UNIVERSITY OFGOTHENBURG

n u m b e r 3 | m ay 2 0 1 1

International perspectives

Vice-Chancellor: It’s a big step forward news 4

t h e n ew o rg a n I sat I o n s m a l l B U t g r e at B e l I e f Vs k n ow I n g

oral Biochemistry got the highest graden ew s 8

lars-Johan erkell fights on the Internetnews 10

anne orford, Professor of International law, admires Dag hammarskjöld 12

nyheternotIser

2 g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1

Reg.nr: 3750M

Reg.nr: S-000256

words from Vice- chancellor

from the editorial office

Maye d i t o r - i n c h i e f & p u b l i s h e rallan eriksson 031 - 786 10 21 allan.eriksson@gu.see d i t o r & d e p u t y p u b l i s h e reva Lundgren 031 - 786 10 81 eva.lundgren@gu.sep h o t o g r a p h y & r e p r o d u c t i o nJohan Wingborg 031 - 786 29 29 johan.wingborg@gu.seg r a p h i c d e s i g n & l ayo u tanders eurén björn S eriksson c o n t r i b u t i n g a u t h o r smagnus Petterssont r a n s l at i o nJanet Vesterlund p r o o f r e a d e rrobert Ohlson, Välskrivet i Göteborg

a d d r e s sGu Journal, university of Gothenburg box 100, 405 30 Gothenburg e - m a i lgu-journalen@gu.sei n t e r n e twww.gu-journalen.gu.sep r i n t i n gGeson Hylte Tryck i s s u e6 200 copiesi s s n 1402-9626i s s u e s7 issues/year. The next number will come on June 15th. l a s t d at e f o r t e x t smay, 25, 2011m at e r i a lGu Journal does not take respon-sibility for unsolicited material. The editorial department is responsible for unsigned material.

you are welcome to quote, but indicate the source.c h a n g e o f a d d r e s sInform the editorial department of a change of address in writing. c o V e r pa g eanne Orford, professor to the memory of Torgny Segerstedt.

Photo: Johan Wingborg

A journAl for the universit y of GothenburG’s employees

t h e i n sta l l at i o n o f professors took place a week ago. Installing and hon-ouring all new professors is a great time of celebration each year. It is an impor-tant part of the academic tradition that has its roots in medieval university life. Its framework is magnificent, with a procession, music and speeches, but the core is that the University manifests itself as a knowledge organisation – what we are and should be.

Our ideal is for the University to be an independent organisation that is founded on knowledge and strong val-ues. Our task is to create, communicate and develop knowledge. This must take place without control by political, ideo-logical or economic interests.

These thoughts were also the basis of the change work that I as Vice-chancellor was given the task of putting into action in the fall of 2009. The aim was to strengthen our core activities: research, education and cooperation. The package included the research eval-uation called RED10, a review of our educational programs, called BLUE11, and an investigation of a change in organisation.

t h e q u e st i o n t h at I know many people ask themselves is whether all this change is really necessary – and whether it is a little too much at one time. My judgement is that all of this

is absolutely necessary, even if there are many things that have to take place at the same time. For us to be able to keep our position as a university rich in tradition, with high quality in research and education, we simply have to be even better. Our world has changed; demands and expectations are different today than earlier.

w i t h s e V e r a l of the investigations now done and a decision from the Board that gives the direction for a new organisation, it is now time to proceed from words to action. The results of RED10 will be treated on all levels of the University. All deans will report their respective plans for measures to be taken at the faculty dialogues in May. We in central management are taking a number of measures and steps. Work has already begun to develop guidelines for a more unified web structure that will make it easier to find the depart-ments’ research activities. Preparations are also being made for a decision on international advertising to recruit researchers. A mentor program and some type of stimulation package to create greater mobility among teachers and students are also on their way.

t h e wo r k o n a c h a n g e in the organi-sation has started in earnest. A project organisation has been established,

with a large number of work groups and many participants. An important part of the work will be charting the University’s different support processes. The first large task is to develop a new work and delegation order to become valid as of January 1, 2012.

Finally, I would also like to name the important and exciting work on a vision that has been started. The aim is to develop a new, long-term strategy for the University of Gothenburg. The two semi-nars that have been held so far (keeping surveillance of our surrounding world and research) have also shown the great interest that exists in discussing ques-tions about the future of our University. That bodes well for the future.

pam fredman

Change founded on tradition and values

pho

to: h

ille

vi N

ag

el

t h e r e p o r t h i s e xc e l l e n c e has received a great deal of attention. Primarily it has had to do with how women are routinely treated unfairly with respect to investments in large research environments. There is much more in the report that is interesting, however. For example, we find that experts are appointed on arbitrary grounds and that the whole evaluation system has significant weaknesses. In complete conflict with was the inten-tion of the investments, that is, to let researchers work in peace and quiet, research funds have gone to groups that have already received a great deal. That means that a very large amount of money has been concentrated to a few groups, primarily at Lund University

and the Karolinska Institute. It is also remarkable that the money does not lead to more research.

t h e r e a r e m a n y examples of large research environments not automatically being better. What characterizes success-ful environments? Research has in fact been done on that. Sven Hemlin, active at the Gothenburg Research Institute, confirms that is it sooner small, creative groups that are successful. Characteristic of these environments is an open, respectful group climate with a good atmosphere and leadership that supports and gives feedback on ideas.

a n e n V i r o n m e n t of this kind is oral biochemistry, which got top grades in

the RED10 report. One of the small-est research groups at the University of Gothenburg has, despite limited resources, attained great success.

In this issue, Lars-Johan Erkell speaks about his research blog. He stubbornly fights against the ideas of intelligent design and divine creation, which are gaining ground particularly in the U.S.

We also report directly from the radio studio in Gothenburg, where Lasse Swahn has led the program Alltinget for 15 years. Meet the research-ers that answer listeners’ questions.

Keep sending us tips and ideas!

eVa lundgren & allan eriksson

the challenge is to make creative environments

contents

g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1 3

4 more power to the Departmentspam fredman hopes that will be the result of the re-organisation that the board has taken a deci-sion about.

5 artists re-organisingDean Anna lindal gives a progress report.

6 an investment that went wrongAlmost only older, male researchers got bigger grants. evaluators are now criticising the investment in large environments.

8 Best in the classoral biochemistry was one of four areas at the university of Gothen-burg to get the highest grade.

10 takes the fight on the internetideas about intelligent design and divine creation are spreading. lars johan erkell, zoophysio-logist, takes the fight on internet.

12 expert at justiceAnne orford from Australia questions the Western world’s view of international justice.

15 Play makes us humanA thesis that has received great attention around the world has to do with how people played 4 000 years ago. not so different from today.

158

10

12

5 6

4 g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1

news

small steps toward a new organisation

photo: hillevi NagelVice-Chancellor Pam Fredman hopes that the re-organization will lead to a stronger University.

despite that the board’s decision about a new organisation is considerably more careful than the original pro-posal, Vice-chancellor pam fredman still thinks that good progress is being made.

“now we’re talking about the univer-sity of gothenburg as one single seat of learning. that in itself is a success.”

the board supports the proposal for a new organisation. what are the most important parts of the new decision?

“Even if there won’t be a coordination of the administration in the way we thought at the beginning, we’re going to create an effective organisation where all work tasks are done on the right level. The admin-istration has to be suited to its purpose. Now we’re starting a larger charting of the entire administration.

We will keep the current division of fac-ulties for the time being but we emphasise that the faculties have to participate in the development of the whole University and take responsibility for the whole school.

Among the most important things is that we’ll get a new work and del-egation order that applies for the whole University.”

hasn’t the administration been evaluated earlier, such as in resko? why does it have to be done again?

“No, we’re not doing the same thing again. Resko was an inventory of what is done. Now we’re going to study on what levels different things are taken care of so that we get as effective a system as pos-sible. What support do the departments need? What should be on the faculty level or be centralised?”

how much do you think that the administration should be reduced?

“One clear ambition is to decrease the administration’s proportion of the total costs. It isn’t sure that we need to cut down administration but we should be able to win something by coordinating things. Then we can free more resources for the core activities.”

in what concrete way will the departments be able to decide more things themselves?

“It’s too early to say. But the depart-ments have complained for a long time about not having the authority that their

responsibilities require. That’s anyway where 80 to 90 per cent of our activities are. It means that each department has to have enough competence to take care of its tasks. The faculties have also realised that changes have to be made – several of them having carried out re-organisations on their own.”

what role do you think that the faculties should play?

“The faculties will focus on strategic planning, overall control and quality assur-ance in their areas.”

the idea from the beginning was to change the faculty structure. do you still think that that is necessary?

“Yes, absolutely. But changes have to take the time they need. My hope is that we’ll have a proposal ready at the latest by 2014.”

what role will the new education council have in relation to the departments?

“The departments have the responsibil-

ity for the educational programs but there has to be a coordination for the University as a whole. That will be the council’s task. All the faculties will be represented and new educational programs should be able to be developed here. But the council’s responsibility isn’t to busy itself with details. Most of the work will stay on the department level.”

what is the most important goal for the re-organisation?

“To coordinate so that we can become a more unified university. Now, there’s a collected view that didn’t exist before that this is important, which is a big step for-ward. There’s been much discussion and employees have shown great interest in the re-organisation, which has also increased engagement in the development of the University.”

many think that the board’s decision has be-come pretty watered down and in fact doesn’t mean any greater change. what do you think?

The important thing is that we start the process and know what direction we’re taking. But by 2014 we’ll have developed a new organisation.

g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1 5

news

artists re-organising

what do you think about the decision?

“It’s a typical bureau-cratic document with abstract words that could mean anything, plus a few signs of modern

trends (standardisation, transparency etc.). The document may well contain concrete plans and intentions but

they’re more hidden than they are explained. The decision will become real and meaningful through its in-terpretations, so we just have to wait and see how different faculties and departments will interpret it. Luckily enough, nothing works the way it’s planned…”

“We think it’s good to look over the organisa-tion and we hope it will strengthen the core ac-tivities. but it’s important

that the students still have a strong influence on all levels, particularly on

the department level. The depart-ment councils that are proposed, where students will be included, may not be degraded to only an advisory organ. They have to have a decision mandate. It’s a question that we’re going to watch very closely.”

“I’m satisfied that the process has been rolled back and that there aren’t any hasty or poorly thought out changes

on the agenda any more. but I see a risk that the collegiate control will be weakened, for example by getting rid of the department boards.”

“The Vice-chancellor deserves praise for the sensitivity she’s shown about the organisation’s wishes during the process

and for having handled things without prestige. On the department level

we’ll welcome clearer lines for support activities throughout the whole organisation, but we can worry about there being another period where a lot of energy and involvement will be taken up by the project organisation.”

pho

to: J

oh

aN

WiN

gb

or

g

Anna Lindal, Dean of the Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts.

“It is absolutely not a watered down proposal! When people say that, they think that we’re waiting to make a change in the faculty struc-ture. But the most important thing remains, namely creating a unified view about a unified university. We have to use the breadth that we have, in research and teaching, and create the educational programs that will be needed in the future. We have to ease the boundaries between different areas and disciplines.”

in what way will the new organisation promote the cooperation between differ-ent scientific areas that everyone wants?

“Strong disciplines are important. But meetings between different dis-ciplines are extremely significant. There was once a faculty of philoso-phy that covered almost everything. We have to be better at exploiting the breadth that the University has.”

the time plan for the project has been delayed. why?

“It takes time for things to be pro-cessed. The important thing is that we start the process and know what direction we’re taking. But by 2014 we’ll have developed a new organisa-tion.”

where do you think that the university of gothenburg will be in five years?

“I’m sure that the University of Gothenburg will be even more uni-fied then. Only a few years ago it would have been impossible even to agree that we are one single seat of learning. It’s a big step forward that we can talk now about a strong and unified university. But we live in a changing world where no structures will hold forever. We have to change and adapt ourselves to our world all the time.”

eVa lundgren & allan eriksson

why are you making a re-organisation?“We started the work on making

the change almost two years ago, long before the University, actually. We felt that better coordination was needed in the Faculty. The depart-ments are of different sizes and because of that they’re vulnerable and able to plan and act strategically to different extents. The analyses we made showed that we’ve been too introverted and focused on the present and that we need to raise our gaze and be better at coordinating. This led to Target Picture 2020, which is what our work is based on. When the Vice-chancellor started a re-organisation our project got new fuel and, for us, there’s also an ambition to strengthen our opportunity to act.”

about a hundred employees are involved in different work groups. how have you succeeded in creating such enthusiasm among the personnel?

“I don’t think you can force changes from the top. We sent out a notice of interest to everyone and we got over a hundred responses. I was dumbfounded. That there is such interest at a little faculty where many of the teachers only work half-time or even less. We created nine

work groups that consist of employ-ees at all the departments. The goal has been to create as close ties as possible.”

there are seven departments in the faculty now – what’s the goal?

“The main alternative that the faculty leadership recommends is two equally large departments, but it hasn’t been decided yet. There aren’t any plans right now to physi-cally move the activities. That would

There aren’t any plans right now to physically move the activities.

barbara czarniawska, proFeSSor oF bUSiNeSS eCoNoMiCS:

linn raninen, viCe ChairMaN oF the UNiverSitY oF gotheNbUrg’S StUDeNt UNioNS:

ulf bjereld, preFeCt at the DepartMeNt oF politiCal SCieNCe:

gunhild Vidén, preFeCt at the DepartMeNt oF laNgUage aND literatUre:

the faculty of fine, applied and performing arts is at the end of a large re-organisation. but no decisions have been made yet and the road is still open, accord-ing to dean anna lindal, who gu Journal spoke with.

be crazy. But to strengthen the departments, we might have to move part of the administration around. There’s also an exciting vision about creating a unified arts campus at Näckrosdammen – even though that’s a little farther in the future.”

what do you think is the greatest worry?“The greatest threat is that there

won’t be any real change, that we start up a bunch of processes that don’t lead anywhere. That’s a worry that I take very seriously. Many peo-ple put in extremely much time and work and there are high expecta-tions of course. But the organisation isn’t the goal. It’s rather a means for creating better conditions for educa-tion and research to develop in the future.”

at the same time, there is a strong tradi-tion of defending the special character of the departments and their need of autonomy – how can that be done in a new organisation that consists of only a few departments?

“That’s exactly the key question. I don’t have the answer today. It’s something we have to come to in our future work. I’m careful about defending the departments’ trade-marks, but their special character isn’t in the name, I think. For me, it’s important to have a strong feeling of belonging in a subject area. Only then can we get fruitful cooperation over boundaries.”

allan eriksson

6 g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1

news

“It’s a myth that peer review is a fair system

“ t h e o c e a n – m o r e t h a n J u st a s u r fac e ”. the university arranged a journalist seminar

with lectures by ten researchers from different faculties and research areas at the university of Gothenburg.

“the seminar went very well, overall above expectations. journalists have been calling for days. on the whole, a professional organisation. i

hope we can see more of this at the university of Gothenburg,” says professor Kerstin johannesson, who arranged the main parts of the seminar.

the seminar attracted ten journalists from national and local media and was mentioned in newspapers, radio and social media. it was the first in a series of recurrent seminars offering research news to journalists.

time for journalist meetings again

pho

to: C

ar

iNa

elM

äN

g

in the last decade almost 11 billion crowns have been invested in so called excellent environments. a limited num-ber of grants have been concentrated to a small number of researchers, almost all of them men.

“the judgements have been made using peer review. it’s a myth that it’s a fair system and it has to be exposed,” says ulf sandström.

i t wa s a g o o d t h o u g h t, according to Birgitta Jordansson, Prefect at the Department of Work Science, who led the work on the report His Excellence: on the billion crown investments in strong research environments (Hans Excellens: om miljard-satsningarna på starka forskningsmiljöer).

“Swedish researchers devote an unrea-sonable amount of time to applying for money that there isn’t even a particularly good chance that they’ll actually get. The thought behind the excellence investments was to give researchers a little peace and quiet: instead of hunting for small grants, the ones who are really good at their work should be able to give a number of years to one important project.”

t h e f i r st to m a k e an excellence invest-ment was the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research, which announced six six-year grants in the life sciences in 2002. A further three announcements came in the following years. Formas and Vinnova have also invested in strong environments, as has the Swedish Research Council, where Linnéstöden (Linné support) 2006 and 2008 meant many millions of crowns going to a total of 40 environments.

“It means that almost 11 billion crowns in the past ten years have gone to stra-tegic investments. Further support also comes from the different schools in the form of co-financing,” explains Birgitta Jordansson.

Something seems to have gone wrong, however. In spite of the fact that women make up 20 to 30 per cent of researchers in medicine and the natural sciences, and usually get grants in accordance with those numbers, they’ve only gotten 12.7 per cent of the excellence funds. Younger researchers have also been treated unfairly, and neither

international experience nor entrepre-neurship has given any advantages.

The geographic distribution is also remarkable: Lund University, which usually gets around 14 to 17 per cent of different grants, succeeded in getting 22 per cent of the excellence funds. The technical uni-versities, the Royal Institute of Technology and Chalmers, have also been favoured, as has the Karolinska Institute. The los-ers in the excellence investments are the University of Gothenburg and the smaller universities.

A number of researchers have also gotten more than one grant consisting of several mil-lion crowns. The amount of money that has been concen-trated to a certain number of researchers depends on how you count.

“If you put the leader of the research as the recipi-ent of funds, eight men and two women have succeeded in collecting 100 million crowns or more,” says Ulf Sandström, researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology and one of the authors of the report. “One man got a whopping 180 million crowns. You can also count another way and divide the funds equally between all the people in a project that has sent in an application. If you do it that way, you see that one researcher got five grants and four researchers got four grants each.”

a m o n g t h e 2 5 researchers that got the most money, ten work at the Karolinska Institute and six are in Lund. The only woman among them works in Uppsala.

“The point of the investments was for researchers to be able to work without being disturbed by having to hunt for funds. Several of the research leaders who have received support have anyway

continued to apply for funds and also been awarded further grants,” says Ulf Sandsröm.

The distribution of funds has been made by peer review. But at the Foundation for Strategic Research, there doesn’t seem to be any documentation of how experts were appointed, except that the Foundation’s director has had a great deal of influence in it. The Linné applica-tions to the Swedish Research Council were examined by international members

of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences. This has to do with

a collection of researchers with a mean age of over 70 years where only 8 per cent are women.

“It’s a myth that peer review is a fair system

that guarantees that only the best are awarded and it needs to

be exposed,” says Ulf Sandström. “What’s best, who decides that? For example, the international members of the Royal Academy of Sciences are there because some researcher in Sweden chose them. They aren’t impartial. When we compared the people who had judged the applica-tions with the people who had gotten grants we found that there was strong agreement with respect to merits and

publications. It doesn’t actually have to do with conflict of interest but that you

can only judge research that you yourself have knowledge in. Areas that lacked rep-resentation in the evaluation committees for some reason, maybe because they were

Crisis in the judgement system

unusual or posed some kind of challenge, went without money. It means that, when you choose who will be evaluating the applications, you choose at the same time what will be granted funding.”

“ i t i s n ’ t st r a n g e that evaluation commit-tees are often dominated by older men,”

illU

Str

atio

N: K

riS

tiN

a e

Dg

reN

NYb

or

g

g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1 7

The report His Excellence: on the billion crown investments in strong research environments (Hans Excellens: om mil­jardsatsningarna på starka forskningsmiljöer) was written at the commission of the Delegationen för jämställdhet i högskolan (Delegation for equality at universities). The authors are ulf Sandström, agnes Wold, birgitta Jordans-son, björn Ohlsson and Åsa Smedberg. The excellence investments that were investigated are: the Swedish

Foundation for Strategic research investments in 2003 and 2006, Vinnova’s investments in 2006 and 2007, the Swedish research Council’s investment in 2005, Linné support in 2006 and 2008 and the Institute excellence Center and berzelii Centra.

See also the national Secretariat for Gender research home page: www.genus.se

the report

p e r s o n s s o u g h t c o u r s e s or programs at the university of Gothenburg as their first

choice. that’s more than at any other university or college in sweden. the university of Gothen-burg holds its position as one of the most popular schools in the country.

36 000Vice-chancellor Pam Fredman welcomes all employees toSummer mingle in VasaparkenWednesday, June 15, 3:30 – 5:00 p.m.The University building at Vasaparken

Summer mingle in VaSaparken

says Birgitta Jordansson. “It takes time to evaluate applications, and active research-ers don’t have that much time. But what it leads to is that pioneer projects, often led by younger, female researchers, have greater difficulty getting support.

Large investments that involve a lot of money also seem to favour traditional research. They simply don’t dare to invest several million crowns on something that isn’t completely sure. We see the same problem here in Gothenburg now after the RED10 investigation. On the one hand, it seems to be fair to give more resources to the environments that have gotten the highest grades. On the other hand, they’re already at the top, so maybe we should invest instead in the ones that have the potential to be good.”

This uncertainty has led to the excel-lence investments being just one more example of what is called the Matteus effect: the one who gets a lot gets more.

“Researchers who have already gotten large grants have to be good, of course, and thus the chance is good that they get money the next time they apply for it,” explains Birgitta Jordansson. “In the end, the ones who have gotten most have so much money that they don’t have the time to use all of it, which can be seen in all the unused resources that schools have. At the same time, there are many younger researchers that never get the chance to be recognised for their merits so that they get larger grants.”

h aV e t h e i n V e st m e n t s despite this led to new and exciting research?

“We made a citation analysis to inves-tigate productivity before and after the grants,” says Birgitta Jordansson. “The analysis shows that the groups that got money haven’t been either more or less productive than the groups that didn’t get grants. Maybe that’s because grants are given to researchers who are already at the top and can’t get much better.”

The Swedish Research Council and the Foundation for Strategic Research will make evaluations of the excellence investments.

“That the ones who award the grants investigate themselves means that there’s a serious system error that can hardly increase credibility,” says Ulf Sandström. “What they’ll explain is how they’ve been able to lock future research in Sweden into things that are old instead of developing things that truly break new ground.”

eVa lundgren

what do you think about the excellence investments?

pär omlingpre vioUS geNer al DireC tor oF the SWeDiSh reSe arCh CoUNCil:

“The report is too categorical. They say for example that the projects that have gotten money haven’t been successful. They’ve arrived at that conclusion by making citation analyses that are not a good measure of quality and aren’t either generally accepted among researchers.

There’s also the misunderstanding that the excellence investments took money from other forms of support. On the contrary, the Council’s support of individual researchers during the same period increased. It’s a concern however that the investments require co-financing by the schools. but I think that the Council found a good solution: we count salaries and premises as co-financing, in other words, costs that the schools already have.

It’s true that women were treated unfairly in the first Linné application but we placed new demands in the second round on an equality plan that’s going to be evaluated now. It means that we granted funds then to the expected proportion of female researchers, that is, about 30 per cent.

In spite of my objections I think that the report takes up an important dis-cussion. We need a better system that gives attention to different problems in allocating funds, not least to the aspect of equality.”

rangnar nilssonreSe arCh aDviSer at the UNiver Sit Y oF gotheNbUrg:

“It isn’t wrong to invest in excellence but it gets problematic when all the financers suddenly do the same thing. It’s like a soccer game for four-year-olds where everyone runs to the ball. When a great deal of money goes to only a few projects, it also means that other projects go without funding, especially since the excellent investments also mean co-financing by the schools. If any of the investments of millions of crowns turn out to be wrong, it will be very wrong.

We also have to admit that collegial examination isn’t an error-free system. Just like all other human activities, it can go wrong. but it’s hard to find alternatives that don’t have their own weaknesses. The opposite, that someone without scientific compe-tence will make the choice, isn’t very attractive, and bibliometric models or other quantitative systems also require judgements about what should be counted and are limited by what can be counted or compared.

The most important thing is prob-ably to have different kinds of players on the field and not just one. you can’t just have offence, there has to be defence too.”

göran blomqvisthe aD oF riK SbaNKeNS JUbilieUMSFoND (r J):

”We have research programs of the same size as Linné support but we’ve worked in another way. We haven’t invited university management to give their suggestions but let the researchers themselves formulate their questions. Since we grant funds in the humanistic-social sciences fields, we haven’t had big problems finding female experts.

The composition of the judgement panel is one of the most important but also one of the most difficult tasks. It’s important to identify what experts there are and not simply take the ones in the closest vicinity. you have to give it time. The experts that rJ uses aren’t allowed to judge success by bibliom-etry or citations but have to judge the application’s scientific quality and significance.

It feels strange that large invest-ments are made in excellence without having made a consequence analysis beforehand. now a number of schools have landed large commitments that it’s doubtful whether they can manage. younger researchers and women have been treated unfairly and the question of what will be done to correct this is justified.”

news

nyheter

8 g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1

reD 10 | TexT: allan eriksson PHOTO: Johan wingborg

among the best in the world

Doctoral student Maha El Shahawy studies a culture of a tooth. From the left, Kris-tina Hallberg, research labora tory assistant, Pro fessor Anders Linde and Associate Profes-sor Amel Gritli-Linde.

oral biochemistry is one of four areas in which the university of gothenburg is at the absolute top in the world. behind this is a very small research group with limited resources. the explanation? hard work and curiosity.

t h e V i e w i s h a r d to beat. The Department of Oral Biochemistry has its offices on the eighth – the highest – floor of the build-ing that houses odontology. The black boxes with microscopes have just been put away in the seminar room after a course for students of dentistry. The light and well-equipped laboratories were planned 12 years ago specifically for this type of research.

“We work all day long every day with cell and tissue samples,” says Amel Gritli-Linde, who shows us around.

A few weeks have now gone since the RED10 report was presented and the staff has had a little time to digest the good news that Oral Biochemistry was given the highest grade of “outstanding” with respect to the quality of research and pro-duction.

According to the international evalu-ation group, this small unit published a number of scientific articles of exception-ally high quality in a very competitive area.

What the judges think is most impressive seems to be that the research group has succeeded in breaking free of traditional odontological research in order to carry out basic research and bioscience at a high level. This is normally found in research environments with a large number of employees and generously funded research laboratories.

how surprised were you about the red10 assessment?

“We knew that what we are doing is good. We always come out high in external assessments, but getting the top grade was a positive surprise,” says Anders Linde, who quickly points out that it has a great deal to do with his wife’s work. Still, they haven’t had time to celebrate.

“No, it’s just an ordinary day at work,” he says, laughing. “The prefect and a few others have called to give their congratula-tions but otherwise it’s been silent. We’re like a sparrow among cranes at odontol-ogy,” he continues. “Our unit is a little different compared with all the clinical research that’s carried out here.”

t h e r e s e a r c h g r o u p at Oral Biochemistry is very small. It consists of Associate Professor Amel Gritli-Linde and her hus-

band, Professor Anders Linde. The group also has two doctoral students, Maha El Shahawy and Claes-Göran Reibring, and research laboratory assistant Kristina Hallberg and curator Katarina Nobelius.

“To produce good research you have to like what you’re doing and think that it’s meaningful. But hard work is always behind it,” says Amel Gritli-Linde. “There aren’t any short-cuts. I think that the evaluation group was impressed that we carry out this type of research in an envi-ronment where almost everybody else works with clinical research and by our long-time external funding.”

The group has long worked across sub-ject boundaries and published articles in highly respected journals beyond the tradi-tional area of odonto logy.

“There are a large number of scientific journals for odontologic research, but if you do something about bone healing that’s really good, it’s also interesting in ortho pedics, for example.”

t h e r e s e a r c h g r o u p primarily studies how tissues in the oral cavity develop, what the mechanisms behind this are, and how different molecular signal systems work together. This signalling plays an important role in the earlier development

The absolutely most important is passion and tenacity, not giving up.

g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1 9

tough criticism some received top grades, others fairly good evaluations while some got pretty tough criticism. one depart-ment that didn’t come out well was the department of human and economic geography.

t h e oV e r a l l c o n c lu s i o n of the evalu-ation group of the Department’s current research is that it is “insufficient”. In terms of the organisation and the infra-structure of the research and cooperation it was judged as “poor”.

“We’ve taken in the criticism and start-ed a big improvement effort according to what was written,” says Prefect Anders Larsson, who feels that the results weren’t a complete surprise even if the tone in the

report was consider-ably tougher than he expected.

However, Anders Larsson doesn’t think that the report gives a fair picture. As in all investigations, only cer-tain things have been brought out.

“They only had access to a limited amount of informa-tion. Then they chose a time period during which we were going through a change of generations. I don’t want to shrug off blame, but it isn’t quite as dis-mal as the panel describes. Most of all we don’t recognise the judgement of contacts and cooperation. We have many interna-tional contacts that obviously aren’t seen in this type of evaluation.

One thing that didn’t get attention is that we’re at the top at the School of Economics of who brings in the most external funds per researcher.”

t h e e Va luato r s describe that the Department bears heavy instruction requirements.

“We have a lot of instruction, but it’s not because of economic resources from researcher,” says Anders Larsson. “But the balance between research and instruction has to be better. Of course we need more resources – but who doesn’t?”

The evaluation group is also critical to the division of the research into five areas, which they feel is fragmented.

“We’ve started work where we’ll see how the research environment should be organised to be more clear. But that it’s fragmented may be more an effect of how we chose to present ourselves.”

The panel group’s study visit lasted for 1.5 hours, which Anders Larsson thinks is too short a time to get a collective picture of the Department’s activities.

“My understanding was that they had already decided before they met us. That was a little frustrating.”

allan eriksson

Anders Larsson

of, for example, tooth enamel. If the signals don’t function in the way they should, the results can be defects such as cleft lip and palate or the development of tumours.

“It’s the same signalling mole-cules that you find in other organs, such as in the lungs, kidneys, heart and brain. By studying how cancer develops in the tongue, the things we detect can also be applied in other areas.”

Amel Gritli-Linde cites the French chemist and biologist Louis Pasteur: “chance favours the prepared mind.” By reading well beyond your own subject, you can see new contexts, as an example the fruit fly – all molecular geneti-cists’ favourite winged insect – that she’s studying at the moment. Many of its genes exist in closely related variants in other species such as mice and humans. A muta-tion in a particular gene in the fruit fly led to the cells beginning to behave like tumour cells, which the group had observed in mice with a similar molecular defect. How can this discovery contribute to solving the mystery of how cancer devel-ops in the mouth?

a lt h o u g h t h e g r o u p has an international reputation, it’s still been difficult to recruit researchers from other disciplines, according to Amel Gritli-Linde, who defended her doctoral thesis in France.

“It isn’t glamorous enough to come here, unfortunately. A lot of people have prejudices about what we do because we work in odonto-logy.”

When the Department adver-tised two doctoral candidate posi-tions a few years ago after the Swedish Research Council’s efforts for a national research school, they only received applications from dentists.

“We also wanted to attract a molecular biologist or biochem-ist, but it didn’t work. It isn’t at all so strictly steered by discipline in other countries,” says Anders Linde, who for instance has evalu-ated Dutch odontological research, where half of the doctoral students and many of the teachers come from other disciplines.

Laboratory work takes a great deal of time, and they have to work extra hard to keep up with other research groups around the world that have greater resources.

what are the most important success factors?

“The absolutely most important is passion and tenacity, not giving up. But it is just as important to treat colleagues with respect and

warmth, we’re like a family here and we take care of each other. Everybody makes the same contri-bution,” says Amel Gritli-Linde.

“It’s also the excitement,” she continues with large, sweeping movements. “All of us that are involved in an experiment are thrilled about the results. Even after ten failed attempts you hold out and make a new experiment the day after. The feeling when you succeed is indescribable.”

We return to Anders Linde’s office and discuss the recent focus on strong research environments, which Anders Linde thinks is rather unfortunate.

“Research policy today is con-trolled by a short-term perspective and too much politics. Luckily, the pendulum has started to swing back, but millions of crowns have

been invested in research groups that have already passed their day of glory. There’s very little new and creative research. There’s also an over-confidence in fast results since this type of research takes time.”

Amel Gritli-Linde interrupts, “There’s no evidence that big groups are more creative than small ones, but rather the opposite.”

They’re waiting with eager expectation for what results the red10 report will have.

“Considering how much time and money that’s been put into the assessment, it’s going to be inter-esting to see what conclusions the University draws from all of this. I hope that we’ll have the possibil-ity to make our group larger,” says Amel Gritli-Linde, thinking about the coming generation, that there will be people who can take over.

Above: Oral Biochemistry is an example of a particularly successful research environment, according to RED10. Anders Linde and Amel Gritli-Linde wonder now what will happen after the report.

Below: Culture of tooth tissue that has just been removed from the incubator.

1 0 g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1

talkIng wIth a researCherTexT: magnus pettersson | PHOTO: Johan wingborg

belief and knowing don’t have to conflict. but when religious forces launch ideas about intelligent design and deny proven theories about reality, it’s time to watch out.

“it’s a way to adapt the picture of reality to a religious doctrine,” says lars Johan erkell, zoophysiologist and writes a blog about creationism.

on your blog you criticize a belief in intelligent divine creation and argue for evolution theory. why is evolution theory a better descrip-

tion of reality?“Belief in divine creation and intelligent

design is actually not a description of real-ity, it’s a way to adapt the picture of reality to a religious doctrine. You use the Bible and then try to adapt reality to it and have to make enormous leaps to do that.”

is there anything in intelligent design that there’s a reason to believe in?

“The idea of intelligent design is based on the old teleological proof of god, it’s a way to explain the purposefulness of the world. The weakness in the explanation is that it doesn’t teach us anything about the world. It says: ’There was someone who created the world.’ But it doesn’t say how it happened, nothing about what laws or connections are valid in nature. Science

but in the atheistic debate that humanists carry on, for example, the tone can be fairly harsh sometimes, i think.

“Yes, it’s sort of a shame to connect atheism with evolution biology. I admire Richard Dawkins, but it’s a shame that he’s a strong representative of radical atheism at the same time that he brilliantly popu-larises evolution biology. You can get a rep-utation for being a god and belief-hostile atheist just because you’re a biologist. It’s two different debates. I consider myself an agnostic but in the eyes of a lot of people I’m still an ugly type.”

how great is the acceptance of creationism and intelligent design today?

“In the U.S. there’s great acceptance. I think that about half the population believes that god created man. But in Sweden the numbers are much lower. We’re one of the world’s most secularised countries.”

you’ve said that creationism can lead to a sus-picion of natural science. can it be dangerous in other ways?

“I actually don’t know how it is in Sweden, but in the U.S. it’s connected with a reactionary political movement. For example, there’s the Discovery Institute, a think tank that spreads ideas about intel-ligent design. They view materialism as the root of all evil, want people to return

H E F I G H T S FO R T H E E VO LU T I O n

I consider myself an agnostic but in the eyes of a lot of people I’m still an ugly type.

poses ‘how’ questions. Intelligent design instead answers the ‘why’ question: why do we exist?”

denying evolution theory and instead believing in god as an intelligent designer means a radi-cally different view than the view in modern sci-ence. aren’t you speaking to people who won’t listen when you blog about belief in intelligent divine creation?

“Both yes and no. There are people who have decided to believe in intelligent design – you don’t get to them. Then there are all the others, who play with possibili-ties back and forth. The important thing is to hold a civilised conversation. You can be pretty provoked by amateurs saying that 99.9 per cent of all the researchers in the world are idiots who haven’t under-stood the simplest things, things that they understand. If you try to hold a civilised conversation, you get reactions, and a few people who believe in divine creation have read the blog. Then a debate starts, not always a particularly cordial one, but factual, and in the long run it’s only the scientific side that benefits by it since we have the better arguments.”

do you have difficulty keeping your temper when you take up the debate?

“I don’t get upset very easily. But that has to do with me as a person, I was born under the sign of Libra…that shows a ridiculous agreement.”

g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1 1 1

it seems as though extreme islamism and the religious right, who can’t stand each other, can meet here.

“Yes, and they even work together. There is documented cooperation between the Turkish sect leader Harun Yahya and Christian creation-ists. He’s published a big, cost-free book, Atlas of Creation, and if you read it you see that the arguments are the same as the creationists’ – they have their common enemy in materi-alism.”

you wrote in an article, “the gaps in sci-ence allow plenty of room for people who like to think that there are spiritual influ-ences on our lives; the condition is just that the spiritual powers are sufficiently discreet”. but can you truly categorically differentiate belief from knowing?

“You can make a pretty good dis-tinction. Natural science always goes back to observations of nature, but believing is saying something is true because you feel it. Many creationists don’t make that distinction.”

can a person believe that god created the world and at the same time believe in evolution theory?

“Yes, you can believe that god created the world by natural laws and that he’s behind it and gets

H E F I G H T S FO R T H E E VO LU T I O n

lars Johan erkell

birthplace: Gothenburg

profession: Associate professor and university lecturer in zoophy-siology

age: 62

lives in: northern mölndal – within walking distance to work, incredibly luxurious

family: Wife, daughter and a portuguese water dog

interests: music (an amateur clari-nettist), philosophy, history, nature and hifi electronics

lars johan erkell and other employees at the Department of Zoology blogs about biology and intelligent divine creation at http://biologg.wordpress.com

to god and make science theistic. The first goal is evolution theory. They want the radical religious right to set the agenda and they want a society based on the Bible, a Christian god state. I have no desire to live in that kind of society. But I don’t think that Swedish creationists are of the same calibre. It’s primarily for scientific reasons that I keep up this debate against creationism.”

since the fall of the berlin wall, and even more after 9/11, you often hear about a return to religion. do you notice that as a natural scientist?

“I mostly meet students who have an interest in the natural sciences. But this debate that I’m involved in shows a re-awakening of religious values. Still, it isn’t religion that is the prob-lem – most religious people don’t have problems with natural science or evo-lution theory – it’s the fundamentalist forces that are of concern.”

are those forces advancing?“Yes, and it’s a result of conscious

efforts in the religious right in the U.S. Now they’ve gotten a beach-head in England. They’ve succeeded colos-sally well.”

involved now and again. Natural sci-ence isn’t exact or complete; there are tons of areas in life that open up for religion. But I don’t think you can share this older view that god watches every step.”

are there areas in the future where we can expect the conflict between belief and knowing to come to a head?

“It’s been happening since medi-eval times. From the beginning, reli-gion was a general explanation for the world that little by little has had to retreat. A debate that’s already going on is the question of man’s soul. In 1996 John Paul II accepted evolution theory as a well ground theory with respect to the body, but he said that we mustn’t touch the soul. The next question then is the human psyche, and there sociobiol-ogy and evolution psychology try to explain it on the basis of biology. And I don’t think that the church wants to reduce the soul to a psyche. There’s a conflict.”

1 2 g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1

ProfIle | TexT: eva lundgren PHOTO: Johan wingborg

defender of international law The un Security Council made a decision in favour of a no-fly zone over Libya on march 17. a few weeks later it was decided to send Swedish aircraft to Libya. Startling? actually not.

“The most remarkable thing about the decision is that no one thinks it’s remarkable,” says anne Orford. She is the newly appointed guest professor to the memory of Torgny Segerstedt.

e r n o r m a l p o s i t i o n is professor of international law at the Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne. But together with husband Andrew Robertson, also a law professor, and

their two sons, Anne Orford arrived at a spring-like Göteborg. We meet at Nya varvet, where the School of Economics, Business and Law made arrange-ments for an apartment next to the old military buildings from the 1700s overlooking the river. Before Andrew and the boys went back to Australia a few days ago, the family had the chance to inves-tigate the fort on Marstrand, take trips around the archipelago and visit a newly opened Liseberg.

Anne Orford will stay in Göteborg for a lit-tle while longer and then return for the period December to February. She’s already taken part in workshops and given lectures, for students of law and global studies. But when I ask whether her Australian perspective gives her a different view of world events, she doesn’t really think so.

“The idea that we’re so far away from everything is true in the sense that we are distant from centres of economic and political power. On the other hand, we’re close to New Guinea, Indonesia, Singapore and Fiji, for example. Distance can be important for seeing things in new ways, and to realise that North America and Europe don’t necessarily have to be thought of as the centre of the world.”

While she’s very honoured to be appointed to the guest professorship to the memory of Torgny Segerstedt, her current research in international law focuses on a number of other Swedish public intellectuals: Alva and Gunnar Myrdal and Dag Hammarskjöld.

a c h a p t e r o f h e r new book, International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect, deals with Dag Hammarskjöld. In spite of the fact that the book was written before the events in North Africa during the most recent weeks, it gives a background to what is happening now. To under-

stand the strangely unstrange resolution 1973 that gives the UN’s allied nations the right to bomb Libya, we have to go back to 1956, according to Anne Orford. It was also a time of crisis in North Africa. That was when the Egyptian president Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal, which caused an attack by Great Britain, France and Israel, who felt that their interests were threatened.

“It was during that crisis that Hammarskjöld created the first UN peacekeeping operation. What was most important to him was the UN’s role in maintaining peace and that the nations of the world would remain neutral, not become a tool in the hands of the old colonial powers. Yet while Hammarskjöld challenged old forms of imperial rule, the new techniques of fact-finding, peace-keeping and civilian administration that he intro-duced led to new forms of international authority in the decolonised world. My recent book is an exploration of that new form of authority and how people have made sense of it over the past fifty

g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1 1 3

A country starting a war with another country with the excuse of protecting its population isn’t anything new.

years. I’ve gone through the archives at the Royal Library in Stockholm and the National Archives in London to learn more about how the crisis 55 years ago was experienced. It’s obvious that the British were not pleased and saw Hammarskjöld as a threat. It was then that the UN became a serious player on an international level. But the UN’s role has changed over the years.”

o n e t h i n g t h at interests Anne Orford is how obvious it was only a few years ago to defend an individual country’s right to autonomy. Now inter-national debate is focused upon the UN’s responsi-bility to protect populations.

“Genocide in the Balkan countries and in Rwanda led to a decision at the World Summit in 2005 that meant that each government is responsi-ble for protecting its population against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. If a government can’t do that, the inter-national community acting through the UN has the

responsibility to do so. That’s what’s happening in Libya now. But the reasoning in the current situ-ation isn’t entirely convincing. Civilians are also being killed in other countries, like Bahrain, Syria, Israel, Egypt and Yemen. Shouldn’t those people also be protected? It is troubling that concepts like the responsibility to protect are used differently depending on whose power is being threatened – it has a draining effect on the respect for international law and on self-determination around the world.”

Anne Orford thinks it isn’t very probable that the UN would accept an invasion of a country allied with the West, for example.

“But that a country starts a war with another country with the excuse of protecting its population isn’t anything new. On the contrary, many conflicts, ever since the Thirty Year War, have been defended by saying that it’s had to do with protecting like-thinking people or countrymen who have been threatened in some way.”

There are several reasons why Anne Orford is

1 4 g u j o u r n a l 3 | 1 1

The air-raids on Libya were sanctioned by the Un, some-thing Anne Orford finds remarkable.

interested in international law and human rights. It started with a number of events during the 1980s at home in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

“The Queensland government was very authori-tarian then. For example, it tried to stop indigenous people from buying land and opposed recognition of their laws. It was against the environmental movement, and on one occasion, when people demonstrated against a rugby match with South Africa, the government actually instituted a state of emergency. This restrictive culture also existed at the faculty of law where I started to study. But a serious corruption scandal was detected in which both the government of Queensland and the police were involved. And suddenly it became obvious even to those who were most positive to the gov-ernment that it was doing a bad job.”

The year that really meant a change for Anne Orford was 1991, when she started her Master degree studies in London.

“Great Britain is like a huge archipelago that stretches its island empire all the way to Australia. We still have a colonial idea that a really good edu-cation has to include a period of time in England. But it was a wonderful experience for me to come to a city like London with so many different cul-tures. Studying human rights at the LSE gave me the sense that there was a form of law that could address problems such as those faced by indigenous people or left-wing activists in Queensland. On the other hand, it was also then, during the Kuwait war that continued to be the war with Iraq, that I started to realise that human rights can be used in a lot of different ways, even to support military interventions.”

i n t e r n at i o n a l l aw has to do with getting peo-ple to talk to each other, even people who come from different cultures and perhaps don’t have so many values in common. Anne Orford argues that although European law hasn’t always been repre-sentative of other views, there are traditions within that law that allow it to remain open to other cul-tures. She sees Dag Hammarskjöld as part of that

internationalist tradition that attempts to encoun-ter other laws based on mutual respect.

Anne Orford’s current project on histories of agrarian reform and international population con-trol includes a focus on the work of Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, particularly because of their vision of the role that the state and the UN could play in post-war European reconstruction and interna-tional development. She is interested in studying their papers, including the letters between Gunnar and Alva, which are kept at the Swedish Labour Movement Archives and Library. She’s started to study Swedish to be able to read them, as well as their publications such as Kris I befolkningsfrågan that are not yet translated into English.

“I’ve been to Sweden five times, among them as a guest professor in Lund, and each of my visits has been different from the others. I was in Stockholm with my family last year, for instance. It happened to be the 19th of June and unusually full of people everywhere. They played kitsch love music, threw confetti and we suddenly saw Strange Fruit, the performance group from Melbourne that performs on four-meter high, swaying props. We didn’t understand at all what we’d fallen into, but then of course we found out that the crown princess was getting married. So we stood along the road that the procession was going to take along with every-body else and we finally got a glimpse of the bride and groom. I felt a little Swedish then.”

It isn’t only Swedish intellectuals and politicians that Anne Orford is interested in – she also likes Swedish culture. She enjoys Nordic jazz, skiing and of course a swim that ends up in a sauna. And she likes bush walking.

“Walking in forests and over meadows – prob-ably what you Swedes simply call being out in nature. I like Swedish films, too – “Let the Right One In” was very good. If I lived in a perfect world, I would give a lot more time to books, music and films. But I have a full calendar with other things right now: lectures, supervising doctoral students, articles and books that have to be written and, of course, my family.”

anne orford

right now: new holder of the guest professorship to the me-mory of Torgny Segerstedt.

born: 1965

occupation: michael D Kirby Professor of international law at melbourne Law School, university of melbourne. earlier guest profes-sorships have been at new york university and Lund university. She is also active in the editorial departments of several internatio-nal journals such as the Interna­tional Feminist Journal of Politics, Transnational Legal Theory, and the Melbourne Journal of Inter­national Law.

family: Husband andrew and sons Hamish and Felix, 12 and 10 years.

favourite books: many, but gives tips about Hilary mantel’s Wolf Hall and A Place of Greater Safety.

favourite film: many, but one very good one is Let the Right One In.

selection of anne orford’s books: Reading Humanitarian In­tervention: Human Rights and the Use of Force in International Law, International Law and its Others and International Authority and the Responsibility to Protect.

g u j o u r n a l 7 | 1 0 1 5

THe nexT ISSue WILL COme OuT On June 15

BehInD the DIssertatIon | TexT: eva lundgren FOTO: Johan wingborg

o h e n J o - da r o, in the prov-ince of Sindh in Pakistan. Archeologist Elke Rogersdotter has been there several times

to study objects that have been found at excavations of one of the world’s earliest large cities. At the same time as the heyday of the cultures in Egypt and Mesopotamia there was also a blooming city in the Indus Valley with a network of streets, houses built of fired clay and bricks and an advanced drainage system. But Elke Rogersdotter’s research has to do with something more everyday: remains of games and toys.

“I’ve been interested in the concept of toys itself for a long time and I wrote my Master’s thesis on play-related finds in Gujarat in India. Games were often seen as some kind of unimportant side activity that only children played with. Finds of toys are thus interpreted as being some-thing more serious, such as ritual objects or status symbols. I’ve tried to get away from that view. I mean, just like the Dutch historian Johan Huizinga wrote in the 1930s, games and toys are things that are fundamentally human.”

a m o n g t h e o b J ec t s that Elke Rogersdotter has studied are so called throwing sticks – which however probably weren’t thrown but twirled in guessing games. There are also cones that may have been used as ninepins, checkers and balls made of terracotta. She’s also studied dif-ferent kinds of dice, both elongated and cubic. It’s particularly exciting that people in the Indus Valley used exactly the same six-sided dice that we have today since they are otherwise unusual on the Indian subcontinent.

“There are very many game-related finds from Mohenjo-Daro; in fact almost every tenth object that’s been found has something to do with games. And the finds haven’t been made at any special

Play makes us human

places but in clusters, spread over block and house boundaries. That indicates that games were played a little everywhere and were a part of people’s everyday life.”

It isn’t only in the Indus Valley that archeologists have found remains of games and toys – they’re found in many places. Among the oldest ones is something that has been interpreted as some kind of mankala game from the Neolithic Age. Mankala games are otherwise associated with Africa. But, just like children today play with what they have around them – regardless of whether it’s natural materials such as pine cones and stones, or imple-ments and tools – people have of course always played, even before there were special toys.

“We have a need to draw boundaries and be able to explain exactly what an object has been good for. But things can of course have been used in many different ways, as a toy but also as something else.”

a p r e s s r e l e a s e about Elke Rogersdotter’s thesis is among the news from the University of Gothenburg that has received the most international attention so far this year. Journalists from the Indian Telegraph, Iran Daily and Frankfurter Allgemeine have contacted her. And the significance of playing in the social inter-course is something that Elke Rogersdotter hopes she can continue to study.

“I think that the interest is so great because all people at some time have played games. And even in the most eve-ryday situations, like when someone hap-pens to bump into someone else, it makes it easier if they have a playful attitude and can smile in a disarming way instead of getting angry. Play functions as lubrication among people; it reduces conflicts and gets the social intercourse to function. Play is an everyday thing but it isn’t less important for that. Maybe it’s even so, as Johan Huizinga wrote, that play makes us people.”

elke rogersdotter

title of the thesis: Gaming in Mohenjo­Daro – an Archaeology of Unities

current: Has written a thesis that has gained the most attention internationally

lives in: Kalmar

family: Cohabitant

have you played dice recently? your fore fathers in the bronze age may have, too. there are, at least, differ-ent kinds of dice that are over 4 000 years old. elke rogersdotter’s research shows this and it’s getting attention all over the world.