A Timely Reminder of the Failures of Europe’s Political Leaders

Next Sunday, we will once again move the clocks forward by one hour. This was reported by Uutissuomalainen, according to which “the proposal to end clock changes is still awaiting consideration by the EU Council. Not all member states have formed their positions.”

The article also stated that “the European Commission wants to promote the abolition of the daylight saving time directive. Commissioner for Sustainable Transport and Tourism Apóstolos Tzitzikostas launched an evaluation in February to examine the EU-wide impacts of clock changes.”

The report is expected to be completed by the end of the year, the Ministry of Transport and Communications said in a press release. After that, the Commission will assess further actions.

* * *

In this respect, it is rather remarkable that this is by no means a new issue. As I myself wrote already six years ago, “perhaps an even more illustrative example of the EU’s inability to make decisions was once again highlighted last night. We still had to move the hands of the clock, even though a majority of EU citizens would like to end it and both the Commission and Parliament have already made decisions on the matter.”

And that is not all, because as much as eleven and a half years ago I could state that “studies have shown that changing the clocks is harmful overall, and therefore the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare has recommended abandoning the practice.” This has not changed over the years, as a scientific review article published last year found that “the transition to daylight saving time was associated with harmful effects ranging from reduced sleep duration and quality to increased sleepiness.”

* * *

Therefore, it is worth repeating once again the fact that this endless clock-changing farce is likely to weaken people’s faith and trust in the European Union—if it has not already made it a laughing stock. And what is worse, year after year it shows ever more clearly that this is not merely about people’s feelings but about harsh reality.

Indeed, the clock-changing farce undeniably demonstrates the shocking incompetence of our continent’s leaders, which is undoubtedly one reason why we have fallen behind the United States both economically and militarily, as the striking chart of GDP development below clearly shows.

Unfortunately, clock changes and economic problems are not the only areas in which European leaders have failed. At the same time, they have also managed to fill many member states with welfare migrants from developing countries—while the birth rate of the native population has dropped dramatically.

European politicians have also succeeded in weakening the continent’s military capability to such an extent that Russia has been able to wage its war in Ukraine for years without the EU being able to intervene. And even worse, they have encouraged the U.S. president to question the usefulness of NATO—developments that could ultimately lead to the loss of Europe’s future and the way of life of its people.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness
Is the EU a Real Player in World Politics—or Just a Paper Tiger?
Changing the Clocks Reduces Trust in the European Union

Scientific community discriminates its youngsters

Recent research showed that scientific reports are more easily published if their authors are well known and respected scientists - e.g. Nobel laureates. The results reported by an Austrian group showed that only 23 percent of reviewer´s recommended rejection on manuscripts, when a prominent researcher was the only author shown, whereas 48 percent did so when authors were not known and 65 percent if the only author given was a little-known person. The evaluated manuscripts were the same for all three groups.

For me, as a well known and old scientist in my field, but also a supervisor of young talented students, the figures given above are just disgusting. That is because it shows the hurdles for success to be higher for young people. And even worse: the Austrian study seems to imply that old veterans might easily publish less important findings or even rubbish.

The scientific evaluation of manuscripts is basically simple. The peer reviewer of a scientific publication is another scientist in the same field, who is expected to check that the methodology is adequate to the problem and the evidence obtained is correctly interpreted. And that the findings add sufficiently to the scientific understanding of the topic addressed. 

The bias observed by Austrians obviously affect also funding organizations. If the applicant is well known and has a long record of scientific success, he probably gets funding much more likely to his applications than a young researcher with minor achievements. 

Therefore it was interesting to learn, that some funding organizations - such as the British Academy or the Swiss National Science Foundation - have taken advantage of a lottery in their funding decisions. That is, if several project proposals are very close to each others - but there is not enough money to fund all - a lottery will be used to select the ones getting funded.

That should be beneficial to the regeneration of scientific community, and provide young innovative researchers better chances to get funded. After saying that, even this kind of a lottery will not provide equal chances to youngsters, but at least it would reduce the gap to us - the veterans already going towards the sunset of our brilliance. 

All in all, I suggest that at least part of the European Union research funding would implement lottery in its research funding process. For example, in the Framework Programs for applied research - where application process often has two rounds of evaluation - the second round including only top applications rated by evaluators, could be replaced by a lottery. 

And nationally, I would be happy to see Academy of Finland funding to be partly replaced by a lottery. The principle could be simple: in the first step, all applications rated as "outstanding" by expert panels would be provided funding, and thereafter the lottery would be used - instead of the Research Councils - to pick up proposals to be funded from applications rated by the expert panels up to a level of "excellent". 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive 
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?
Facts, US Supreme Court and the case of Roe v. Wade