On 27 April 2017, I addressed a press conference at the Department of Government Information, Colombo, as a citizen concerned about waste management in Sri Lanka. I was joined by Ven Hadigalle Wimalarasa thero and Hemantha Withanage, Executive Director of Centre for Environmental Justice (CEJ) Sri Lanka, an advocacy group.
Nalaka Gunawardene (centre) addressing press conference of Lankan citizens concerned about waste management, at Dept of Govt Information, Colombo, 27 April 2017.
It’s a question without easy or simple answers. Policy makers come in different forms and types, and gaining their attention depends on many variables — such as a country’s political system, governance processes, level of bureaucracy and also timing.
I revisited this question this week when speaking to a group of young (early to mid-career) researchers from across South Asia who want to study many facets of global change. They were brought together at a regional workshop held in in Paro, Bhutan, by the Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN) and the National Environment Commission of the Royal Government of Bhutan.
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks at APN South Asian Proposal Development Training Workshop in Paro, Bhutan, 14-16 Dec 2016. Photo Xiaojun Deng, APN
Titled as the ‘Proposal Development Training Workshop (PDTW)’ and held from 14 to 16 December 2016, PDTW aimed “to raise awareness of APN among early career scientists and practitioners, and to increase the capacity to develop competitive proposals for submission to APN”.
The workshop involved two dozen researchers and half a dozen mentors. I was the sole mentor covering the important aspect of communicating research.
I urged researchers to try and better understand the imperfect, often unpredictable conditions in which South Asia’s policy makers operate.
Researchers and activists who would like to influence various public policies. Everyone is looking for strategies and engagement methods. The policy cycle cannot run according to text book ideals when governments have to regularly cope with economic uncertainties, political upheavals and social unrest, etc.
Asia-Pacific Network for Global Change Research (APN): Proposal Development Training Workshop 2016 — in Paro, Bhutan. Photo by Xiaojun Deng, APN
Imagine what keeps your policy makers awake at night, I suggested. Are they worried about balance of payment, disaster responses or a Parliamentary majority? How can research findings, while being evidence based, help solve problems of economic development and governance?
I also suggested that researchers should map out the information behaviour of their policy makers: where do they get info to act on? Is there a way research findings can be channeled to policy makers through some of these sources – such as the media, professional bodies and international development partners?
I suggested two approaches to communicating research outcomes to policy makers: directly, using own publications and/or social media; and indirectly by working with and through the media.
Finally, I shared some key findings of a global study in 2012 by SciDev.Net (where I was an honorary trustee for nearly a decade) which looked at the different contextual settings within which policy makers, the private sector, NGOs, media organisations and the research community operate to better understand how to mainstream more science and technology evidence for development and poverty reduction purposes.
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks on “Using Social Media for Discussing Science” at the Science, Technology & Society Forum in Colombo, Sri Lanka, 9 Sep 2016. Photo by Smriti Daniel
Sri Lanka’s first Science and Technology for Society (STS) Forum took place from 7 to 10 September in Colombo. Organized by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Research, it was one of the largest gatherings of its kind to be hosted by Sri Lanka.
Modelled on Japan’s well known annual STS forums, the event was attended by over 750 participants coming from 24 countries – among them local and foreign scientists, inventors, science managers, science communicators and students.
I was keynote speaker during the session on ‘Using Social Media for Discussing Science Topics’. I used it to highlight how social media have become both a boon and bane for scientific information and thinking in Sri Lanka. This is due to peddlers of pseudo-science, anti-science and superstition being faster and better to adopt social media platforms than actual scientists, science educators and science communicators.
Social Media in #LKA:Do Science & Reason stand a chance? Asks Nalaka Gunawardene
Sri Lanka takes justified pride in its high literacy levels and equally high coverage of vaccination against infectious diseases. But we cannot claim to have a high level of scientific literacy. If we did, it would not be so easy for far-fetched conspiracy theories to spread rapidly even among educated persons. Social media tools have ‘turbo-charged’ the spread of associated myths, superstitions and conspiracy theories!
I cautioned: “Unless we make scientific literacy an integral part of everyone’s lives, ambitious state policies and programmes to modernize the nation could well be jeopardized. Progress can be undermined — or even reversed — by extremist forces of tribalism, feudalism and ultra-nationalism that thrive in a society that lacks the ability to think critically.”
It is not a case of all doom and gloom. I cited examples of private individuals creatively using social media to bust myths and critique all ‘sacred cows’ in Lankan society – including religions and military. These voluntary efforts contrast with much of the mainstream media cynically making money from substantial advertising from black magic industries that hoodwink and swindle the public.
My PowerPoint presentation:
Video recording of our full session:
The scoping note I wrote for our session:
Sri Lanka STS Forum panel on Using Social Media for Discussing Science Topics. 9 Sep 2016. L to R – Asanga Abeygunasekera, Nalaka Gunawardene, Dr Piyal Ariyananda, Dr Ananda Galappatti & Smriti Daniel
Session: Using Social Media for Discussing Science Topics
With 30 per cent of Sri Lanka’s 21 million people regularly using the Internet, web-based social media platforms have become an important part of the public sphere where myriad conversations are unfolding on all sorts of topics and issues. Facebook is the most popular social media outlet in Sri Lanka, with 3.5 million users, but other niche platforms like Twitter, YouTube and Instagram are also gaining ground. Meanwhile, the Sinhala and Tamil blogospheres continue to provide space for discussions ranging from prosaic to profound. Marketers, political parties and activist groups have discovered that being active in social media is to their advantage.
Some science and technology related topics also get discussed in this cacophony, but given the scattered nature of conversations, it is impossible to grasp the full, bigger picture. For example, some individuals or entities involved in water management, climate advocacy, mental health support groups and data-driven development (SDG framework) are active in Sri Lanka’s social media platforms. But who is listening, and what influence – if any – are these often fleeting conservations having on individual lifestyles or public policies?
Is there a danger that self-selecting thematic groups using social media are creating for themselves ‘echo chambers’ – a metaphorical description of a situation in which information, ideas, or beliefs are amplified or reinforced by transmission and repetition inside an “enclosed” system, where different or competing views are dismissed, disallowed, or under-represented?
Even if this is sometimes the case, can scientists and science communicators afford to ignore social media altogether? For now, it appears that pseudo-science and anti-science sentiments – some of it rooted in ultra-nationalism or conspiracy theories — dominate many Lankan social media exchanges. The keynote speaker once described this as Lankan society permanently suspending disbelief. How and where can the counter-narratives be promoted on behalf of evidenced based, rational discussions? Is this a hopeless task in the face of irrationality engulfing wider Lankan society? Or can progressive and creative use of social media help turn the tide in favour of reason?
This panel would explore these questions with local examples drawn from various fields of science and skeptical enquiry.
Sri Lanka’s first Science and Technology for Society (STS) Forum took place from 7 to 10 September in Colombo. Organized by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Research, it is one of the largest gatherings of its kind to be hosted by Sri Lanka.
What sets STS Forums apart is that they are not merely events where scientists talk to each other. That surely will happen, but there will be many more voices and, hopefully, much broader conversations.
In this week’s Ravaya column (in Sinhala, appearing in the print issue of 11 Sep 2016), I look at Sri Lanka’s appalling lack of scientific literacy.
As Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, American astrophysicist, cosmologist and science communicator, says, “Scientific literacy is an intellectual vaccine against the claims of charlatans who would exploit ignorance.”
Sri Lanka takes justified pride in its high literacy levels and equally high coverage of vaccination against infectious diseases. But we cannot claim to have a high level of scientific literacy.
A healthy dose of scepticism is essential to safeguard ourselves from superstitions, political claims and increasingly sophisticated – but often dishonest – product advertising. That’s what scientific literacy builds inside our minds.
I argue that unless we make scientific literacy an integral part of everyone’s lives, ambitious state policies and programmes to modernize the nation could well be jeopardized. Progress can be undermined — or even reversed — by extremist forces of tribalism, feudalism and ultra-nationalism that thrive in a society that lacks the ability to think critically.
Nalaka Gunawardene speaks at national conference on Sri Lanka’s readiness for implementing the Paris Agreement. BMICH Colombo, 8 September 2016
Climate change COP21 in December 2015 adopted the Paris Agreement to avoid, mitigate and adapt to climate change. Among many other solutions, Sri Lanka’s “intended nationally determined contribution” (INDC) has agreed to reduce 7% emissions from energy and transport and 23% conditional reductions by 2030.
Sri Lanka’s Centre for Environmental Justice in collaboration with the government’s Climate Change Secretariat, UNDP and Janathakshan held a national conference on “SRI LANKA’S READINESS FOR IMPLEMENTING PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT” on 7 and 8 September 2016 in Colombo. It was attended by over 200 representatives from government, civil society and corporate sectors.
I was asked to speak in Session 5: Climate Solutions, on “Climate communication and Behaviour changes”. This is a summary of what I said, and the PowerPoint presentation used.
L to R: Nalaka Gunawardene; Nalin Munasinghe, National Programme Manager at Sri Lanka UN-REDD Programme, and Uchita de Zoysa
As climate change impacts are felt more widely, the imperative for action is greater than ever. Telling the climate story in accurate and accessible ways should be an essential part of our climate response.
That response is currently organised around two ‘planks’: mitigation and adaptation. Climate communication can be the ‘third plank’ that strengthens the first two.
Encouragingly, more journalists, broadcasters, researchers and advocacy groups are taking up this challenge. They urgently need more media and public spaces — as well as greater resources — to sustain public engagement.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which Sri Lanka has signed and ratified, recognizes the importance of IEC. It calls for “improving awareness and understanding of climate change, and creating solutions to facilitate access to information on a changing climate” to winning public support for climate related policies.
The UNFCCC, through its Article 6, and its Kyoto Protocol, through its Article 10 (e), call on governments “to educate, empower and engage all stakeholders and major groups on policies relating to climate change”.
When strategically carried out, IEC can be a powerful force for change on both the ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ sides of climate adaptation and climate related public information. In this analogy:
‘supply’ involves providing authentic, relevant and timely information to all those who need it, in languages and formats they can readily use; and
‘demand’ means inspiring more individuals and entities to look for specific knowledge and skills that can help make themselves more climate resilient.
These two sides of the equation can positively reinforce each other, contributing significantly to Sri Lanka’s fight against climate change.
To be effective, climate communication also needs to strike a balance between alarmism and complacence. We have to place climate concerns within wider development and social justice debates. We must also localise and personalise as much as possible.
Dr M Sanjayan, vice president of development and communications strategy at Conservation International, a leading advocacy group, says environmentalists and scientists have failed to build sufficient urgency for action on climate change. He feels we need new communication approaches.
The Lankan-born science communicator wrote in 2013: “By focusing on strong narratives about peoples’ lives in the present rather than the future; by keeping stories local and action-oriented (solvable); and by harnessing the power of narrative and emotion, we have a better chance to build widespread public support for solutions.”
Scientific Literacy: ‘Mind Vaccine’ Sri Lanka Urgently Needs
By Nalaka Gunawardene
STS Forum Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka’s first Science and Technology for Society (STS) Forum will take place from 7 to 10 September in Colombo. Organized by the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Science, Technology and Research, it is one of the largest gatherings of its kind to be hosted by Sri Lanka.
Modelled on Japan’s well known annual STS forums, this event will be attended by over 750 participants coming from 24 countries – among them will be local and foreign scientists, inventors, science managers, science communicators and students.
What sets STS Forums apart is that they are not merely events where scientists talk to each other. That surely will happen, but there will be many more voices and, hopefully, much broader conversations.
As a member of the content planning team for this event, my particular focus has been on the strand called “citizen science” – interpreted, in this instance, as activities that enhance the public understanding of science and technology.
Under this strand, there will be four sessions that explore: community involvement in science and research; informal science education for the 21st century; communicating science, technology and innovation; and using social media for discussing science.
At first glance, these topics don’t seem as exciting as nanotechnology, robotics and space technology that are being covered in other sessions. But I would argue that public engagement is the most decisive factor if science and technology are to play a significant role in the economic development and future prosperity of Sri Lanka.
Wanted: Mind Vaccines!
Public engagement of science goes well beyond teaching science and technology subjects in schools or universities. It is also bigger than (state or private sector driven) science centres, exhibitions or science content in the media. All these elements help, but at its most basic, what we need to promote is a way of thinking known as scientific literacy.
Scientific literacy is defined as “the knowledge and understanding of scientific concepts and processes required for personal decision making, participation in civic and cultural affairs, and economic productivity”.
Indeed, some basic scientific knowledge and technical skills have become essential for survival in the 21st century. But scientific literacy provides more than just utility benefits.
As Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson, American astrophysicist, cosmologist and science communicator, says, “Scientific literacy is an intellectual vaccine against the claims of charlatans who would exploit ignorance.”
Dr Neil deGrasse Tyson: One man worth cloning if that were feasible…
Sri Lanka takes justified pride in its high literacy levels and equally high coverage of vaccination against infectious diseases. But we cannot claim to have a high level of scientific literacy.
If we did, it would not be so easy for far-fetched conspiracy theories to spread rapidly even among educated persons. For example, claims of an ‘infertility plot’ to make majority ethnic group lose its ability to reproduce. Or tales of miracle waters and ‘cosmic forces’ healing those terminally ill. Or alien spacecraft (allegedly) threatening national security…
It is customary to temporarily suspend our disbelief to enjoy films, novels and other creative art forms. But most of us don’t confuse fiction with fact, even with highly plausible scenarios.
These inconvenient questions are worth asking, if only to make us pause and think.
Sleepwalking Nation?
Dr Abraham Thomas Kovoor (1898 – 1978): Myth-buster who feared none
Half a century ago, a Kerala-born science teacher named Dr Abraham Thomas Kovoor (1898 – 1978) settled down in newly independent Ceylon. After retirement, he took to investigating so-called supernatural phenomena and paranormal practices. He found adequate physical or psychological explanations for almost all of them. In that process, he exposed many ‘god men’ who were thriving on people’s ignorance, gullibility and insecurities.
Dr Kovoor, who founded Ceylon Rationalist Association in 1960, summed it up in these words: “He who does not allow his miracles to be investigated is a crook; he who does not have the courage to investigate a miracle is gullible; and he who is prepared to believe without verification is a fool.”
Most Lankans would fall into one of these three categories – and the minority with open minds are under ‘peer pressure’ to assimilate!
Progress of science and technology since the 1960s has given us many gadgets and media tools, but the more information we have, the less we seem to be able to think for ourselves. Thus, we have broadband alongside narrow minds, a poor juxtaposition!
This has been building up for some years. In an op-ed titled ‘Can Rationalists Awaken the Sleep-walking Lankan Nation?’ published in Groundviews.org in January 2012, I wrote: “Paradoxically, we now have far more communication channels and technologies yet decidedly fewer opportunities and platforms for dispassionate public debate. Today’s Lankan society welcomes and blindly follows Malayalis who claim to know more about our personal pasts and futures than we’d ever know ourselves. And when we see how our political and business elite patronize Sai Baba, Sri Chinmoy and other gurus so uncritically, we must wonder if there is any intelligent life in Colombo…”
Not every source of mass hallucination is imported, of course. As I noted four years ago, “Sacred cows, it seems, have multiplied faster than humans in the past half century. Our cacophonous airwaves and multi-colour Sunday newspapers are bustling with an embarrassment of choice for salvation, wealth, matrimony, retribution and various other ‘quick fixes’ for this life and (imagined) next ones. Embarrassment, indeed!”
Science for All
So what is to be done?
The proliferation of smartphones and other digital tools have not necessarily opened our minds, or made us Lankans any less gullible to charlatans or zealots. This is a huge conundrum of our times.
That is because mastery over gadgets does not necessarily give us scientific literacy. It involves a rational thought process that entails questioning, observing physical reality, testing, hypothesizing, analyzing and then discussing (not always in that order).
A healthy dose of scepticism is essential to safeguard ourselves from superstitions, political claims and increasingly sophisticated – but often dishonest – product advertising. That’s what scientific literacy builds inside our minds.
Unless we make scientific literacy an integral part of everyone’s lives, ambitious state policies and programmes to modernize the nation could well be jeopardized. Progress can be undermined — or even reversed — by extremist forces of tribalism, feudalism and ultra-nationalism that thrive in a society that lacks the ability to think critically.
A sporting analogy can illustrate what is needed. Cricket is undisputedly our national passion. It is played professionally only by a handful of men (and even fewer women) who make up the national teams and pools. But most of the 21 million Lankans know enough about cricket to follow and appreciate this very English game.
Similarly, there are only a few thousand Lankans engaged in researching or teaching different branches of science and technology – they are the ‘professionals’ who do it for a living. But in today’s world, the rest of society also needs to know at least the basic concepts of science.
Cricket didn’t has become part of our socio-cultural landscape overnight. It took years of innovation and persistence, especially by trail-blazing radio cricket commentators in Sinhala and Tamil. By the time we achieved Test status in 1981, all levels of our society were familiar with cricket’s rules and nuances.
Giving everyone a minimum dose of scientific literacy requires a similar marshalling of forces – including civil society mobilization, media collaboration, creative innovation and social marketing.
‘Science for All’ acquires true meaning only when every citizen – irrespective of education, profession or income level – gets enough skepticism to avoid being exploited by various scams or misled by conspiracy theorists.
Are we ready to embark on this intellectual vaccination process?
Award-winning science writer Nalaka Gunawardene counts over 25 years of national and international media experience. He blogs at https://nalakagunawardene.com and is active on Twitter as @NalakaG
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 7 August 2016), I discuss the history of Chinese space programme through the life story of its most important founder.
Qian Xuesen (1911 – 2009) was one of the greatest Chinese scientists of the modern era and is widely regarded as the father of China’s space and strategic rocket programme.
One of twentieth century’s most brilliant engineers, Qian was widely honoured in China for his “eminent contributions to science”. He was credited with leading China to produce and launch weather and reconnaissance satellites, as well as its own intercontinental ballistic missiles and anti-ship missiles.
His pioneering efforts also helped China to send a human to Earth orbit in 2003 using its own rockets – the third nation to do so after the (former) Soviet Union and the United States.
In 2008, China Central Television (CCTV) named Qian as one of the eleven most inspiring people in China. He died on 31 October 2009, aged 97, having seen China become one of the world’s leading space-faring nations.
Qian Xuesen – Father of China’s space and strategic rocket programme [image courtesy CCTV]සමාජ මාධ්යවල මා කරන ප්රකාශ මත පදනම් වී සමහරුන් අසන්නේ මා උග්ර චීන විරෝධියකු ද කියායි.
Chinese President Hu Jintao (R) visits renowned scientist and founder of China’s space technology Qian Xuesen in Beijing, January 19, 2008. (Xinhua Photo by Lan Hongguang)
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 17 July 2016), I discuss Sri Lanka govermment’s recently announced plans to introduce an electronic National Identity Card (e-NIC) replacing the current, mandatory NIC based on a system that was launched in 1971.
The Department of Registration of Persons (the ID card office) is to start collecting fingerprints to issue 16.5 million electronic identity cards (eNICs) in 2016 that will contain biometric security features such as fingerprints. According to media reports, fingerprints are to be collected manually at 331 district and divisional level units and scanned and entered into a national register.
But we should be asking some critical questions about this initiative that collects biometric data of all citizens. Is the government capable of ensuring data security of this massive database? Can it be misused for citizen surveillance in the hands of an authoritarian regime?
Deploying modern technology is fine, but that must be accompanied by adequate human rights safeguards and a political culture that treats citizen data with respect. And there needs to be judicial oversight.
What about a similar, but much larger scale, biometrics-driven ID project in neighbouring India? In recent years, India’s unique identification number project (Aadhaar) has been criticised by privacy activists for its inadequate safeguards. Considered to be the world’s largest national identification number project, it aims to collect biometric and demographic data of all residents, store them in a centralised database and issue a 12-digit unique number.
As SciDev.Net reported on 3 June 2016: “Aadhaar…received statutory backing in March 2016 after five years of political wrangling. Finally the present government moved it as a money bill to prevent it being stopped in the Rajya Sabha (upper house of parliament). Opposition leaders have challenged the move as unconstitutional in the Supreme Court.
“The court’s existing view on Aadhaar is that biometric identification should be voluntary. On 23 September 2013, the court ordered that ‘no person should suffer for not getting Aadhaar’. Yet, since introduction, Aadhaar has been creeping up on India’s 1.3 billion population with service after service being made unavailable to citizens who are not enrolled.”
SciDev.Net added that the main objections to Aadhaar are no different from objections that have come up in other countries and they have to do with privacy. In the UK, plans to issue biometric national identity cards were dropped in January 2011 and there has been opposition enough in the US to slow down implementation of the ‘Real ID’ scheme.
Half a century after narrowly missing the opportunity to eliminate malaria in the mid 1960s, Sri Lanka seems to have reached this significant public health goal.
“With no indigenous malaria cases being reported since October 2012, Sri Lanka is currently in the malaria elimination and prevention of re-introduction phase,” says the website of the Sri Lanka Anti-Malaria Campaign.
In this week’s Ravaya column (appearing in the print issue of 22 May 2016), I summarise how we reached here, and what challenges remain.
I point out that Malaria is an ancient enemy in Sri Lanka that has killed tens of thousands and affected millions over centuries. There is speculation that malaria contributed to the historical shifting of the seat of government (kingdom at the time) and majority of human settlements from the dry zone to the intermediate and wet zones.
A severe epidemic in 1934-35 led to an estimated 5.5 million cases and 80,000 reported deaths – around 2 per cent of the total population of 5.3 million in the 1931 census. My father, now 83, is one of its survivors.
In the mid 1940s, Ceylon became the first Asian country to develop a scheme of indoor industrial spraying using DDT. In 1946, when spraying commenced in earnest, the island still had around 3 million malaria cases, high for a population of 6.6 million (1946 census). With widespread use of DDT and other measures, there was a drastic reduction: down to 7,300 cases in 1956 and just 17 in 1963.
Then there was a resurgence, which took over two decades to bring under control. As Dr Risintha Premaratne, Director of Sri Lanka’s anti-malaria campaign, told WHO, “Key components in the elimination efforts included enhanced malaria parasite screening in high transmission areas through active case detection using mobile malaria clinics; early diagnosis and prompt treatment effectively reducing the parasite reservoir and the potential for transmission; and strengthening the malaria mosquito surveillance leading to evidence based vector control.”
Malaria elimination in Sri Lanka has been achieved through a period overlapping with a 30-year separatist war in areas that were endemic for malaria. The challenge now entails sustaining a malaria-free country and preventing the reintroduction of malaria to Sri Lanka…in the context of rapid postwar developments in the country, say three Lankan leaders in this struggle writing in WHO South East Asia Journal of Public Health in Jan-March 2014.
Managing disaster early warnings is both a science and an art. When done well, it literally saves lives — but only if the word quickly reaches all those at risk, and they know how to react.
We have come a long way since the devastating Boxing Day tsunami of December 2004 caught Indian Ocean countries by surprise. Many of the over 230,000 people killed that day could have been saved by timely coastal evacuations.
Early warnings work best when adequate technological capability is combined with streamlined decision-making, multiple dissemination systems and well prepared communities.
Rapid onset disasters — such as tsunamis and flash floods — allow only a tight window from detection to impact, typically 15 to 90 minutes. When it comes to tsunamis, it is a real race against time. Effective tsunami warnings require very rapid evaluation of undersea earthquakes and resulting sea level changes, followed by equally rapid dissemination of that assessment.
Following the 2004 disaster, the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning and Mitigation System (IOTWS) was set up in 2005 under UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission. It is a regional collaboration that brings together three regional tsunami service providers – scientific facilities operated by the governments of Australia, India and Indonesia — and over a dozen national tsunami centres. The latter are state agencies designated by governments to handle in-country warnings and other mitigation activities.
What sets STS Forums apart is that they are not merely events where scientists talk to each other. That surely will happen, but there will be many more voices and, hopefully, much broader conversations.
That is because mastery over gadgets does not necessarily give us scientific literacy. It involves a rational thought process that entails questioning, observing physical reality, testing, hypothesizing, analyzing and then discussing (not always in that order).![Qian Xuesen - Father of China's space and strategic rocket programme [image courtesy CCTV]](https://movingimages.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/qian-xuesen-image-courtesy-cctv.jpg?w=840)
Open Minds! (formerly: Moving Images blog) 