Soon after liberation, camp survivors await their ration of potato soup. Bergen-Belsen, Germany, April 28, 1945.
— US Holocaust Memorial Museum

“Wir wissen nur dass wenn wir hier rauskommen, das wir alles dass wir hier erlebt haben in die Welt hinaus schreien müssen, anders kann man nicht leben”

“We only know that when we get out of here, we must shout out into the world about everything that we have experienced here. Otherwise one cannot live.”

These are the words of Charlotte Grunow recorded on April 20, 1945 by BBC reporter Patrick Gordon Walker.

Charlotte Grunow was arrested in Berlin in April 1943, transported to Auschwitz-Birkenau and moved with a large group of female prisoners in November 1944 to Bergen-Belsen. She was liberated on April 15, 1945 with about 55000 other prisoners, 10000 of which were dead and a further 15000 would die after the liberation from disease and starvation due to a deliberate SS policy of neglect. The gruesome reality the Charlotte Grunow of April 1945 wants us to know about was largely unknown and unimagined by the liberating countries and wasdescribed by the BBC reporter Richard Dimbleby as “the world of a nightmare”. This reality at the collapse of the Third Reich, could be found in over 42000 identifiedcollection, concentration and killing centers and sites, transports and death marchesacross the Europe created by the Nazis. But is Charlotte being heard, then after the liberation, now seventy years later and in the future?

We are facing a transition in the commemoration of the Holocaust. The authentic voices reporting on the horrendous crimes humans are capable of will soon fall silent. Just for Bergen Belsen, key witnesses such as ex-prisoners Gyorgy Denes and Arieh Koretz and liberators Maj. Leonard Berney and Captain Eric “Winkle” Brown have all died in the last year. How to deliver on the solemn pledge we have repeated for the last 70 years, that “we must never forget”? Have we succeeded to transform these testimonies into understanding, meaning or a society the victims hoped for? The answer unfortunately is “No”. For instance, although few systematic surveys exist a recent UK survey among 8000 high-school students showed that the majority only has a cursory understanding of the Holocaust. The same holds for the rest of Europe. Hence, at the end of the period of the witness, we face a memory crisis in terms of the conservation and presentation of the events and experiences at the heart of European history and identity.

We have developed a novel approach towards answering the memory crisis: the Future Memory project. At the start of Future Memory stands a personal experience when I visited the Bergen Belsen campsite where my grandfather Jan Verschure, a Dutch resistance fighter died: I found an empty landscape. The chirping birds provided a score to this peaceful and well-kept heath park that had integrated the elevated tops of the known mass-graves. Note that in 1945 birds avoided the place and the mass graves containing the remains of about 20000 victims are still not localized. However, behind this pastoral façade with no intrinsic footholds to assist in understanding and commemorating resides the ultimate “witness”: space itself. Future Memory aims at reclaiming this space in the service of the preservation of history and the shaping of collective memory now and in the future. Future Memorydigitally enhances space so that it becomes a medium though which historical sources and narratives can be discovered. The Future Memory project has started in 2010, in collaboration with the Bergen Belsen memorial site and was partially supported through the FET project CEEDS.

Future Memory builds historical learning on a twofold use of physical space. First, it acknowledges the fundamental role that space and action play in the formation of memory and experience. A scientific discovery worthy of a 2014 Nobel price. We have build on this link in our exhibitions and performances and the advanced neurorehabilitation technologies we have developed and deployed. Secondly, physical space is a permanent source for the authentication of historical knowledge: “this happened here”. Through the right use of technologies, spaces can be physically and virtually explored and discovered now and in the future, because they are laden with historical sources and reflections of the experiences of those who have been there. We have installed a number of integrated systems at the memorial site Bergen Belsen under the name “Here: Space of Memory” that implement these considerations. At the heart of this approach stands a 3D reconstruction of the former camp together with a database with geo-localized source material including diary fragments, images, drawings, video and audio clips. Visitors can access this physical/virtual space through an immersive virtual reality environment or by walking on the terrain itself using an augmented reality tablet App. By wandering among the reconstructed buildings, visitors explore historical sources in situ. Lastly, we have installed a sound installation that presents visitors with voices, including that of Charlotte Grunow, as they walk from the museum to the former campsite, creating a personal encounter with the fleeting past. The effectiveness of Future Memory can is evidenced through the associated educational program that is intensely used by visiting school classes and booked out for many months to come. After this important validation of the Future Memory approach, our goal is to digitally reconstruct, enhance and link together at least 100 sites across Europe, to show the system level organization of the murder machine created by the Nazi’s. We have started the Future Memory Foundation with the purpose to realize a neutral ground from which we can support this objective through both private and public support.

How close are we to our target? The UK holocaust education survey makes it painfully clear that at best there is a modest impact and we have to ask why the approaches followed over the last 70 years such as professionalizing commemoration, archiving and researching of historical sources, monumentalizing historical sites and offering museums has not translated into more societal impact? Possibly we still have not identified en effective way to link historical information to understanding. The Future Memory project builds a bridge between history, experience and meaning by advancing an integrated approach comprising science, technology, humanities and the arts, that not only investigates and presents “what happened here” but also how we can narrate this central chapter of European history to its citizens now and in the future as a source for continuous learning and reflection. This is a new and complementary approach to existing ones that can assist us in overcoming the memory crisis.

Today as the age of the witness is coming to a close, an enormous amount of work still needs to be done. We only have a few years left to conserve the living memoryof the sites of the Holocaust, while for some sites it is already too late. It is true that Europe has supported some important initiatives such as the EHRI network andEuropeana. But what has been done so far has not been enough, as the current state of Europe’s response to global humanitarian crises and rising anti-Semitism shows. There is a belief that enough is being done, but this is not supported by fact. Also in our case, despite the great interest that our project inspires, including at the level of the European Commission and their staff members, their requests for information have not translated into action, rather into “I have no time”. However, urgent action is required and a large-scale no holds barred European initiative must be undertaken, circumventing old habits and inertia in order to salvage the past to help us shape our European future.

Future Memory answers and propagates Charlotte’s Grunow’s rallying cry. We, the descendants of the victims, perpetrators, traitors, bystanders, survivors and resisters have an obligation to conserve the memory we risk to loose through the mortality of the survivor. To honor the victims, to safe guard and elaborate our European identity and to reflect on the darkest crevasses of the human soul, so that we may transcend them and find meaning and virtue in a deep understanding of who we have been, are and can become.

Get in touch with me @PaulVerschure

This blog was originally published in DAE blog on 21/03/2016

In a bit of breaking news, a report by a review panel looking into the Human Brain Project (HBP) has determined that ‘corrective actions’ need to be taken in restructuring the communications and operations of the project. The HBP was set up to make new contributions to neuroscience, develop new treatments for brain disease and, most directly of interest to robotics, develop new computer technologies modelled on these new discoveries. In 2013 the HBP received €1.2 billion in EU funding under the Future and Emerging Technologies Flagship initiative, and includes 112 organisations in 24 different countries with 183 principle investigators working towards a number of very laudable objectives.

The European Commission’s Digital Agenda for Europe last week published a summary of the panel’s findings following a review of the first year of the HBP. (EU rules dictate that the full report cannot be published, but amidst the controversy and high-stakes of FET flagship funding, the summary has been released.) While the report praises the progress made by a majority of the subprojects and the project’s education programme, it clearly states that ‘very significant efforts remain to be made, in terms of coordination and integration, for the HBP to become a truly large unified project’. A review was necessitated when, in July last year, over 100 scientists wrote an open letter criticising the project, both in terms of the science and the management, claiming that it was badly run and that its aims were too narrow. In anticipation of the report, the HBP voted in late February to change its own governance structure, taking the responsibilities of the three-man committee at its helm with a twenty-two strong board of directors made up of project scientists. The new report doesn’t address the open letter directly, though the signatories generally seem pleased with its findings. The report makes three recommendations, which clearly echo the specific complaints made in the open letter):

1. Build a better infrastructure (ICT)
2. Improve integration and connections between subprojects
3. Improve administration and governance of the project

But this report hasn’t necessarily been headline news throughout Europe’s popular press (a mere speck on the horizon compared with other ‘science’ stories, for example about a weasel piggy-backing on a woodpecker), but this controversy is not something that should be overlooked, certainly not by Europe’s scientific community, nor by the public more generally. For the scientific community, including funding bodies, one lesson is this: that despite some much-improved efforts, interdisciplinary communication and integration is not something that is done easily. Communication between research centres and different disciplines cannot be taken for granted; there is still a need for intelligent (and sometimes creative) ways to build these bridges, beyond the platitudes and promises that find their way on to so many ill-conceived grant applications. Some argue that the HBP’s attempt to draw in so many different projects was always going to be mismanaged, that it was too centralised. So the report’s insistence upon a better management structure forces the question of whether such monolithic governance is the most efficient way to achieve such diverse aims.

The re-organisation of the HBP project administrative structure, before even the summary of this report was made public, shows that they have learned this lesson already, and their early mistakes can be something avoided by similarly ambitious projects in the future. Perhaps, too, the success of the education programme and public engagement aspects of the project is instructive: rather than the oversight and centralisation of research, perhaps the most effective use of such money lies in opening channels of communication, between researchers managing their own projects, and with the public more widely.

And why should the public care about this report at all? Well, there is the issue of accountability: the HBP has received quite a big chunk of the EU’s money and the public, therefore, should have a particular interest to ensure that this money is spent effectively. (Though therein lies another lesson for the scientific community: the public will demand accountability. You are being watched.) For all the controversy, however, the HBP’s beleaguered management team are correct when they say the project had certain growing pains, and was perhaps burdened by the weight of expectation and its own success (€1 billion is a LOT of money, after all), and these reports and changes show that they are listening and learning. They are demonstrating a responsiveness and willingness to change in the face of evidence that befits scientists (and, frankly, that shames politicians, who persevere with inefficient structures and policies whatever the evidence of their mistakes). But also, it is important that the public be aware of such developments because, for good or bad, this is how science gets done: by researchers and institutions working together in collaboration, which includes open processes of review, critical self-reflection and adaptation.  The more stories like this, detailing how this happens, with all its exciting promise AND its stumbles, missteps and administrative banality, the further away from the still all-too-prevalent view of science being conducted by lone, wild-haired narcissists in secret dungeon labs.

Every year, Telluride, a small mountain town in Colorado, attracts an international roster of scientists from several disciplines for three weeks of intensive discussion and exchange of ideas about neuromorphic engineering, a rapidly expanding research field that promises to bridge the gap between the lifeless silicon of computer chips and the very much lively brain-based biological systems. This year is not an exception: the Telluride workshop is now in full swing and will continue until July 19.

What is special about this year’s edition is that the workshop, organised by the Institute of Neuromorphic Engineering, celebrates its 20^th anniversary and the sense of historical perspective is more perceptible than ever. The workshop was founded in 1994 by Christoph Koch, Terry Sejnowsky, Rodney Douglas and others. Merely five years before that, the concept of neuromorphic engineering was for the first time introduced by Carver Mead and many discussions at this year’s workshop revolve around what has been achieved in the past years and what future contributions we can expect in the next 25 years.

One of the major goals of the workshop is to reduce the distance between senior and junior researchers in the field of neuromorphic engineering, and this year students participating in the workshop have a chance to interact with some of the most important contributors to the field. The workshop includes numerous background lectures on a variety of topics in systems and cognitive neuroscience, practical tutorials, hands-on projects and interest groups. There are six topic areas this year ranging from human auditory cognition and neuromorphic Olympics to embodied neuromorphic architectures of perception, cognition and action.

Other priorities of the workshop include the encouragement of collaborative activities emerging from the workshop and the promotion of neuromorphic engineering as a self-sustaining research field.

The event is sponsored by some of the biggest players in neuromorphic research worldwide including the Convergent Science Network Project, which, among other things, contributed eight scholarships for European applicants. You can always learn more about the application requirements and other activities supported by CSN HERE.

Neuromorphic engineering was included in this year’s top 10 Breakthrough Technologies report published by MIT Technology Review. Read this article to learn why neuromorphic engineering matters and how brain-based computer chips are preparing to revolutionise computing as we know it.

The 3^rd Conference on Biomimetic and Biohybrid Systems will be held this year from 30 July to 1 August in Milan. As has become a tradition, the three-day event, organised by the Convergent Science Network, will be hosted at a fantastic venue consistent with the spirit of the conference: the Da Vinci Museum of Science and Technology, one of the largest technology museums in Europe.

The conference will be packed with fascinating talks on a variety of topics related to the development of technologies at the intersection of living and artificial systems, including six plenary lectures from some of the most distinguished experts in the field. The plenary lectures will be complemented by nearly 20 short talks on diverse topics such as soft robotics, active sensing, neuromechanics and others.

You can find out more about the plenary speakers HERE and check out the full conference programme HERE.

This year, the Living Machines conference will be preceded by a one-day satellite event, hosted by the Italian Institute of Technology and consisting of a series of research-oriented workshops. Learn more about the workshops HERE.

We are looking forward to seeing you this year!

What’s the relationship between living and artificial systems? How can we combine the two to form sophisticated solutions to challenges in science and engineering? The annual conference Living Machines puts these questions under the microscope.

Conference chairs Paul Verschure (Director of the Synthetic, Perceptive, Emotive and Cognitive Systems Group at Pompeu Fabra University) and Tony Prescott (Director of the Sheffield Centre for For Robotics, University of Sheffield ) hosted the 2013 events July, 29 – August, 2 at the Natural History Museum in London, a venue no less enchanting than last year’s edition which took place at Antonio Gaudi’s La Pedrera in Barcelona.

In addition to the workshops and the international roster of plenary speakers, this year’s conference featured a special exhibition on Living Machines at the London Science Museum.  Intelligent artifacts and biohybrid art made up the majority of installations displayed. Some of the stranger-than-fiction highlights included: a live musical performance featuring a humanoid robot; a robot model of ‘trace’ fossils from the dawn of life; music composed by a bio-inspired computer programme that mimics natural selection; plant-like robots that grow and change shape; wearable computing for finding your way in darkness and a robot that powers itself by digesting insects.

The fascinating exhibition complemented captivating talks on Natural and Artificial Selves by University of California Berkeley’s Tarrence Deacon; Biomimetics for medical devices by Ferdinando Rodriguez y Baena from Imperial College London; the history of living machines by Andrew Pickering from the University of Exeter, and several others.

Stay tuned for the Convergent Science Network’s next edition of Living Machines, coming up in the summer of 2014! To read more about the 2013 event click HERE.

The European Commission recognizes Robotics as a key industry for the future of Europe

The European Commission has recently agreed to launch a Public Private Partnership in Robotics (PPP) between academia and industry for 2013. 

The initiative aims to  help Europe-based companies take a larger share of the global robotics market which is valued at  an annual 15.5 billion euros!

Vice President of the European Commission’s Digital Agenda, Neelie Kroes, stated that “A strong robotics industry is key to Europe’s future competitiveness. Growing our robotics industry means new jobs and a strong European manufacturing sector. ” In fact, the commission maintains that three million jobs are created or maintained worldwide as a result of using one million industrial robots.

Specific goals of the PPP aim to promote the growth of domestic and professional service robot markets and to reach out to new users and markets. The PPP will also contribute to policy development while addressing ethical, legal and societal issues concerning the use of robots.

As an important step in the process,  A recent survey, carried out in each of the 27 member states, examines public attitudes towards robots including public perceptions, acceptance levels and worries and reservations among EU citizens over 15 years of age.

Results of the survey show that the majority of EU citizens have a positive view of robots with percentages as high as 88% in countries such as Denmark and Sweden. According to the study, Europeans’ positive attitudes on robots are based on the notion that they are helpful  because they can assist humans in tasks that may be too difficult or too dangerous for us to do.  However, the study also pointed out that Europeans believe robots require careful management and the fear that they might steal people’s jobs is still present.  

When it comes to where Europeans think robots should be used, sectors such as: space exploration , manufacturing , military and security and search and rescue tasks were most prevalent. On the flip-side,  people were more hesitant to favour the use of robots for the care of children, the elderly or the disabled however, results also demonstrated that few Europeans have had personal experience with robots and that, the common conception of a robot tends to be that of a machine used in the workplace rather than a human-like machine that helps in the home.

If you’re interested in new kinds of European Robotics projects, check out Robot Companions for Citizens which aims to develop robots to help tackle some of Europe’s critical societal challenges. The innovative Robotics  project is striving for a 1 billion euro grant from the European Commission and the competition has now come down to the wire! Click HERE for more information.

You can also follow the Robot Companions for Citizens Facebook page.

What will the next generation of robot helpers look like? If you’ve got a vision,
now’s your chance to show us what you think! First Prize is a 2 week placement at the prestigious Sebastian Conran design studios in London and a selection of the best entries will be exhibited at the Living Machines conference in Barcelona in 2012.

You’re free to draw, sketch, paint or make a 3D computer model of a robot companion in any of these 4 environments:

1 The healthcare environment – a larger robot that has the strength to
lift/carry a person. Possible uses could include bed to wheelchair or wheelchair
to car aids, transfer to and from the bathroom, walking and washing assistance.

2 The home environment – a general-purpose household assistant that might
carry out tasks such as food preparation, tidying, cleaning as well as social
activities such as game playing.

3 The outdoor environment – A medium sized robot designed to travel over a
variety of terrains, carry, act as a guide or perform tasks such as gardening
or operate as a guard/warning device.

4 The active environment – a robot companion to support and maximize healthy
aging. With the ability to socialize, learn skills such as golfing, dancing,
monitor sleep/activity/medication/entertainment patterns and preferences,
coach and encourage.

Your designs should show robot companions interacting with people, emphasizing that future robots are there to support humans, not replace them!

How To Enter

You can submit up to 4 individual submissions, group work is also encouraged.
The submission date is Friday  March 3rd, 2012. Please use the SHU digital drop box to send in your submissions. All submissions and questions regarding the competition should be addressed to: Professor Ian Gwilt (i.gwilt@shu.ac.uk).

Create your designs on an A3 format (landscape or portrait). Remember to indicate
which environment your robotic companion is designed to operate in. Label any particular devices, characteristics, materials, capabilities or attachments that your robot companion might have. Please submit your designs digitally as a PDF. You will need to rescan your submission if you have created it off the computer, as we will only accept digital submissions.

The video above was presented by the Robot Companion for Citizens Flagship Initiative at a conference in Warsaw at the end of November. Robot Companions for Citizens is currently one of 6 research initiatives in the running to receive 1 billion euros funding from the European Commission over the next 10 years.

These initiatives are visionary, multidisciplinary and they must aim to generate waves of technological innovation and economic exploitation, ideally in a variety of areas and sectors, carrying an important societal impact.

The Robot Companions for Citizens initiative is on par with the overarching goal of the Flagship Program by bringing together robotocists, material scientists, psychologists, neuroscientists, social scientists and ethicists to create an entirely new robotic industry to benefit Europe. Watch the video above to find out more about Robot Companions for Citizens.

Held November 24-25 at the Warsaw University of Technology and the University of Warsaw.

The 6 FET Flagships showed off their stuff  at the midterm conference, involving about 250 European scientists and policy makers, who assessed the progress made by each of the flagships, reevaluating their goals and the possible impacts they will have.

In addition to presentations from each flagship consortium, the conference also included a dialogue between key political players who  framed the FET flagships in the context of current EU research policies. The conference also  shed some light on the bigger picture behind the flagship initiatives during a discussion about how these initiatives present an opportunity for Europe  to engage with international stakeholders. The role of civil society and ethics in the FET Flagships was another key issue that was examined.

Click HERE to find out more about the Robot Companions for Citizens flagship, an ambitious initiative which aims to sustain the welfare of Europeans through the assistance of sentient machines.