The vernacular of 'Science 2.0' has become increasingly utilised in the debate about the future of science. Many media articles and conferences focus on this topic, and the European Commission has recently held a public consultation to better understand the impact of 2.0 and desirability of policy action to enable it.
Dan Pallota asked the staggering question - what if everything we've been taught about charity is dead wrong? What if tools like ACC can help us go beyond just financial metrics but understand real impact, reward charities with the biggest accomplishments and support those who need it? Wouldn't the world be a better place?
Companies House just announced that it's making all of its documents available for free in 2015... it shows once again that the UK is a pioneer in data transparency... Companies House itself says, this move "will open up opportunities for entrepreneurs to come up with innovative ways of using the information."
We want to see a debate framed in terms of what is happening now, not whether the use of animals led to a scientific discovery or progress eighty or a hundred years ago. Science, technology, and concern for animals have all evolved significantly since then, and the debate must too. Why is a specific animal 'model' or study thought relevant or valid now?
Next time you're in your local pharmacy, take a detour to the men's shaving aisle. When you get there, scan the shelves in front of you. You'll see high-gloss packaging, lots of "Fusion" and "Turbo" and "Mach" brands. It's almost like you're in the Formula 1 pit lane, isn't it? The choice seems abundant.
Let's not forget that heated, intense competition is what brought us the banking crisis. Competition between banks - to be the biggest, the most profitable - stoked the selling of inappropriate mortgages, PPI and interest rate manipulation. Competition between traders or between salespeople - many of whom are measured daily by their earnings, with some firms posting these numbers publicly - is precisely what drove otherwise good people to do bad things.
Irrespective of whether Hollande was involved in another relationship or not, for I am not here to cast judgement, the question of integrity is one to raise on the basis of Hollande's choices to hide behind and use as an excuse French cultural ways, rather than stand as a true leader and be completely transparent.
Last week I was invited to give evidence to the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) for its enquiry on citizens and public services. This is an important enquiry and has the opportunity to address some fundamental questions about the nature of our public services, and the Government's 'reform' and public expenditure programmes.
We don't yet have enough reliable information to make difficult decisions. That also means we didn't have it when past decisions were made - and we often don't even know what those decisions were. For example, the report reveals that the total aid donors say they have spent is typically far higher than what recipient governments say they've received.
I can see the issue from both points of view, and the debate seems to have polarised with the solution probably being somewhere in the middle. I certainly don't think that zero-hours contracts should be banned outright. However, at my company, The Clean Space, nobody is on a zero-hour contract, despite them being extremely common in the cleaning industry as this list of vacancies shows.
In recent weeks many have set out clearly and convincingly why the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, which is receiving its second reading today, is nothing short of a direct threat to the voice of civil society, freedom of speech, and the fundamentals of democracy.