 Είμαστε στην Τεσσαλανίκη, στην Κυρία της Νανατεξνολογίας. Ποιος είσαι εσένας? Είμαι Γιάννης, Γιάννης Μεσίρλισ. Στην Ευρωπαϊκή Πατρασία, στην Ελλάδα, ναι. Και είναι, νομίζω, το 15ο χρόνο που είμαι εδώ. Αυτό είναι... Αυτό είναι το... Αυτό είναι ό,τι κάνεις. Λοιπόν, δεν είναι ό,τι κάνω. Είναι αυτό, αλλά... Πολλογηθώ τον οργανωθήριο από το ξεκίνημα. Είμαι βοηθός της Νανατεξνολογίας, και πολλές σημαντικές άνθρωποι έχουν δει και έτσι από τα χρόνια. Και είμαι πραγματικός για αυτό. Αλλά, νομίζω, το πόνο. Το πόνο είναι... Ναι, είναι ό,τι κάνω. Είμαι πιο σε φιλοσοφικές ασπέτειες, αλλά αυτό είναι ό,τι κάνω. Φιλοσοφικές ασπέτειες από Νανατεχνολογία. Νανατεχνολογία, Ναναμεδική, Βαιολογία... Λόγω. Λοιπόν, τι είναι η λάδη της φαλαζοφίας για Ναναμεδική και όλες τα πράγματα. Είναι ότι οι άνθρωποι χρησιμοποιούνται, να καταλαβαίνουν λίγες της βαιολογίας, να διαφέρουν αυτή τη μεδική, και να αυτοίξουν την εξαιρετική του πράγματος. Λοιπόν, υπάρχει έναν τρόπο να σημανήσει την εξαιρετική του πράγματος, και μεταξύ πράγματα, καθώς, ο άνθρωπος είναι ο καθώς ο καθώς. Και αυτό είναι ότι πρέπει, όχι να πάρουμε πολύ πραγματικά, να δοκιμώσουμε μολακουλιακές επίπεδες, αλλά και να πάρουμε με το σύστημα της μυαλόγης, να πάρουμε από το βατομούς να καταλαβαίνουν η συμφωνία της υποχής και της διζήσης στην αυτοίξης. Είναι δίκαιο ότι η μόνη να κάνει Ναναμεδική, είναι να διδοκιμήσει και να συμφωνηθεί πράγματα, για να σημανήσει, διότι μπορεί να κάνει Ναναμεδική, δίκαιο, δίκαιο. Λοιπόν, διότι μπορεί να έχεις μόνο πολλές πράγματα εξαιρετικές. Μπορείς να δείξεις τα συμφωνία, η Ναναμεδική είναι η συμφωνία. Είμαι μιλώντας για τα μυαλόγη, που μπορεί να είναι χρησιμοποιημένη για τη συμφωνία τεχνολογική. Αν είναι αυτό που σημαίνει, διότι η Ναναμεδική έχει also a nanosciences in that. A nanosciences in that sense is trying to understand at the nano level how biology works. But if you understand at the nano level how biology works, is it the same as how biology works, because it's much more complicated, right? It is much more complicated, this is what I'm trying to say. You have to go now from the bottom upwards to integrate. And that is not easy because there are what are called emergent properties. So one plus one doesn't necessarily make two in this sense. So it would be one plus one plus one by billions of different ones, right? It's like very true. The body is very complicated, right? But so what can we do? Well, we try to understand ourselves. We try to understand how it works. And it was necessary to go at the nano level so that we have the basics. But now the big task is to try to understand how this integrate. It's like the genomic. You know, the human genome when it was discovered, people thought, whoa, great, now we can understand all diseases. But genes are not alone. They collaborate, they fight with each other. They collaborate and fight. So it is a complicated thing but the next tens of generations of scientists I hope when time comes for them that they will add something to that. So we can see the whole genome but we don't know what it does, each part of it or what we're doing? Well, there are things that we know or we think we know and things that we surmise. So it's not very clear because I'm pushing now the idea of what I'm calling mechano-epigenetics. So the genome is there, genetics is there but the environmental impact on how genes are expressed themselves, this is the epigenome of everybody and now it is the bacteria that we have. We have more genes in our body coming from bacteria than from somatic cells. So this becomes much more complicated than the human genome. And then there is mechanics because we live in gravity on Earth so there is always a mechanical element. This is what I'm calling mechano-epigenetics and we are still in its infancy in understanding that. Because all the molecules are constantly moving and affected by gravity and stuff? By gravity, by electricity, by magnetism, by other molecules around them. It's a very, very dynamic and sometimes chaotic and there are wars and fights and all the things that you can imagine. But it's fascinating. Well, true. Not that we don't know those forces we don't know how they exert their influence on particular molecules at the time of deciding whether to be healthy or diseased. So is there any chance we might just have a formula for the body or that's not going to happen? Like just some kind of formula and to understand everything in the body? No. Or in general? No. There's like too many different things. Well, there is order out of chaos but in order to find that order out of chaos we have to understand the basic movements of this chaotic cloud. So information is too much there. Very fast. Mechanics is also very fast. You can touch something and then the response is far away and we don't know all the different routes that this signal gets. So that's why we're here. We play with that. We try to understand. Our students would try to go a little bit further. Sometimes it goes further back but then overall I'm how to say it. I believe that sooner or later which means in the next few thousands of years we might understand a little bit more who we are. So how about in those last 15 years have you seen progress? What is progress? Yesterday I gave a talk about the definition between development and progress. Is scientific reports always progressive? Do they move in the right direction in knowledge or sometimes the tides follow a certain paradigm and then lead many scientists into the wrong direction? It has happened. So we have to philosophize. That's why I put in the beginning of our talk the word philosophy. We have to reflect. We have to sit back from time to time and see are we going in the right direction in uncovering the so-called mysteries of life. So do we have examples of which times the science has gone the wrong direction? Well there is a very nice how to say current debate that started about 50 years ago the action potential that is how information in the neural system moves. Everybody now, not everybody I mean the majority the current how to say opinion of the scientific community is that this is an electrical event. But a Japanese guy about 50 years ago working at NIH in Washington DC and now being revived by a guy from Nilsbor laboratory in Copenhagen in Denmark says no this is not right. This information is a mechanical event accompanied by the electrical one and they claim he and his team and other people now get on board that at the time that Haxion and Haxley got their Nobel Prize for this electrical event the means, the technological means of measuring, identifying and measuring the mechanical event didn't exist. That was in the 60s. Now that we have nanotechnological tools to measure these changes the paradigm shift might be tremendous and of course there are a few scientists that try to combine the two. So we have tools to measure what happens in the brain, is that what you said? Is it just like a big MRI or what's it called? No no no no these are nanotools for example a neuron when information passes through can change its diameter by 5 to 7 nanometers 5 to 7 nanometers When what passes through? The information, the current you know information is so far we think it's current these people say it's not current it's acoustic waves and the current with ionic follows that. Now who is right? I don't know I'm not an expert in there but it's fascinating that there are arguments now who come out because some parameters are measured by technologies that can measure things before we couldn't see or for example measuring temperature when this information passes down an action of a neuron the change in temperature is one millionth of a degree so now they can measure this and there are other details that maybe are not of interest here So day after tomorrow is elections here but I don't want to talk about politics but shouldn't the scientific community kind of know what needs more funding and then the money should just come there and does it help if there's more money? But that's politics I love politics I'm Greek you know so all scientists are not the same all politicians are not the same we live in a capitalistic world there are interests and some of these interests are fighting or even funding goes to specific directions for example why IT technologies are going so fast in the last 30 years at least in Europe it is because European Union put a mark there 30% to 35% of all funding goes there So if you give funding there you will get more data If you give funding to say orphan drugs you might develop new drugs So it is how to say that's a political decision Science and politics are interconnected it can't be otherwise But you think faster developments can happen with more funding How does it work? How do we get to more results quicker? The thing is not to get results quicker the thing is to get the right results quicker So that is how you design a call for action How you design what are the strategic areas to do research Now this is a political question If you go to armaments you know there are money that funding that we don't even dream of doing the basic sciences and basic science have been neglected by all big powers all big funding agencies because the demand is for products So what products do you hope to see in the near future? Products? Maybe not products but what do you want to see humanity achieve in the near future? There are two parallel worlds In the area of medicine and biology I think the effort will be to save more lives But to save more lives means to have less diseases Now disease is a polyparametric how to say system is not disease is related to the economic conditions of living In the environmental I was reading an article that was very interesting in Scientific American, the last issue that the poor people in New York City live in a more polluted environment than the richer ones although the richer ones produce more of the pollutants So you can see that what I want to say is that humanity improves the livestock of all of its citizens and all efforts is to prevent first and then cure in the most helping way At the same time there is another role to try to understand the basic workings of life and that would help develop research and develop better treatments better pharmaceuticals electrosythicals whatever devices and chemicals mainly biological You have to believe in evolution not to believe, to abide by evolution Otherwise you cannot understand how chemistry came into our lives You see Big pharma produces drugs How they produce them How they decide which one to invest on How many cancer, anti-cancer drugs have been developed in the last 20 years One has to do some meta-analysis to see independently though independently, that's a very important issue Because sometimes scientists are also corrupted So it's a world that is complex Scientists and scientists were part of this world We try to rationalize more and hopefully these things will find their way into the minds of those who decide Eventually it's not the people but the politicians Is there any chance we might have a cure for cancer and arthritis and diabetes in the next 5 to 10 years? No You don't think so? No, I don't think so because these are systemic diseases When you say cancer, even specific cancer pancreatic cancer it's a very complex set of conditions You think you destroy something, you remember? Then something else arises Same thing, arthritis I mean, this is the immunological system of the body that defends sometimes is coerced by cancer instead of fighting the cancer cells to be an accomplice of the cancer cells So it's a fight, it has traitors It has all kinds of dire lives So in order to see sooner than later solutions of big debilitating diseases we have to understand the totality of mechanisms that bring these diseases into humans Isn't it a little bit negative? Or don't you hope to be wrong? That maybe something suddenly... I think I'm more realistic because to hope only without doing something for that it's meaningless to me Alright, so thanks a lot I'm looking forward to the next conference Okay, I'll be here hopefully Hope to see you again