Lessons learned from Nutt fallout

by Laura Hood

The government is to rework the terms of engagement for using scientific advice, science minister Paul Drayson has confirmed.

Drayson says that the government will endorse the recommendations set out by a group of scientists in Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice and that a set of rules governing science advisory bodies will be prepared by Christmas. The science minister will work with the signatories of the principles on the terms as well as other government scientific advisers.

The principles, which were signed by a number of respected scientists, including Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society, and former chief scientific adviser Bob May, state that speaking out about policy issues should not constitute grounds for dismissal when a scientist is advising the government in an unpaid capacity and that advisory boards should be allowed to operate without political pressure.

They were published in response to the sacking of David Nutt from his position as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs last week by home secretary Alan Johnson. The decision sparked fury among scientists, many of whom have warned that Johnson’s actions could discourage academics from working for the government in the future.

In an interview with Research Fortnight, Drayson said that he has spent the past few days in discussions with Johnson, the Prime Minister and John Beddington, the government chief scientific advisor, about how to handle the situation and that he has decided to draw up the new terms as a result, based on the ideas put forward in the principles document.
“I want to absolutely underline the government’s commitment to the principle of academic freedom and independent scientific advice— the principle and the practice,” he says. “These principles are a very good starting point.”

Drayson says that he hopes that the terms will go some way to drawing some good from the Nutt scandal.

“What this has shown is that both the political world and the scientific world need to have a better understanding of each other but also that the rules of engagement need to be more rigorously applied,” he says.

Nutt was dismissed after making a speech at King’s College London in July, which was published in a pamphlet last week, during which he suggested that ministers “distort” the value of scientific evidence in their policies. He argues that the government’s classification of ecstasy and cannabis should be reassessed and says that his panel has faced continual political interference in its work since Gordon Brown came into office.
Nutt has called for Drayson to lead on remodelling the ACMD in the wake of his departure. But while Drayson says that the terms of engagement will address issues such as giving committees access to an independent press office, he believes that Beddington would be better placed to advise on the specifics of the ACMD itself. “I do think that it is the role of the advisers to advise ministers on the setting up of those committees. My role as science minister is to champion science in government.”

Drayson says that Johnson was wrong to sack Nutt without consulting either him or Beddington and that he would expect ministers to communicate with him in the future on such matters before taking action. However, asked whether he agreed in principle with the sacking of Nutt, if not the method, the minister said that he does not think it “helpful” to go over the details of the incident.

Moon and Antarctica - legally safe?

by William Cullerne Bown

My short article in New Scientist, arguing that the space powers are engaged in a new race to the moon that is best understood as a slow-motion re-run of the Antarctica story has provoked a wave of comment there. Since I intend to continue writing on this subject (and would welcome comments) I have decided to post a full reply here.

Most interesting to me has been law-inspired criticism and here’s a typical comment in full, from "lawroberts":

Unfortunately for the author, Antarctica is an inappropriate analogy for the status of state claims to the Moon.

First, the claims of ownership that the author notes are a largely irrelevant, historical artifact. Antarctica is governed by international agreement - the Antarctica Treaty. The Antarctica Treaty effectively prohibits national claims and has deferred the issue of resource exploitation.

While it is true that a number of nations when signing the Antarctica Treaty reserved their pre-existing claims of jurisdiction and control, those rights only take effect in the event of the collapse of the Antarctica Treaty.

Anyone making a claim of the possibility of a future colonial model based upon pre-existing claim must take into account the fact that unlike Antarctica there are no surviving, pre-existing claims of state jurisdiction and control. In addition, the fact that the Outer Space Treaty represents a customary law standard makes it extraordinarily difficult to assert a future claim of national control even were the nation in question to renounce the OST.

The two central criticisms are that a) the kind of competitive colonisation I fear is nonsense as it is already illegal; and b) that the comparison with Antarctica is flawed as potential conflict there has been effectively pre-empted by the Antarctica Treaty. Here’s why I think both these criticisms are wrong.

Space law is adequate?

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states that "outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means". That seems pretty clear. And indeed, the UN Office for Outer Space Affairs helpfully offers this Q&A:

Q “Can any State claim a part of outer space as its own?”

A. “No. ... ” [for the reasons given above]

But the UN has a vested interest in such wishful thinking and to take all this at face value is flawed for two reasons. First, it mistakes our hopes for the rule of law for reality. A Banana Republic really is different from a Republic, even though it may in writing have an entirely Republican constitution and institutions. Nations repeatedly show themselves willing to violate international law, including often the space powers themselves. Eventually, as Israeli settlers know, occupation leads to ownership.

Second, the framework provided by the Outer Space Treaty is in fact brief and weak. For example, the US has argued that "peaceful uses" can include deploying weapons to defend its satellites, which, even if it is peaceful, is likely to give rise to an arms race. This is precisely why the Moon Treaty was drawn up - and, presumably, why the Moon Treaty has not been signed by the space powers. Various diplomatic attempts to strengthen the legal position have been going on for years without getting anywhere.

This is not to say the legal framework does not matter and will not constrain the activities of the space powers. But it will be entirely possible for the powers to proceed with a strategic contest for the moon for decades, staking de facto claims and building up their positions without violating any laws. The analogy is with the nations which have built up their nuclear capability without actually building any bombs, which Iran is currently accused of. The strategy is to develop your position without violating any treaty, to the point where the strategic aim (a bomb, control of part of the moon) becomes unstoppable. The fact that this activity does not violate any treaty and in that sense is legal, does not mean it will not lead to war.

As an illustration of the way things might develop, take a look at the scenario drawn up by the International Institute of Space Law in 1993 (pdf here).

Antarctica has been pacified?

The Antarctica Treaty is obviously helpful in reducing tensions. But it has notably failed to deal with the central question of who gets to exploit which resources. The treaty explicitly does not recognize, dispute, nor establish territorial sovereignty claims. And the facts on the ground show continued efforts to strengthen claims by, for example, Britain, Argentina and Chile, whose claims overlap. See this story from some oil people.

Drayson's plans for a government Chief Technology Officer

by William Cullerne Bown

Today I'm working on a leader on Paul Drayson's plan for a Chief Technology Officer.

You can find him expounding it in this video between minutes 14 and 24

My starting point: Great idea. What do you think?

Is the moon the new antarctica?

by William Cullerne Bown

Little piece by me about new empires in the New Scientist http://bit.ly/3RlVUj

Who should be Europe's chief scientific adviser?

by Brian Owens

Over the past few weeks, Research Europe has been soliciting nominations for who should be the first to get the job of Chief Scientific Adviser for the EU.

Commission president José Manuel Barroso promised the European Parliament last month that he would appoint one when he was reconfirmed as president, and the European Research Area Board said it should be a top priority for the Commission in its first annual report last week.

We received four nominations from the European research community. They are:

• Helga Nowotny, a sociologist and vice-president of the European Research Council
• David King, a chemist and former UK chief scientific adviser
• John Wood, chairman of the European Research Area Board and head of engineering at Imperial College London
• Peter Gruss, a developmental biologist and president of Germany’s Max Planck Society

Have your say in the comments below, or e-mail us at comment@researchresearch.com. We will have the results in two weeks' time.

Now on Twitter

by William Cullerne Bown

Now you can find us and follow us on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/ResFortnight for UK news flashes

http://twitter.com/ResearchEurope for European news flashes

http://twitter.com/WilliamCB for my opinions.

Technology focus for NERC’s responsive mode funding

by Brian Owens

The Natural Environment Research Council has revised its responsive mode funding streams to better encourage “adventurous, technology-led and multi-disciplinary proposals”.

Responsive mode is the funding stream that supports research in response to unsolicited ideas from research groups, consortia and individuals, and is intended to provide support for cutting-edge areas of science.

The new guidelines are intended to encourage “adventurous research” which NERC defines as being innovative and high-risk, and “technology-led proposals” that focus on technological applications of research.

Technology-generating research was not specified as a target area for funding on the council’s Funding Streams and Categories webpage of September 2008. Here the research council defined the responsive mode stream as encouraging blue-skies research: “supporting original investigation and training undertaken to gain, advance or expand knowledge and understanding”.

The new guidelines also encourage collaboration across and within disciplines and institutional boundaries as well as with international and non-academic partners.

The change comes as a result of NERC's 2004 Blue Skies Review that found that the research community has a varied understanding of what responsive mode is and what it is for.

The new definition was formed following a consultation exercise including two current Science and Innovation Strategy Board members and is one of the main actions identified in the research council’s 2009 Responsive Mode Action Plan.

Irish Education head warns of greater government intervention in higher education

by Brian Owens

*****
This from Dick Ahlstrom, our Irish correspondent. Could it be the shape of things to come in other countries? -- BO
*****

The days of limited government regulation of higher education are drawing to a close, and higher education sector may see its income linked to national economic priorities, according to the chief executive of the Higher Education Authority.

Tom Boland was speaking on 12 June at an international colloquium on higher education at the Dublin Institute of Technology. He was expressing his personal views rather than the official line of the HEA, he told delegates.

He said that the days of low-key regulation by government were coming to an end. Lack of controls had “given us unnecessary and inefficient duplication in programme provision. It has give us mission creep, inflexible staffing structures and practices and it has given us a fragmented system of institutions which to a very great extent stand apart and aloof from each other,” he told delegates.

He suggested there was a case for significant change in the sector, where university income was coupled to national economic priorities.

The current situation could not remain, however, he said. “We cannot afford this mode of operation and organisation any more. We cannot afford the cost and we cannot afford the implications for quality,” he stated.

The sector needed to place a greater emphasis on collaboration and coherence. This would make it possible to build up a critical mass of expertise in particular disciplines. It would take a “shrewd use of resources” but was necessary if Ireland were to have any research impact internationally.

“Collectively our higher education institutions represent a very valuable national resource and it is imperative for Ireland’s economic and social development that its full potential, across all institutions of all types, be realised,” he stated.

Obama's FutureGen revival draws mixed reviews

by Colin Macilwain

*******
This from Rebecca Trager, our Washington correspondent. The progress of FutureGen will be watched closely by those interested in the global potential of carbon capture and storage -- CFM
*******

The Obama administration has reversed another prominent Bush-era science and technology policy decision by reviving the FutureGen clean coal project. But many doubt the worth of the project, and reaction to the decision has been split.

Federal funding for FutureGen, which originally aimed to build a near zero-emissions coal-fueled power plant in Mattoon, Illinois that uses carbon capture and storage (CCS), was pulled in January 2008 by the former Bush administration because its estimated cost had almost doubled, from $950 million to $1.8 billion.

Things became nasty when the administration was accused of deliberately sabotaging the project because Illinois was selected as the site for FutureGen, rather than applicants from elsewhere – including Bush’s home state of Texas.

More recently, Congress’ non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the Bush administration had overstated FutureGen’s likely pricetag. The project’s costs had only risen to $1.3 billion, GAO said. Concurrently, the House of Representatives’ Science and Technology Committee analyzed government documents and accused Bush’s Department of Energy (DOE) of purposely using erroneous figures to derail FutureGen.

The saga is at over for now. DOE’s new director, Steven Chu, announced on June 12 that the department will soon restart FutureGen’s preliminary design activities, and update its cost estimates.

The department anticipates contributing over $1 billion to the effort, and obtaining at least $400 million from industry partners. A decision about the project’s future will come in early 2010.

The administration’s action is unsurprising since Obama represented Illinois in the Senate, and was one of several lawmakers from that state that protested the cancellation of FutureGen.

Illinois politicians – both Republican and Democratic – applaud DOE’s about-face, calling it a “historic moment” for the state and country. They characterize the FutureGen project as having great scientific promise and economic benefits. But others, including many environmental groups, are less enthusiastic.
Greenpeace, however, has protested against FutureGen by putting a fake billboard on the plant’s future site that called it a “$2 billion dollar hole in the ground”. City officials reportedly made them remove it.

CCS is an unproven technology and it won’t be commercially viable before 2020, Greenpeace states. Money spent on CCS means that clean alternatives like wave, wind and solar power get short-changed, the NGO warns. The organization says CCS keeps the hope of coal as an energy source alive, even when it is not needed.

Chu himself has made negative statements about coal and its environmental impact, calling it his “worst nightmare” in December 2008.

The fact that FutureGen’s target for cutting carbon emissions has already been dramatically reduced – from 90 percent to 60 percent – has drawn fire from the project’s critics.

FutureGen’s intent is to test technologies that could later be deployed commercially. But the non-profit Clean Air Task Force says the new 60 percent threshold will achieve levels that are no higher, and maybe even lower, than several commercial projects already at advanced stages of development.  

During these tough economic times, FutureGen’s potential to generate over 10,000 jobs makes it very politically attractive. But overly eager politicians should not cloud questions about its technical merit.

DOE press release
http://www.energy.gov/news2009/7454.htm

Wales to get chief scientific adviser

by Laura Hood

Wales is to have its own chief scientific adviser for the first time, the Assembly government has announced.

First minister Rhodri Morgan, who also acts as the Welsh science minister, has agreed that the assembly government would benefit form the advice of a top-level scientist as it continues its own science strategy, independently of Whitehall.

The decision follows a 2008 review, which was commissioned by Morgan as a first step to assessing whether or not an independent CSA would be needed.

Chris Pollock, the former director of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research in Aberystwyth and author of this report, has been widely tipped for the role.

Morgan was expected to make a decision on appointing a CSA as early as last December, but reportedly delayed the announcement over funding worries. However, now apparently looking to a more financially stable future, Morgan said in a statement that appointing a CSA would help efforts to “encourage the knowledge, skills and enterprise to strengthen businesses in Wales ahead of the global economic upturn”.

The adviser will report directly to Morgan, making recommendations on promoting science, technology, engineering and maths in Wales, and on general policy making.

The Welsh CSA will be expected to act as a link between UK CSA John Beddington and the Welsh government.

The assembly will begin the recruitment process for the CSA position immediately.