbone of the information society") but also is one to which we connect the satellite TV, radio digital, the huge number of albums that are in music stores, the ability to scan a video and selling it illegally to give to a friend. Residents or citizens of society partners la información son los muchachos que abren un blog en internet, o los que descargan en su Ipod una colección de música para su uso personal, somos lo que utilizamos correo electrónico, o los que participan en los salones de chat.

Podemos decir, con una precisión limitada, que están en la sociedad de la información los que tienen conexión regular a internet; pero quizá no es del todo cierto porque hay gente que no está en internet pero sí tiene televisión satelital.

En todo caso, para darle una respuesta más concreta, hoy en día entre el 80 y 85 por ciento de la humanidad no tiene conexión a internet. Entonces estamos hablando de un 15 por ciento, que son muchos centenares of millions of people, and they are all but missing a lot. In the Mexican case are regular Internet connection 18 or 19 percent this year, we need more than 80 percent, about 83 million Mexicans who do not have this resource, much as for those who live in cities like Mexico we have become so familiar and so indispensable.

That is, the information society is so malleable, so elusive at times, with a single definition and a single statistical indicator, which depends on the criteria used to assess the amount of people in that society.

AR: The discussion of the first chapter, but is present in several other parts the book is about how public policies may be appropriate to promote information technology and communication. I was struck by the case of Uruguay, which you mention, which has achieved a coverage of 37 percent online. What policies can be suitable for this?

RTD: First, the worst public policy is one that does not exist. The great problem of Mexico has been the absence of policies specifically designed to extend internet coverage and ownership of Mexican society of these resources.

We had specific policies to allow more computers in government or to have electronic whiteboards in schools, partial and questionable policies. In this administration, President Vicente Fox pushed some measures to community centers have internet access, but with such poor planning, with so few resources and with such a propaganda effort (above all), which occurred in many municipalities computers already in schools or in hospitals of the Ministry of Health, joined the network and the system of Mexico, it is great that the links which mean to say that this is something new, they were and are as old computers, with processors such obsolete, not used to surf the internet.

A policy should national resources, will the government have a multidisciplinary orientation that had not only the desire to promote the ruling in turn. Should have a flexible and comprehensive technological development does not occur, as in the case of Enciclomedia, that technology is used only for a company (the company Microsoft, which happens to be a company that while it did from very important donation of some private institutions, including the founding of the wife of the President). This is not part of a national policy, but an enrichment program and more successful on some individuals.

A national policy could be like Brazil, where eight years ago the government called many different sectors to create a council of Internet in Brazil, consisting of about 100 people secondments political, technological and civil varied. That is a national policy; the other, not yet.

AR: There are other elements that you also consider necessary for integration into the information society. You mention that there is information, but we must strive to become knowledge: we can discern the information they give us points, but having some experience and some intellectual preparation. On the education, what must be done to fully exploit the Internet?

RTD: I think the internet deserves a specific education, first to master the technical basics, not a thing of another world, but we need to know, that people like you or like me nobody taught us, and that almost all have had to learn on the fly by means of trial and error. Why not spare the students entering high school today or emerging from the Primary, the hardships they have endured some of us?

should have introductory courses in using these rudiments of information, as well as a literacy course, as we are taught to read and write, would enseñársenos to surf the internet. This is difficult but not impossible, even today in many elementary teachers are asking students to research online because they know that anyway they will do, and it is better to anticipate that possibility.

should also be part of our civic education to learn to distinguish between useful information and not to learn to deliberate on the Internet. All this is going to be achieved by way of the inertia to which this compels us to use there anyway. But it would be worth then that was not the inertia of events but the result of an education policy specifically planned for it to be used online.

In other countries, regardless of any computer in the classroom (about this there is an interesting discussion in the United States, for example) to children and the children are led to use the internet. In Mexico, many of the boys use the Internet for chatting and downloading music (which is not bad), but are taught to use creative, cultural, educational, more specific information. That's what we still lack, and has been very difficult, among other things, because children have the internet as part of their school education is needed The teachers know, do a course to know to use. Here in Mexico the teachers would not arrive in time ten years ago to use the Internet.

AR: The use of internet and computer resources have expressed the inequality in the world, but there are (as you stated in the book) an aspiration that can help build a fairer, more equitable. After 13 years of open and wider use of internet, has been used to increase that to reduce this inequality to date?

RTD: I think the two things every new technological resources becomes an additional factor to inequality already exist in contemporary societies. When you see the plasma TV (which is in any way and is very expensive) then suddenly we do not have money or do not want to spend on it we become unequal, we become marginalized in terms of those who do choose to keep the money.

The same applies to internet, but in the case of the network of networks, this factor is intrinsic inequality by lowering the passing years: today, buy a computer much less difficult than it was 10 or 15 years, because it has become cheaper. The fact is that anyone who is connected, which has passed the barrier of disengagement, or anyone with your computer with its connection and can place the content you want, you can recover and take over the content you want from those in the network, just as in Manhattan Oaxaca, Chiapas than in Paris. The fact that the Internet can access the same information, although some do better computers and faster speeds than others, involves a factor of democratization not only in gathering information but the ability of expression.

If you ask me to choose, I would say that in these years have been many more, without doubt, the advantages that the Internet has imposed disparities.

AR: In this sense, does the digital divide you mention, and not just adheres to most have the technological resources, has been closing in 13 years to popularize the Internet?

RTD: It has been closing because 12 years ago in Mexico had almost 200 thousand Internet users, and now we are almost 20 million. In the world there were 25 million, and today is passing, perhaps, the barrier of one million. Obviously more people have access to these resources, and this recognition should not lead us to say that all is well. I think (that's what I tried in this type of work) you need to have a vision or integrated, which is the one that says that all is well, or apocalyptic, which is the one that says that everything is wrong, citing Umberto Eco

AR: You mentioned as one of the characteristics of the information society area of \u200b\u200bfreedom, but also mentions that it is necessary to protect individual rights and social networking. Both can get hit. Today was how these rights are protected?

RTD: There are many lawyers and jurists who say that much to regulate the Internet. I personally think that no, what to do (and already has in many cases, even in Mexico) some adjustments to the legal codes that already exist to criminalize those abuses committed in the network and that would be crimes in the offline world. If I were assaulted in person when I take money from a teller at the bank, is a crime, as it must be absolutely no doubt that if I take money from my bank account via the Internet, it is criminal conduct. If someone corrupts a child and forces him to have sex, it is a crime, and the most terrible, "and must be punished with the utmost severity, and if anyone takes advantage of the internet to do the same, to make an appointment with a minor and abuse it, because obviously it is a crime with or without the internet.

Otherwise, I think a great virtue of the Net lies in that there is great freedom for expression. On the Internet can spread thoughts, concepts and data noble, virtuous and uplifting, but too many lies, full content of hatred and animosity. I think it should be free to say whatever, the biggest nonsense, but also to rectify should have resources to amend the libel and to prevent fraud. But beyond that, I think people have the right to enter content sites of any kind. Putting aside the issue of children (who must be protected), I think the most outrageous sexual content, if he wants to place and some people want to watch or consume, in the case of adults, should be in the right order do so. Parents will need to have resources to prevent your children to content that pop out they do not want to contemplate. Here the only prescription, in addition to using software to block certain pages, is to assist children and young people when surfing the Internet. There's no way.

AR: You say that the information society is the most watched in history. There also might be some dangerous connotations for freedom. What could be the role of Internet on social control, taking into account the issue of cookies or projects like Echelon-I do not know if it's true or not?

RTD: Not true. I think there are two risks limiting the freedoms on the Internet: first-ignorant belief but became very entrenched, that the Internet was a nest of criminals and therefore had to suppress and censor, that ranged from 2001 but since 1996 there were projects of censure part of the United States government, which were stopped by groups of civil rights on the Internet. Here is a task of explanation and pedagogy that interested in defending these freedoms have to do to convince the judges and rulers that Internet is everything, and as in reality, on any street in our societies, There are good people and bad, there are people who help others, which is very supportive, and offenders and bandits, as there are on the Internet. This, I said later, is a sort of collection of mirrors of reality: if in reality there is evil and solidarity, as will the network.

The other issue to be taken into account is the fact that, being available for all, which put on the Internet or whatever it is recorded there may be accessed by all. If someone opens a blog and has their own life very private matters, it should not be surprised by the fact that someone, anyone who has access to the network, you can read that content. If someone sends an email with a personal matter that did not want it to be known, is wrong: need to recognize and remember that all Internet content browsing is likely to be known by others. Though I send a personal email to you, it's easy for someone interested in interfering with my mail or you do it, or I can be wrong and itching to another recipient. Well, if you have secrets you want to remain as such, do not air them on the Internet, or convert them to digital format, which is very likely to be reproduced and returned easily.

Sometimes we forget these things, we forget that there are resources online that could cause others to know what we do on the network, such as cookies, which are files that track our online activities. I insist: if someone do not want something known, do not do it on the internet because this is a public place first.

What is missing is more information and obligations of business in an ethical manner to warn us that when, for example, bought a book on Amazon, our preferences as consumers of books are recorded and may be known and shared by others.

The use of digital devices opens our personal affairs to the scrutiny of others. That is a reality. Should be regulated, and it is, but inadequately, traffic should be prohibited personal data (unless authorized people). It is part of the new rules put in place, and by Mexican consumers do not always care. Admittedly often neglected to look at the small print of contracts, which tell us that our data can be used to sell our homes or electronic data.

AR: In the book are shocking figures about the information flowing, the existing number of pages exceeds the amazing thing. Making a comparison, Ortega y Gasset said that should have librarians that will guide readers through the books that really are worth it. In several parts of the book do you pronounce "charts" so that the Internet may not go lost. Already have made these "letters" that allow us to reach the information that is worth, or how would you do?

RTD: Yes On one hand there are people with some expertise in any field who knows him, knows what is on the Internet, and there are specialized sites for those who want to access a specific field of knowledge.

other hand, more and more a feeling of mutual support that is maintained on the internet and is spreading the tendency to label the contents, place the tags that users or visitors of a site lists a few favorite sites people, and are useful for those who share the tastes and interests of that person knows that there is something interesting.

are guides initial, but have the risk that can popularize the culture more commercial or more linked to what is popular at the time, to the detriment of other content. But this is part of the opening of internet to the society, like books and movies.

AR: On the speed with which changes the page, in the amount of lies that circulate in Internet, is, to some extent, also an obstacle to knowledge?

RTD: I see that on one hand the proliferation of quackery, lies and intolerance is not the fault of the Internet, which is an instrument. The deception and ignorance and there, and inevitably find a mechanism natural spread via the Internet, especially if there are intolerant and ignorant to those who like to spread their prejudice and ignorance.

When people believe that there is information of any kind, which by virtue of being online is true, it is wrong. It is as if we believe it's true what they say in the magazines sold at newsstands, or what we hear in a conversation in a cafe or subway. People say the same rumor from person to person online.

Then you have to do is learn to distinguish the real from what is not, like the Internet than life offline. The big advantage is that online occurs as in the case of Wikipedia: an encyclopedia created by people who are on the internet and he wants to contribute, because it has the desire to put a definition here. You can brew many lies and mistakes, but there is a mechanism for the same people, when you find a mistake, we can amend.

Did I believe the data that is in the Wikipedia? Well, you have to compare it with another source, online or at the nearest library. But in general is a formidable tool, never before has there been as many definitions of the most varied in any encyclopedia in the history of the world.

AR: In Internet also noteworthy that facilitated the interaction. "This has increased the political and social participation of citizens in real life, which has more voters and more associations, for example? RTD

I have no data to say if more people in the parties or the NGOs. What I can say without doubt is that society organizations and policies that already existed on the Internet have a space to spread, to link its members with an efficiency not previously had, and is also a space for link between them. The international presence of Ong's now has a resource not previously available.

The possibility that people know what they say these groups today is higher. In fact, sites of political parties rather than to convince someone to vote for a candidate, is for those who want information (journalists, for example) have it easily.

There may be forms of participation that did not exist, and are a kind of substitute (not always full) of old forms of participation. Before-and my own touch me, "when you sympathize with a political party and wanted to support, doing graffiti on a wall, handing out leaflets in the street, and sometimes the police chasing us. Today there are who resign themselves to their form of activism is the reproduction of emails, or the hacking of a page we do not like. Sometimes some people get to have forms of participation as bounded to the Internet, and especially so limited to speak in front of and become aware that forms very cathartic and perhaps politically ineffective.

AR: The book also speaks of democratic political use of the network, there are projects in Europe that could become a transnational democracy. In this direction there are also people who think that people can vote on all matters, so that representative democracy would be dissolved. Is it possible to make this happen with the Internet?, Is that it seems desirable? RTD

I do not know if desirable, is possible, yes, but not today. Is it useful? Partly yes, mostly because the internet can serve to distance people from voting at some distant time. But I must say that so far there is no secure mechanism for voting electronically, there are many companies, in the U.S. and Britain, especially that are committed to it as a paradigm of participation. But today there is no single system to ensure full reliability.

There are two: one through the Internet, which are more vulnerable to interference, and other electronic devices that are linked to networks that have nothing to do with internet, but even in them there is no full mechanism of verification of the identity of the voter. The most advanced being investigated is the identification through the eye iris, this will soon prosper not because of anything related to elections, but by the need to identify people and monitor their activities to the spread of terrorism. Just a European Union program to facilitate the investigation and identification through the iris of eye-and fingerprints, but they are falsifiable, and security when it prospers will link to vote.

Internet not only serves to distance express an opinion on anything; also serves to discuss. The big risk is that we make Internet a place where only express our feelings or our aversion to any issue. Online and in real life there is a huge amount of nuances between the Yes and No, and just the discussion of these nuances is what can lead to the recognition that society is a very rich, very versatile and not plural is only those who are white or black. For that would have to serve, but we run the risk that the information society through the internet is a concise message environment, elaborate opinions, popular or unpopular characters, from people who say Yes or No. It depends on us , users of the information society make it a very rich environment, able to rescue that is really colorful and off-line.

AR: You talk about the citizenship of the information society. Citizenship implies rights and duties, what are the citizens of the network?

RTD: First and foremost the right to fully utilize the resources. For example, if your connection is only directly, we have a very poor connection, if you have a broadband connection, then we have ability to go fast music, watch movies with higher quality. This is an initial right that we are not recognized; Mexico today in the quality of internet connection is much more expensive than in European countries, Japan, the United States or Canada. We are at a disadvantage. People who want to have a quality connection to us is very expensive in a country where wages are much lower.

Secondly, the rights have to do with the possibility to express themselves whether the right to expression as I have vetoed, for example if I lived in China, could not put everything online that I can freely put in Mexico Argentina or Brazil.

A third duty is to interact with others and have access to all sites.

About obligations: more beyond what the laws say, my obligation is the recognition of others, and respect for the contents, ideas, points of view of others, with no possibility of intolerance that allows us to disagree when we lie or data that we believe we can compare or verify.

rights standards and the Internet finally reduced to the same society that is in offline.

AR: In conclusion, I ask you this: what are the two great opportunities that lie ahead to open the information society and its backbone-internet-and what are the two main risks also bring with them?

RTD: Two great opportunities: knowledge and interaction. On the Internet we can find a lot of information that only going to count for something when we know appropriate it and produce it as well as a foundation to design a new mathematical paradigm for knowing how to prepare a good coffee. We can appropriate it in our context, our needs and our capabilities.

The other big advantage is the possibility of recognizing a meeting internet. Like you and I are talking here, we can do in a chat, email or by phone, we are the same as talking in person, but it is a useful substitute in many cases. The

two disadvantages: the possibility of getting lost in the vast ocean of information, and believe that all information is useful to us, or not knowing what to choose, not having an orientation to discriminate within it, to saturate both information that we believe animosity towards it. Is to draw.

The other risk is the reproduction of digital exclusion, as we do not have this resource available to everyone or to most people, and privileged that we can navigate at high speeds more easily appropriated this content and creating own, and being marginalized many of them have the opportunities and inequalities already suffering, increase that results from this technological exclusion.

Can You Buy A Claddagh Ring For A Best Friend

science to understand everyday life. Interview with Diego Golombek


Science to understand everyday life
Diego Golombek Interview with Ariel Ruiz Mondragón



From the beginning, man has sought to understand the world and explain the phenomena around him, from his experiences most mundane to the workings of the universe. For this intellect was refined to result in more complete tool that has allowed to satisfy their curiosity in the most serious and stronger: science.

Science tries to explain not only the great mysteries of life and the cosmos, but also is used to know and understand routine aspects that some may seem trivial because of its lack or anything extraordinary. But even in that aspect its products are highly appreciated.

On some of these topics (sex, love, cooking and culinary derivatives) Diego Golombek published last year in Buenos Aires a couple of fun volumes: Sex, drugs and biology (and a bit of rock and roll) , and, in tandem with Paul Schwarzbaum, third edition, revised and augmented scientific Cook. When science gets in the kitchen , both books published by Siglo XXI Editores Argentina and Editorial Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. About

issues on which both books deal chatted with the author: the state of the popularization of science in Latin America, the relationship of science and large industries, the contribution of science in the fight against discrimination, the effects of love on scientists, the possible manipulation of human reproductive performance, culinary transformations caused by synthetic chemicals and changes in matters of sex, love and cooking has led to the scientific-technological revolution. Golombek

a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires and professor at the Universidad Nacional de Quilmes. Is a major American popularizers of science, for which she has won awards including the Nobel Konex, National Science Award B. Houssay Award, best book of Education 2005 (awarded by the Foundation Book) and the Ig Nobel Prize (awarded by Harvard University). He is currently director of the library books "that barks Science, published by Siglo XXI Editores.

Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why publish these books?, Why edit the collection "Science barking?

Diego Golombek (DG): The belief that science is science when communicating, when account is made, and consider the dissemination of science as a part of the profession. One such scientist has to do experiments, find results, reports, publications, training students, but also has to have this for many reasons.

One simple reason is that scientists are in the public system: we pay with taxes, and is as accountable. Some vaccines are accountable inventing or making issues that go directly to the public, others can be accountable by counting the kitchen of science: how things are handled in science, in accessible language without losing the rigor.

Another reason is quite hedonistic, me and the authors of the collection will cause much pleasure to write and fun to have (I hope readers in the fun). It's a slightly more selfish reason, but no less valid: we like it and cause us pleasure.

AR: Yes, and besides, as you say, science can become a useless knowledge if not disclosed.

DG: Exactly.

AR: You know enough of popularization of science not only in Argentina but also in Latin America. When you make the metaphor with Don Quixote, say that science barks does not bite but rides. In this regard, and in general terms, how he rides today the release of science in Latin America, both in academic circles and in the media?

DG: In absolute terms, more or less, the poor see and we lack a lot. In relative terms, given to think and be optimistic, because it really has changed much in recent years in our countries. I think Argentina and Mexico are good examples.

For various reasons the situation has changed, because scientists have changed their stance on disclosure and no longer considered just a waste of time, but they think it's important to have what they do, especially the younger generation scientists.

On the other hand, the media see that there is interest in this disclosure, including commercial interest, for there can make a supplement or a TV show, and people see it.

The third point is that the public has realized that it interests you. There was a hidden demand, unknown, both for those who could produce the information to those who receive it. Then the offer was growing while demand. That's pretty interesting.

Either way there is much to do, many outstanding efforts to make scientists more interested in this, to professionalize the popularization of science. This is quite important in Mexico, because here are professional communicators, while in other parts of Latin America do not exist. Also there are in Brazil, in Argentina there are science journalists, not necessarily professional communicators.

Then I see two things: we need much, but today there is much about what was a few years ago, which provides for optimism.

AR: Now the conversation approaches to the books. Science applies to everyday issues very, such as sex, love and cooking. Sex has a lot to do with beauty, of course. Does science have helped in some way, to shape and forge the tastes of the people?

DG: I do not know if you model, but to understand them, which is fascinating because it is finally understand ourselves, we understand why something is attractive, pleasant or unpleasant. We tend to think that this is a matter almost purely cultural or social, there are fashions, which we model clothes or gateway, and pictorial models, art and even in the kitchen, in which science has little to say.

Admittedly, there is much social and cultural about it, but the interesting thing is that there is plenty of vaccine, much can explain another kind of science. For example, the theme of the attraction of a man and a woman one might think: "I like it because it looks like an actress I like." But there are other issues that support strictly biological attraction, and has to do with evolution. The phenomena that are sexually attractive are the phenomena that ultimately lead to evolutionary mandate to partner with someone and make a couple to have children, which is what you want any bugs that crawl walk or fly, including humans. Then

signals certain proportions in the body, certain features of the face, symmetry, signs of physical force in the male, etc., are signals that the brain unconsciously sees and interprets as beautiful, because they are signals that increase likely to have a couple and have healthy children. This is what occurs in the common of all nature, what's fascinating is that humans bring a bit of that and we can have an attraction beyond reproductive purposes, which does not occur in nature. We get to fall in love, and you will know what good is love in evolutionary terms, because people fall in love and not having children goes around and following long.

There are many hypotheses, one can speculate that you fall in love and is a partner in a stable manner, so that children will grow healthier and more secure, and therefore are more likely to, in turn, reproduced and have children, that's what he wants evolution. Then it

different perspective on things every day, one that we are not accustomed to. I think there science can give us great satisfaction because of the possibility of knowing, to better interpret and even entertain me with these questions ourselves with things that happen to us all the time.

AR: In that sense I also interested to see how science has cooperated closely with the industry only indirectly, as in the case you mention: Pasteur, Kellog, Sawyer. Something very interesting is the matter of pheromones. How has the relationship of science with major industries?

DG: Very complicated. If you're going to examples of pharmaceutical industry, the relationship is very complicated and there are serious conflicts. There are conflicts in which certain common standards in public science are not in corporate science, where there are secrets, and pursued a commercial purpose, may pursue heal humanity, but they want to sell remedies. Public science should have no secrets, no permanent conflicts with this, but at the same time and in the right direction, one can feed the other and vice versa. Then

good science policy is one that promotes genuine collaboration within an ethical framework, including basic science and applied science (I'm speaking particularly of pharmaceutical examples.)

On the other hand, is also the human engine of development, not just knowledge per se . In our countries is very important and very valid that there is what is known as basic science, which is know: I have questions because I know the world, I want to rock the world with questions and see what he says. That needs to be supported because the possibilities that arise and applications development.

At the same time to encourage research in specific areas of regional problems such as diseases, energy and food issues, to respond to the quality of life of people.

So it's a delicate balance is not always true in the best way. Finally is a matter of science policy, to allocate resources, to decide priorities without ignoring other things to do. But we must establish some priorities for each government and scientific societies should work together to be the best for each country.

AR: In Sex, drugs and biology address the controversial nature versus culture, that is the question that runs through the book. I like the story of the director of an English university who said that men were more suitable for mathematics and science, and women to the kitchen ...

DG: The president of Harvard, Lawrence H. Summers.

AR: And recently a Nobel laureate said that blacks are less intelligent ...

DG: Yes, James Watson. Look, luckily they both had to resign, which he still speaks well of the scientific society. All the people who say such silly things, such stupidities, has to resign.

AR: Do you think science is working to combat these trends discriminatory?

DG: Yeah, no doubt. Science is a rational activity that should not be mixed with issues of discrimination, for the reason you do not agree with it. If we consider science as an adventure of thinking and asking questions, anyone who wants to undertake it, is welcome to train.

discrimination on any basis other than the genuine work of smart people who want to strive and advance the science, it is quackery. While science is a human activity, which is not exempt from all human sins of jealousy, competition, careerism, even fraud, these are exceptions. What motivates scientists is still increasing knowledge, with all those condiments inherent in any human activity.

Thus, the discrimination is on its side, and the one that says "blacks are less intelligent", the next day has to give, since it does not how to argue, that to talk about race directly, you have to give up, because the human genome project has shown that there are no races, those who speak of genetic differences between women and men who make few are suitable for one thing and another to another, has to leave because this is not true: they are different and complementary women and men, and fortunately the world is like.

AR: From what you say I was very interested in fighting the myths that you do in your books (but also some that seem to point out that myths are not, as in the example of water that explodes in the microwave). I think that's one of the key battles that have to give the popularization of science: the struggle against the myths and pseudoscience. How can you distinguish a scientific truth of quackery, which is presented to us many times as a result of scientific work?

DG: Science is based on evidence, and based on quackery quacks, in other words. So the important thing is knowing how to find and interpret such evidence supporting certain statements. It seems very rich popular culture has myths, some are true and others not. I find it amusing that science gets in some of them to try to prove or disprove, as an example is that of overheating that can occur from water in the microwave, and indeed it can give a very sharp exothermic reaction which springing up and people can burn.

Other myths: our grandmothers probably did the merengue, the whites whipped in copper pots, because they are better. This has been demonstrated by the chemical, a reaction between copper and albumin makes the meringue more stable.

Some other myths are completely fictitious, and one who loves to cook is that for the meat is juicy in the oven, seal (ie sudden warming in a skillet or on a griddle, supposedly to to close the pores of the meat surface and the water is inside.) This is a lie, it is not true because the meat does not have pores, so there is nothing to close, and then the water will escape the same way. What happens is that the meat will be tastier, and therefore to put in your mouth you to salivate over and you'll seem more juicy.

Then this role of science as "myth collapses or supports, myths, it is crucial, it is very entertaining. That's one way to demonstrate what we want to do with the collection: that science have not only in laboratories, in academia, not only draws on scientific cranks to which nobody understands anything, but the questions you you do in what happens to you in everyday life constantly, either in the kitchen, bath, bed, in the Metro. That's what we want achieve with this collection.

AR: Addressing another issue: Do not you think it has negative effects on scientific love, about people who engage in thought? I say this as one of the books talk about the reactions of the neurochemistry of the brain and you say that inhibit certain brain regions, including one dedicated to critical thinking.

DG: Of course, in the state of love, which is the initial state, when really you're a different person, those first weeks when you are madly in love with someone, you will become another person, one who loses his reasoning ability, it loses some of its capacity care, can not choose correctly. This is supported by laboratory tests in which subjects carried who claims to be in love, as proven because they present a picture of the person they are in love, and something comes on in the brain differently than if they present a picture of anyone else.

To those people who are in state of love, indeed fare poorly when they do tests of cognition, memory-making. But at the same time, scientists are human and hopefully fall in love and it lasts the state of love as well as any other. In that state they will very well the experiments, but are perks the trade.

AR: In the book about sex make several comparisons between human beings and many animals, from the spider to the bonobo. In matters of sex and love, is there some characteristic that distinguishes human beings from other animals?

DG: The truth of all, being absolute, the most important thing is to consider that humans are animals like any other. If we start to spin finer culture, apparently, is a human phenomenon: we could not talk about animal culture (although it is very difficult to define the concept of culture), although animal communication, there is language, there are some very complex behaviors someone might interpret as a culture. Within

reproductive behavior, it seems that humans have certain characteristics that make them unique. For example, it's what we talked about earlier: attraction rather than a reproductive phenomenon that does not exist or does not tend to exist in nature. Monogamy, though not universal among humans (we know not), is quite specific among humans. There are also examples in nature, but are a minority.

Another feature that distinguishes humans from other species is that their reproductive behavior escapes the rules of fertility. Can not be attracted to the female to a male or beyond a reproductive purpose. For example, the human female has a menstrual cycle of 28 days, three of which are fertile. But we do not get together with human only in those days: we have attraction and sex at other times of the cycle, and even outside the ring. May even prove attractive a woman is past menopause. That's pretty unique to humans.

Similarly, speaking of women's menstrual cycle, something we share with other animals, many animals show female sexual receptivity, show that they are fertile, change color, they emit certain smells, put in certain positions. The human, no, you do not walk down the street saying "This woman must be ovulating, that menstruating, those other so and so." One does not realize if they are fertile, but unaware of the time there are signs of ovulation, such as "unconscious odors" (as quotes, as they are not smell because they are not so aware), as called pheromones . A very interesting experiment is that if one measures, using methods very precise and small, left and right sides of women, is little more symmetrical at the time of ovulation, and the symmetry is subconsciously understood as something more attractive. Therefore, if it is beyond the mandate of the appeal of pure play, there are also signs that the attraction is greatest in reproductive times.

AR: Near the end this book where you talk about rock stars, explain that the book seeks to understand some of the most basic issues that shape us, such as love and sex. But what dangers can get to run with a full understanding of reproductive performance and even their possible manipulation? We also ask the question even in terms of bioethics.

DG: In principle I absolutely none because I understand that never finished. Subjectivity is what more we represent, and if science is getting into the subjectivity in the study of consciousness, the biological basis of morality, the study of thought (that is messing with our subjectivity), there is something there that is beyond science, and fortunately so. There is a mystery that I believe will remain so because we will continue to be subjective and entities in constant change.

On the other hand, is a matter of orders of organization, hierarchical orders: we are trying to understand a very complex command like us, for ourselves. Our brain is the tool to understand our brain. Something makes a noise there, because to understand a need microscopes microscopic cell, we have no brain Macroscope to understand, but every time we know better.

should be noted that there is a position that has never been lost in the history and present: a position, perhaps somewhat conservative, fear of progress. There was a group in England, the Luddites, named after Ned Ludd, who was a guy who was afraid to progress because it would completely dehumanize. This attitude is perfectly normal and quite common in society. In surveys of public perception of science in general are questions of how much to support science, if science is used to help (say it is wonderful), and immediately makes another: no is that science also has its risks, is to dehumanize us and we will become machines? Then, the same people who said science was wonderful, says yes. We have very clear about the role of science.

However, science as the adventure of knowing, of which we are speaking, is wonderful. Some people think that knowing poetic phenomena, knowledge of nature, knowing a sunset, knowing the stars, take away poetry, take away beauty. I think it's quite the opposite: the knowledge adds beauty, knowing how the world, we know ourselves adds beauty and also adds it to the world. Back to a phenomenon known universe, and not a phenomenon that we are distressed because it is unknown.

the beginning (and this is not mine, but Marcelino Cereijido) the evolutionary force of anguish against the unknown is great because it makes us invent things to know: inventing light to know the dark. That takes you to learn more and more, it can not frighten us because that would stop the progress, which is impossible. In this sense I am quite positivist positivism but is a bit dated at this point, besides that great wars have ended relativists, although they still exist, especially from certain schools of social sciences to discuss reality itself. There are things that if you do science, you can not put into question: there is actually no data. If you ask you data to nature's given you, these data are unique. Obviously the science as human activity is an activity of interpretation, and there we have to fight among themselves and discuss, and meanwhile, the phenomena of postmodernism and relativism ends have nothing to do with science.

AR: It seems very complete description of the provision of food science Cook, and very funny. Have you thought about delving beyond the preparation of food, that food effects have on health? There is also the issue of eating habits, I think.

DG: The question is perfect, and that is purposely not in the book because we are specialists in scientific cooking but nothing in nutrition. This is an established discipline and good literature. We did not want to get into that because I do not know about that.

's basically reinterpreting existing texts, and we're not involved with nutrition. Also, get the nutrition and health topics of food in the style we want the library has, the more solemn again. So we wanted to chemistry, physics, biology and everyday cooking. Maybe at some time in the library has a book on nutrition for someone who can handle the subject well. But education needs to be done on this subject I have no doubt.

AR: There is a part of the book where you talk about sweeteners, synthetic substances, sodium cyclamate, for example. You could also mention to GM. Do you think these new substances and cultures to change the kitchen?

DG: It's not the same to talk about issues synthetic sweeteners such as certain that GM food. These are exactly alike, and could not recognize nutritionally non-GM food. Basically this is an impressive advance of biotechnology, with some care should be encouraged and valued for what it is, is allowing relatively poor regions of the planet may have crops as they had never dreamed, in addition to pest control. You can not distinguish them from non-transgenic, unless the object of what you add to a plant or animal that is something nutritional, for example, you want to have more vitamins, or you want to milk a cow produces a hormone growth, and there you are going to distinguish itself for the better. Welcome be the GM.

In the case of foods, condiments or more synthetic, the situation is different: yes change the way to cook, how to approach a culinary phenomenon. The issue of sweetening is complicated, because social influences: the look that we have about ourselves and our body also influences an evolutionary question. Why is there an obesity epidemic in the world? Because we are not prepared for the diet we have. We are all prepared to live in the forest, the jungle, in caves, so that cost us long to find an energy source rich in carbohydrates, sugar. We are ready to have every so often we catch a mammoth and this month we gorge, and then not knowing when we can have another type of food. For this possibility we waste now, to open the fridge and eat ice cream with lots of sugar, our bodies are not evolutionarily adapted and do not know driving. The result of this is obesity. Then
sweeteners
respond a bit to it: a getting used to certain tastes that historically did not exist, so that now have serious nutritional problems that can lead to very serious illness such as obesity, then had to make some replacements synthetic way that was not so serious. And then the sweeteners, which have their own problems and have bad press. But to have problems with them you should eat very high doses of saccharin, aspartame and cyclamate, would need take you one hundred cans of Coca Cola light .

AR: Finally, how have changed sex, love, cooking, which has brought us the scientific-technological revolution?

DG: There are definitely changes. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, centuries of technological advance (rather than scientific) enormous, unprecedented and far greater than all the preceding centuries. This influenced the comfort, quality of life, influenced reduce social inequality (though not resolved, we have particular problems in our countries) has helped increase life expectancy, improve food and so on.

Possibly the greatest impact of technology on everyday life that has changed is the sense of time. Everything happens faster, we are in a hurry (especially in city life, but also in the field occurs) in the media that bombard us constantly, and so on. All that has changed the time we dedicate to various activities, from the interpersonal to professional work, leisure, sleep and wakefulness. This has the result in tasks such as cooking or passionate relationships, partner relationships, the time we dedicate to the love and affection, which is complicated by other issues that demand our attention.

Again: we are not developmentally ready for that so many stimuli bombarding us constantly. We are prepared to care that we do not eat, set up something to eat, ride a partner with whom to be happy and have kids. Suddenly the technology forces us to deal with a huge amount of stimulation that did not exist. That changes the direction of time, which changes throughout the rest of our lives: cooking, love, sex, communications, language, sleep, work, leisure.

So yes, definitely science and technology are probably inevitable that side effect. I think in the balance, the benefits of science and technology so greatly outweigh their risks and their problems, there is no question of saying "we must stop a little with the scientific and technological advance" because there are still many problems to solve.