[f(k)] Fwd: REMINDER: Colloquium 16.1.

[Puheenjohtaja F(k)]

Hi All,

Colloquium! Tomorrow! Check for details below.

Best,
Samuli

-------- Alkuperäinen viesti --------
 From: Grahn, Tuomas <tuomas.grahn at jyu.fi>
Subject: REMINDER: Colloquium 16.1.

Welcome to the Physics Colloquium on Friday 16 January 2026 at FYS3 
(note the unusual location).

As usual, we will start at 10:00 with coffee, followed by the 
presentation at 10:15.

Janne-Tuomas Seppänen
Ph.D., Data scientist, Overton Ltd.

Charting crossroads and bridges from science to policy, and back again

Scientists - especially in natural sciences like physics, astronomy, 
chemistry, mathematics and biology - may often feel disconnected from 
the contemporary operations of society. The knowledge we build about 
life, the universe, and everything is of course fundamental, 
foundational, but our society’s rules and regulations and guidelines and 
goals and bottom lines feel more like operating parameters and 
limitations, rather than things that would be shaped by our science. But 
did you know that just within the last five years, over 30 government 
policy documents ranging from Australia, Brazil, Denmark, the EU, 
Germany, India, Ireland, Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, UK and 
USA cite research done here at the Department of Physics? And that many 
think-tanks and other organizations also cite your works in their 
materials aimed at decision-makers?

The connection works the other way too: in a world aspiring towards more 
evidence-based-policy, there are pressures from policy-makers to shape 
directions of research. Scientists should be cognizant of these currents 
too, to be able to fruitfully engage them (and resist them, when
necessary). I will talk about the data and solutions Overton.io provides 
in these science/policy borderlands.

As an aside, I will also recount my path from a young ecology PhD to a 
company Data Scientist, to give an example of what’s possible beyond the 
formal research career tracks. Finally, I want to offer food for thought 
and debate on the _single_ root cause of all the woes of scholarly 
publishing, be that access, affordability, peer review, inefficiency, 
speed, quality, plagiarism, outright fraud, etc.