Sei sulla pagina 1di 83

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2011/01/02 Nature News: New year, new science ................................................................ 3


2011/01/04 The Great Beyond – Nature: Report urges NIH to adapt to a new scientific
revolution .............................................................................................................................. 5
2011/01/05 WELLCOME TRUST BLOG: Guest post: If science were a play would its audience
be the ‘public’? ...................................................................................................................... 6
2011/01/05 Alice Bell Blog: The brain: the new weather? ..................................................... 7
2011/01/05 NYT: Journal’s Paper on ESP Expected to Prompt Outrage ................................. 9
2011/01/05 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG HARRIS: Is homeopathy on the ropes after ban on
prescription for pets? .......................................................................................................... 11
2011/01/06 NEW SCIENTIST: MMR scandal: Wakefield accused of 'deliberate fraud' ......... 14
2011/01/06 BIS: Proposals published for £200 million network of Technology and
Innovation Centres .............................................................................................................. 16
2011/01/06 Research Fortnight Today: Careers funding must continue, finds independent
review .................................................................................................................................. 18
2011/01/06 CASE: Imperial College Union: Life Sciences Restructuring Threatens Teaching
............................................................................................................................................. 19
2011/01/06 e-Politix: Government must adopt 'strategic role' in skills................................ 20
2011/01/06 BUBBLE CHAMBER: The Murky Climate of the “Editorial Peer Review” Debate21
2011/01/06 The Great Beyond – Nature: Wakefield’s MMR work takes another kicking .... 25
2011/01/07 NEW SCIENTIST: Science rides high in ranking of best and worst jobs .............. 26
2011/01/07 WALL STREET SESSION: Pay Attention, Please .................................................. 27
2011/01/07 BBC NEWS BUSINESS: Creating serendipity: Using knowledge transfer networks
............................................................................................................................................. 29
2011/01/07 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG HARRIS: Libel reform gets government backing, but
don't pop your corks just yet ............................................................................................... 32
2011/01/08 CIF GUARDIAN BAD SCIENCE: Do 600 unwanted pregnancies really make an
exceptional story?................................................................................................................ 34
2011/01/10 The Great Beyond – Nature: Giffords shooting ripples through science
community........................................................................................................................... 35
2011/01/10 ResearchBlogs: What it's really like inside a university in the age of austerity . 35
2011/01/10 BUBBLE CHAMBER: Science and the Media: Upside-Down Pyramid Thinking .. 37
2011/01/10 Research Fortnight Today: Ambitious economic goals for new UK life-sciences
initiative ............................................................................................................................... 39
2011/01/10 ResearchBlogs: NERC settlement confirms uncertainties ahead for science and
engineering research, says David King ................................................................................. 40
2011/01/11 Becky's Policy Pages: Academy proposes a new way to regulate medical
research in the UK ............................................................................................................... 41
2011/01/11 British Health Foundation: UK medical advances ‘bogged down in red tape’,
says report ........................................................................................................................... 44
2011/01/11 Simon Denegri’s Blog: Rawlins Review: Academy lays down law on health
research regulation .............................................................................................................. 44
2011/01/11 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG ROBBINS: Mobile internet - better in Africa? ......... 46
2011/01/12 The Great Beyond – Nature: 2011: the year when whole genome sequencing
becomes blasé? ................................................................................................................... 47
2011/01/12 BUBBLE CHAMBER: Michael Oppenheimer on Scientists’ Engagement with the
Public ................................................................................................................................... 48
2011/01/12 Nature News World View: University cuts show science is far from saved ....... 48
2011/01/12 Guardian Science Blog: Climate change exhibit Atmosphere may be pretty but
it lacks punch ....................................................................................................................... 50

1|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/12 Guardian Science Blog: The medical establishment shielded Andrew Wakefield
from fraud claims................................................................................................................. 52
2011/01/13 The Great Beyond – Nature: Research leader in Greece resigns................. 54
2011/01/13 Times HE: Taught postgraduate degrees may soon be preserve of the rich ..... 54
2011/01/13 ResearchBlogs: What future for postgraduate education? ............................... 55
2011/01/13-17 SCIENCE ONLINE 2011 PROGRAM – #SCIO11 .............................................. 56
Thursday, January 13th 2011 ....................................................................................................................... 56
Friday, January 14th 2011 ............................................................................................................................. 57
Saturday, January 15th 2011 ....................................................................................................................... 57
Sunday, January 16th ................................................................................................................................... 65
2011/01/14 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG ROBBINS: The dangerous fight for the 'child witches'
of Nigeria ............................................................................................................................. 71
2011/01/14 IN VERBA: Pastures new for science policy in Cambridge ................................. 72
2011/01/14 ResearchBlogs: LWEC's future lies in commercial collaborations ..................... 73
2011/01/14 The Great Beyond – Nature: 25 years of saving British science ........................ 74
2011/01/14 CASE: 25 Years of CaSE – what’s changed? ....................................................... 75
2011/01/14 CASE: CaSE’s 25th Anniversary Reception; a review ......................................... 76
2011/01/14 Becky's Policy Pages: ........................................................................................ 77
In the Lords yesterday; getting GPs excited about health research...................................... 77
2011/01/14 Denegri’s Blog: Getting touchy over the information revolution ...................... 79
2011/01/15 Guardian Science: We must learn to love uncertainty and failure, say leading
thinkers ................................................................................................................................ 80
2011/01/15 CIF BAD SCIENCE: Now you see it, now you don't: why journals need to rethink
retractions ........................................................................................................................... 82

2|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/02 NATURE NEWS: NEW YEAR, NEW
SCIENCE
Nature looks at key findings and events that could emerge from the research world
in 2011.

Richard Van Noorden , Heidi Ledford & Adam Mann

Will the National Ignition Facility ignite 2011?LBNL

The Eemian revealed The North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) project reached
bedrock in July 2010, at a depth of more than 2,500 metres. The fruits of that effort should
soon be seen, now that researchers are analysing gas and particles trapped inside the ice
core to reveal details of the climate of the Eemian interglacial period (130,000–115,000 years
ago), when the average global temperature was about 5°C warmer than today.

GWAS prove their worth Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have uncovered plenty
of links between diseases and particular regions of the genome, but frustratingly haven't
revealed much about the biochemistry behind these associations. In 2011, expect to see real
mechanistic insights explaining how genes, and non-coding regions, affect the medical
conditions they have been linked with. Metabolism, obesity and diabetes are among the
hottest targets.

Stem cells: ready for study Researchers have learned how to reprogram people's cells into
induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells, and on from that into other cell types: skin cells can be
turned into nerve cells, for example. Patient-derived iPS cells will increasingly be used as
models for studying medical conditions — particularly those, such as psychiatric disorders, for
which there are no good animal models, and little understanding of what is happening inside
cells. They will also be used to screen potential drugs, and to probe why existing drugs help
some patients but not others.

Genome-sequencing explosion This year should surely see the price of human-genome
sequencing dropping to US$1,000 per genome. As next-generation sequencing machines
reach the market, the number of fully sequenced human genomes will skyrocket.

That damned elusive Higgs Although it is unlikely that the Higgs boson will be spotted this
year by the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva, Switzerland, there's a good chance the
collider will turn up something, such as evidence for supersymmetry — the theory that every
known fundamental particle has an undiscovered, superheavy partner. Meanwhile, Fermilab's

3|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
Tevatron in Batavia, Illinois, is pushing for an extension beyond its September 2011
shutdown, and still hopes to hit the Higgs jackpot.

Dark matter's moment of truth A number of underground experiments, such as


XENON100 at Italy's Gran Sasso National Laboratory near L'Aquila, and the Cryogenic Dark
Matter Search (CDMSII) in northern Minnesota's Soudan Mine, are hunting for dark matter
particles and expect to release results in 2011.

Hepatitis C treatment Eagerly anticipated drug approvals in 2011 include a decision by the
US Food and Drug Administration on telaprevir, which could provide relief for the 3% of the
world's population infected with the hepatitis C virus. The drug was developed by Vertex
Pharmaceuticals in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Another Earth Planet-hunters anticipate that NASA's Kepler telescope will reveal an Earth-
like planet orbiting a Sun-like star. It has already spotted hundreds of planets outside the
Solar System, although full data have not yet been released.

Synthetic biology: think multicellular No longer will scientists have to cram complicated
synthetic biology into a single cell. Last year, researchers engineered an entire colony of
bacteria to periodically fluoresce in unison, and we can expect many more papers exploring
the behaviour of collections of cells. The goal is to exploit this teamwork to give bacteria
useful functions such as producing medicinal drugs.

Last of the shuttles The final flight of NASA's space-shuttle fleet is scheduled for April,
when it will deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) to the International Space Station
to search for antimatter and dark matter. However, the US Congress may authorize another
shuttle outing in November. If the second test launch of Dragon, the craft developed by
commercial spaceflight firm SpaceX in Hawthorne, California, proves successful, the launch of
a private spacecraft with crew or cargo is not out of the question.

Solar-system explorers In March, NASA's Messenger mission is due to become the first
craft ever to orbit Mercury, and the agency's Dawn probe will orbit one of the biggest
members of the asteroid belt, Vesta, in August. Other planned space launches include Juno,
which will orbit Jupiter's poles; the GRAIL mission, twin spacecraft due to measure the Moon's
gravitational field; and the Mars Science Laboratory, a car-sized rover that will explore the
red planet.

Superlaser flirts with fusion California's National Ignition Facility (pictured), the world's
most powerful laser, is inching its way to triggering ignition, when fusion reactions in a target
of hydrogen isotopes should produce more energy than the laser delivers. Experts give even
odds that the laser, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, will succeed this year.

Probing home The European Space Agency's satellite GOCE, which is designed to measure
Earth's gravity field in unprecedented detail, will publish results next year that will be used to
help monitor sea level rise. Meanwhile, NASA's Aquarius satellite will launch to measure
ocean salinity, and Glory will monitor solar irradiance and aerosols.

CORRECTED: This article previously referred to GOCE as a NASA satellite. It is actually operated by the
European Space Agency.

4|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/04 THE GREAT BEYOND – NATURE:
REPORT URGES NIH TO ADAPT TO A NEW
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
A scientific revolution is underway that, if harnessed
effectively, will transform everything from health care, to
energy production to food. So says a new report issued today
by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and
discussed in a members forum hosted by the American
Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington,
DC. The report is targeted specifically at the biomedical
community to, as the authors write, “help delineate an
important new research model” that has already begun
reshaping health science and has the potential to do far more.
Dubbed “convergence” by the multi-disciplinary panel of
prominent researchers who authored the report, the
revolution is essentially the integration of the physical
sciences and engineering with biology. The outcome, the
authors say, is a set of conceptually new approaches that will
allow scientists to tackle some of the most complex and
intractable challenges of the century - including the cancers
and degenerative diseases that are expected to plague an
aging population over the next fifty years.
The union of life science with the physical sciences and technology is not new, the report notes, but dates
back to the first use of X-rays for medical imaging. What has changed is the pace and the degree to which
the disciplines are converging around specific problems, bringing together the molecular and genomic
tools of biology with a design approach more characteristic of engineering.
Panelists pointed to MIT’s new Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research in Cambridge as a place
where convergence is occurring on an institutional level. From the outset, the institute was conceived to
put biologists and engineers under one roof, fostering developments such as the design of nanoparticles to
deliver minute quantities of drugs only to cancerous cells.
So far so good, but as the authors point out, the revolution will require more than facilities; it will need
new ways of organizing funding agencies so that cross-disciplinary work can be effectively monitored and
supported. University departments with their traditional academic boundaries also need to develop new
flexibility. The peer-review of convergent science and the regulation of its products also requires a new
kind of expertise.
The MIT report makes specific recommendations for how the National Institutes of Health, the largest
funder of biomedical research, can adjust to better support the convergence revolution. It notes that
funding levels since 2004 have not kept pace with inflation, effectively putting the agency into an ever-
tightening noose. The competitive squeeze this puts on researchers tends to discourage creative risk-taking
and interdisciplinary science.
Not surprisingly the report recommends that Congressional funding for NIH be increased to meet or beat
inflation. Other recommendations include reforming peer review and setting up convergence centers at

5|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
institutions across the US that would support small cross-disciplinary teams. The panel discussion also
revolved around strategies for training the next generation of scientists to think in convergent ways. The
report concludes with a tantalizing glimpse of all the areas where a convergence approach could lead to
game-changing developments in energy, climate and agriculture.
Generations ago, Renaissance thinkers such Leonardo Da Vinci set the bar for intellectual breadth. Perhaps
solving the world’s problems will come down to more scientists - and more policy makers - summoning
their inner Leonardos.
Posted by Ivan Semeniuk

2011/01/05 WELLCOME TRUST BLOG:


GUEST POST: IF SCIENCE WERE A PLAY WOULD ITS
AUDIENCE BE THE „PUBLIC‟?

Delegates at one of the discussion groups at the Science and Citizenship event.

In December 2010, the Trust co-convened a conference on Science and Citizenship, exploring the role of
science communication and engagement in society. Juliette Mutheu reports.
One of my fondest memories of the London Film Festival is hearing the thoughts of the directors and
producers in the Q&A sessions that often followed a film. Such sessions provide the public with an
understanding and appreciation of a topic, be it in cinema, theatre or politics, not to mention bringing the
topic closer home when addressing its relevance in society. This led me to wonder what would happen if
scientists took part in similar sessions with members of the public following the publication of a major
discovery. Such sessions may help to redress the perception of science as something too complex to be
understood by non-scientists.
Last month, the British Council, the British Science Association, the Commonwealth
Foundation,SciDev.Net and the Wellcome Trust organised a Science and Citizenship event at the Wellcome
Trust Conference Centre in London. Science communication experts from all over the world were invited to
revisit the 2000 House of Lords Science and Technology report, celebrate the Commonwealth Foundation’s
2010 theme of Science, Technology and Society, reflect on the status of science communication today and
hopefully generate a global science communication agenda for the future.
Across the world science communication is taking shape and it’s becoming increasingly necessary for those
doing scientific research to engage the public with their work. The event presented several good examples
along the lines of the House of Lords report’s four major themes: communicating uncertainty and risk,
engaging the public, science education in schools and science and media. Japan’s Takeshi Kimura talked
about Japanese consumers requiring consumer science literacy and industry realising that risk
communication cannot be left to governments alone. El Zoheiry Hamid of Egypt discussed
6|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
theRDI programme’s diverse science communication activities and its supporting framework for
universities and research centres to establish public engagement units. On education, Ian Kennedy of New
Zealand noted that while the science curriculum in New Zealand is good the way it is taught depends on
factors such as assessment and perceived university requirements. Finally, Omer Cebeci presented the
work of the Turkish research council, TUBITAK, which publishes popular monthly science magazines that
have become reference source materials for school children, teachers and media.
The event had its shortcomings: all the contributions were from men, contrary to the view that many well-
known science communicators are women. Although I had the opportunity to follow the likes ofElizabeth
Pisani and Nadia El-Awady’s footsteps in presenting my experience of science communication in Kenya
(where I help to run the Kenya Science Cafes), I would have loved to hear from the experiences of other
female science communicators in attendance, such as Professor Kathy Sykes from the University of Bristol,
Angella Atero from the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology and Chloe Sheppard
from Research Councils UK. Similarly, there was neither much coverage on citizenship nor discussions on
why we need to engage the public and what we want to achieve with all the information about science. A
colleague felt that while most science communicators at the conference thought in terms of informing and
engaging the public, they were hesitant to call their methods science ‘PR’ or even ‘marketing.’
Nonetheless, my colleagues and I were impressed with the numerous examples of science communication
activities in other countries.
I took three things from the event. First, the emphasis and need for science communication is increasing
globally. Second, developing countries are following quickly in the UK’s footsteps but are defining their
own communication strategies adapted to engaging their public. Third, we need a global science
communication network that offers ongoing support and collaboration, promoting best practice from
around the world, while also allowing for innovation and creativity. It makes no sense to work alone when
a foundation of best practices exist.
Three years ago, I decided to change career from science research to public engagement. I remember
reading the House of Lords report and wondering what an African version of the report might look like.
Today, I am impressed and delighted by the science communication activities taking place in Africa, and
around the world.
Juliette Mutheu is a training fellow in science communication at the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research
Programme in Nairobi, Kenya. She is currently undertaking an MSc. in science communication at Imperial
College London.

2011/01/05 ALICE BELL BLOG: THE BRAIN:


THE NEW WEATHER?
What’s with the brain these days? This was the question Steve Woolgar started off a conference on
Neurosociety, held at the Saïd Business School late last term (see also my post on STS and the Bernalian
nightmare).
Why do we increasingly seem to feel the need to explain, plan and sell with reference to research to
neuroscience, or at least with allusions to such research? Why do we ask questions of what we can know,
what we must do and what we may hope couched in terms of various transcriptions of the brain? Are we
living in a neurosociety, or at least moving towards one?

7|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
Drinks for sale at my local corner shop
It seems that neuro is the prefix of the day, perhaps interchangeable with ‘e’ or ‘information’, or similar
hype over the idea we are living in ‘the era of the gene’. Or perhaps, neurosociety could be a development
of these two previous technoscientific epochs: arguably, much discussion of the brain stems from worries
about digital culture, and is couched in genetic terms. Whether we see ourselves through the brain, our
genes, or the technology we use, the central object we take as a figure of human behaviour seems to have
changed slightly over time. Is the heart next?
(Perhaps illuminatingly, no one seemed to reflect on the prefixes of ‘big’ or ‘no such thing as’ for the word
society. We largely stuck to science and technology framings)
Jonathan Rownson of the RSA was one of the many speakers to argue that the brain has become an object
that brings people together, it functions as a social device to get people together to talk. In STS terms we
might, very loosely, call it a ‘boundary object’. As Rownson put it: you ask people about their psychology,
their behaviour, and they feel defensive but ‘the brain animates people, the brain interests people’. Is the
brain, Rownson asked, the new weather?
Rownson also mentioned what I felt was the most interesting theme of the conference: that of reflexivity.
We are aware of our own condition more than ever before, and use this understanding to self-analyse. As
Umberto Eco might put it, we are ‘non-innocent’. We no longer see the brain naively. We know we cannot
simply say ‘as neuroscientists would say’. We know it is not so simple. We are not so unquestioning of
science these days (if we ever were).
Who this ‘we’ might be exactly is ambiguous though, there was a fair amount of talk at the conference
about the pervasiveness of ‘neuromyths’ and the need for some active mythbusting around neuroscience.
There was some connected discussion of what STS scholars can offer our understanding of neurosociety,
and whether they should retain some ethnographic distance from neuroscientists. This debate included
the idea that scientists themselves are insufficiently sceptical of their own work. This is an arguably unfair
prejudice of many STS schoars which I suspect has its roots in a loose application of Kuhn’s idea of normal
science. In contrast, Nikolas Rose argued that from his perspective of someone who has been studying the
field very closely for several years, neuroscientists are incredibly critical of their own work, as well as the
ways in which aspects or images of neuroscience are applied/ alluded to commercially or in popular
culture. As Rose put it, ‘if anything, the further away from researchers you get, the less reflexive you get’.
It’s all to easy to assume some other people blindly believe what they are told, be these people ‘the
public’, ‘scientists’, ‘humanities graduates’, ‘the media’, ‘politicians’, women, children, the working class or
another social group. But, as Dorothy Nelkin and Celeste Condit argued over the reality of ‘the DNA
Mystique’ in the mid ’90s, we should be careful of assuming a lack of critical faculties in others (just as we
should be careful of assuming too many in ourselves).
Thinking broadly about this non-innocence view of the brain, if and wherever such non-innocence might
exist: perhaps it is simply the moment in late modernity our move to neurosociety has occurred within.
Maybe we live in non-innocent times no matter what we are looking at. Or perhaps the brain is a topic
which invites reflexivity: we cannot help thinking about what makes us think. More pragmatically, I wonder
if the historical associations between some areas of philosophy, psychology and neuroscience are worth
8|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
noting. Perhaps this frames knowledge and debate on the issue in more questioning ways that discussion
of genetics or computing ever did.
Or maybe it really isn’t all that more reflexive than other issues. We might argue that there has always
been a mix of credulity and criticism about science and technology, in various places, in a variety of ways.
No one ever really took a gene’s eye view? Technological determinism was always a strawman argument?
The conference website should be updated with audio with some of the keynotes soon.
For my part in aiming to learn more about conversations surrounding neurosociety, I have started a small
research project on bloggers (details of how you can help).

2011/01/05 NYT: JOURNAL‟S PAPER ON ESP


EXPECTED TO PROMPT OUTRAGE
By BENEDICT CAREY

One of psychology’s most respected journals has agreed to publish a paper presenting what
its author describes as strong evidence for extrasensory perception, the ability to sense
future events.

Work by Daryl J. Bem on extrasensory perception is scheduled to be published this year.


The decision may delight believers in so-called paranormal events, but it is already
mortifying scientists. Advance copies of the paper, to be published this year in The Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, have circulated widely among psychological
researchers in recent weeks and have generated a mixture of amusement and scorn.
The paper describes nine unusual lab experiments performed over the past decade by its
author, Daryl J. Bem, an emeritus professor at Cornell, testing the ability of college
students to accurately sense random events, like whether a computer program will flash a
photograph on the left or right side of its screen. The studies include more than 1,000
subjects.
Some scientists say the report deserves to be published, in the name of open inquiry; others
insist that its acceptance only accentuates fundamental flaws in the evaluation and peer
review of research in the social sciences.
―It’s craziness, pure craziness. I can’t believe a major journal is allowing this work in,‖ Ray
Hyman, an emeritus professor of psychology at the University Oregon and longtime critic
of ESP research, said. ―I think it’s just an embarrassment for the entire field.‖
The editor of the journal, Charles Judd, a psychologist at the University of Colorado, said
the paper went through the journal’s regular review process. ―Four reviewers made
comments on the manuscript,‖ he said, ―and these are very trusted people.‖

9|Page
2011 VOLUME 01
All four decided that the paper met the journal’s editorial standards, Dr. Judd added, even
though ―there was no mechanism by which we could understand the results.‖
But many experts say that is precisely the problem. Claims that defy almost every law of
science are by definition extraordinary and thus require extraordinary evidence. Neglecting
to take this into account — as conventional social science analyses do — makes many
findings look far more significant than they really are, these experts say.
―Several top journals publish results only when these appear to support a hypothesis that is
counterintuitive or attention-grabbing,‖ Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, a psychologist at the
University of Amsterdam, wrote by e-mail. ―But such a hypothesis probably constitutes an
extraordinary claim, and it should undergo more scrutiny before it is allowed to enter the
field.‖
Dr. Wagenmakers is co-author of a rebuttal to the ESP paper that is scheduled to appear in
the same issue of the journal.
In an interview, Dr. Bem, the author of the original paper and one of the most prominent
research psychologists of his generation, said he intended each experiment to mimic a well-
known classic study, ―only time-reversed.‖
In one classic memory experiment, for example, participants study 48 words and then
divide a subset of 24 of them into categories, like food or animal. The act of categorizing
reinforces memory, and on subsequent tests people are more likely to remember the words
they practiced than those they did not.
In his version, Dr. Bem gave 100 college students a memory test before they did the
categorizing — and found they were significantly more likely to remember words that they
practiced later. ―The results show that practicing a set of words after the recall test does, in
fact, reach back in time to facilitate the recall of those words,‖ the paper concludes.
In another experiment, Dr. Bem had subjects choose which of two curtains on a computer
screen hid a photograph; the other curtain hid nothing but a blank screen.
A software program randomly posted a picture behind one curtain or the other — but only
after the participant made a choice. Still, the participants beat chance, by 53 percent to 50
percent, at least when the photos being posted were erotic ones. They did not do better
than chance on negative or neutral photos.
―What I showed was that unselected subjects could sense the erotic photos,‖ Dr. Bem said,
―but my guess is that if you use more talented people, who are better at this, they could find
any of the photos.‖

10 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/05 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG
HARRIS: IS HOMEOPATHY ON THE ROPES AFTER
BAN ON PRESCRIPTION FOR PETS?

Homeopaths who recommend remedies for the prevention of serious infectious diseases are now coming
under the spotlight

If it's unethical to give Buster an


unproven homeopathic remedy, how can it be ok for humans? Photograph: Ron Levine/Getty Images
Homeopathy is under real pressure following recent developments, highlighted in a hard-hitting report by
BBC TV science correspondent Pallab Ghosh on last night's Newsnight programme.
Not for use in animals
In December the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) in the Department for the Environment Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra) – which governs the use of medicines in animals – made clear that homeopathic
treatments could only be classed as medicines, and thus prescribed by vets, if they were able to
demonstrate efficacy.
Homeopathic products cannot demonstrate efficacy to any satisfactory degree and so this means that they
can't be used by vets to treat animals. The use of homeopathy to treat animals – "there's no placebo effect
in animals, is there, so it must work" the homeopaths claim – has long been a mainstay of the homeopathy
industry's argument.
The logic of the VMD's decision is unquestionable. If it doesn't have efficacy, it can't be a medicine. And,
ethically, if a medicine doesn't work then a sick animal deserves to have real treatment not sham
treatment. The danger of course is that people may be lulled into believing a homeopathic remedy is

11 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
actually treating their pets or livestock, when in fact a treatable disease is being allowed to get worse. This
is avoidable harm – in other words, irresponsible behaviour or even animal cruelty.
The BBC report and the debate in the studio afterwards identified the obvious irony: that homeopathic
medicines can't be provided by veterinary professionals to animals, but can be provided by healthcare
professionals to humans – including those not able to make an informed choice, such as children and
adults without the necessary mental capacity.
Newsnight's sting
The BBC filmed homeopaths giving dodgy advice to undercover reporters about homeopathic prophylaxis
for tropical diseases (in place of vaccination or anti-malarials). One conversation went as follows:
Reporter:
"The orthodox treatments don't guarantee you either, any more than homeopathic ones, would you say
they are equal?"
Homeopath:
"Yes I would say that, I would say that definitely. I mean I don't know for sure but it may be that orthodox
treatments have, you know, let's say, a 70% chance of protection while homeopathy might be 60, 65. I
don't know – I am plucking those out of thin air."
The reporter was then given malaria homeopathic tablets 30C.
Four years previously Newsnight covered a similar groundbreaking undercover investigation by Sense
about Science (I am on their advisory committee) which found that nearly all the pharmacists providing
homeopathy whom they visited were willing to dispense homeopathic malaria prophylaxis – with one
explaining to the researcher that the remedy would fill a malaria-shaped hole in her living energy. I know
the researcher concerned and her energy generally struck me as impermeable. But then what do I know?
The most worrying finding of that investigation was not the disgraceful failure to recommend orthodox
anti-malarials for prophylaxis, nor the decision to offer homeopathic anti-malarials, but a near total failure
to mention the importance of using suitable bed nets and other ways to avoid mosquito bites in malarial
areas.
This is basic and essential advice. It's even "holistic".
What happens to errant homeopaths and pharmacists?
Homeopaths don't have any proper rules governing them. How could they distinguish between an
allegedly dodgy homeopath giving out fake homeopathy – perhaps a tablet with a physiological effect –
and a "proper" one giving out real homeopathy where there is no molecule of the homeopathic ingredient
in the tablets?
As far as I know, the Society of Homeopaths, which stresses that it represents "professional homeopaths"
(presumably those who make money from it), has never claimed to have expelled anyone from
membership of their organisation for poor clinical practice. None of the dozen or so homeopaths that
Sense about Science taped were disciplined by the society as far as we know. Their record on disciplining
errant homeopaths appears very poor. They issued a statement after the programme which, riddled with
ex cathedra ambiguity and vacuity, asserted that:
"The Society of Homeopaths, the UK's largest register of homeopaths with 1,500 members, does not
endorse the use of homeopathic remedies with a view to preventing serious tropical diseases such as
malaria and yellow fever.
"The evidence to support the use of homeopathic prophylactics, that is, using homeopathic remedies as a
preventative treatment, is currently largely anecdotal and therefore the use of this method is speculative.

12 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
"This is entirely different from treatment by a registered homeopath in the UK. Although more research is
welcomed, the balance of evidence already shows that treatment by a homeopath is clinically effective,
cost-effective and safe."
Pharmacists, however, do have a proper system of professional regulation. After the Newsnight sting,
the Royal Pharmaceutical Society (which as the RPSGB was also the regulator of pharmacists until the
regulatory function was split off to the General Pharmaceutical Council, the GPhC) startedmaking very
clear statements opposing the prescribing of homeopathy for serious diseases (and indeed went on to say
that homeopathy did not work) but did not appear to rapidly progress disciplinary action against any of the
Newsnight pharmacists, as emerged during the oral evidence session (questions 68-72) for a Commons
select committee enquiry into homeopathy in 2009.
As far as we know, the GPhC has – four years on – also not concluded any of the cases.
BMA hits out at homeopathy, but BBC health website promotes it
In the past year the BMA has adopted an extremely robust approach on the issue, rejecting the use of
homeopathy by the NHS and calling for homeopathic products to be stored away from medicines in
pharmacies and chemist shops on shelves marked "placebos".
Science writer Simon Singh, appearing on the Newsnight programme last night, pointed out that other BBC
programmes had also found poor practice with homeopaths and joked that only the BBC was regulating
homeopathy. Alas, the BBC Health website has a page on "Complementary Medicine and Arthritis" which
makes the remarkable statement:
"Although some complementary approaches are available through the NHS, they're not universally
accepted by the medical establishment. However, some therapies such as homeopathy have been
available on the NHS since 1948 and have an excellent safety profile and an increasing body of evidence of
effectiveness."
This page says it is "medically reviewed" by Dr Jeni Worden, who turns out to be a private practice
homeopath as well as a GP. Her website suggests:
"... it is advisable to consult with a homeopathic doctor if you are taking a high dose of steroids or
undergoing a course of chemotherapy as these may possibly reduce the effectiveness of homeopathic
remedies."
Yes, if you are sick enough to require chemotherapy or high dose steroids your priority is to alert your
homeopath that their sugar pills might not work so well! Enough said.
Select Committee Enquiry
The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, on which I served, published an enquiry last
year into the use of homeopathy by the NHS and the way the medicines regulator, the Medicines and
Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), handled the approval and labelling of homeopathic
"medicines".
We made a number of recommendations including:
· that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence was that there was no conceivable mode of action of
homeopathic products and that public money should not be spent researching the matter
· that the overwhelming weight of medical evidence – by properly conducted systematic reviews of good-
quality clinical trials – was that there was no efficacy of homeopathy over a placebo effect
· that public funds should not be spent on any more clinical trials of homeopathy and that it was unethical
to enter human subjects into trials of a settled question
· that it was unethical for patients to be treated with a placebo effect where they were not made fully
aware that the treatment was not efficacious

13 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
· that therefore the NHS should not fund the provision of homeopathy
· that the MHRA should not regulate homeopathic products as medicines. Medicines they regulate must
provide evidence of efficacy but this rule was waived (by a political decision imposed on the MHRA by the
government of the day) for homeopathy, which merely had to demonstrate that it was "used" to treat
symptoms
· that the MHRA-approved labelling of homeopathic "medicines" was misleading because it suggested that
homeopathy was effective
· that the government needed to see if the pharmacy regulator was up to the job
The report attracted hysterical criticism from some homeopaths who, for example, threatened to report
me to the General Medical Council (oh the irony!) for daring to ask the royal family's homeopath, Dr Peter
Fisher, why homeopathic solutions were shaken if the whole idea was to preserve the water's memory.
The government's response
The Labour government of the day, in their evidence, defended the use of homeopathy on the NHS on the
basis of "patient choice" and the fact that because some doctors swore by it, the efficacy question was not
settled.
Some science teachers swear by creationism, but that does not mean that evolution is an unsettled
question and that school science lessons should offer creationism as an alternative to their choosy
"consumers" (as pupils were, and still are, seen by some ministers).
The government's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Beddington, has essentially accepted
(see questions 292 onward here) the scientific recommendations in the select committee report and has
argued that the NHS should not provide homeopathy. He was overruled in this by the last government and
the new coalition government issued a pathetic response to the report which could have been written by
the previous one, sticking as it did to the same line.
Dumb and dumber
As more and more drugs – which are effective – cease to be available on the NHS as a result of their
inadequate cost-effectiveness, it will be harder and harder for the government to defend the spending of
what they describe as "only a few million pounds" on homeopathy.
The decision of Defra to protect "dumb animals" (as it were) from homeopathy may put pressure on dumb
politicians to protect humans and the NHS in the same way.

2011/01/06 NEW SCIENTIST: MMR


SCANDAL: WAKEFIELD ACCUSED OF 'DELIBERATE
FRAUD'

Catherine de Lange, reporter

14 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
(Image: Paul Grover/Rex Features)
Andrew Wakefield has been called many things since publishing his paper linking the MMR
vaccine and autism in 1998. Now, he can add "'fraud" to the list, as BMJ this week publishes
aseries of papers claiming that the work was not only misleading, but also fraudulent.
In his BMJ blog post, the journalist responsible for investigating Wakefield's claims - The Sunday
Times's Brian Deer - goes as far as to say the research, which "triggered a decade-long health
scare" was a "fix". Deer compared it to the "Piltdown Man", a famous scientific hoax in which
archaeologist Charles Dawson combined the jaw of an orang-utan with the skull of a modern man,
claiming it to be the fossilised remains of early man.
In 1998, Wakefield, who worked at the Royal Free Hospital in London, published a controversial
paper linking the MMR vaccine with autism. The paper was retracted from The Lancet in February
2010 because it turned out that, among other things, Wakefield had undisclosed conflict of
interests and that the children in the study had been preselected. The British General Medical
Council ruled later in the year that Wakefield should be banned from practising medicine.
In the BMJ papers, Deer claims that Wakefield doctored details of the patients used in the study.
He compared the medical records from the patients, which were presented at a General Medical
Council hearing, with the paper's findings and found major discrepancies.
For example, although Wakefield claimed the 12 children in his study were developing normally
before they were given the MMR vaccine, Deer claims five had actually been recorded as having
developmental problems:

Not one of the 12 children's cases in [Wakefield's] paper can be reconciled with
National Health Service records
Deer neatly sums up the discrepancies between Wakefield's research and the medical records
in this table. He also says other examples of doctoring include the omission of some parents'
statements from the paper, plus the fact that three out of nine children reported to have regressive
autism had not had this disorder diagnosed.
Wakefield is standing by his work. In an interview with CNN he says the claims are:
a ruthless pragmatic attempt to crush any investigation into valid vaccine safety
concerns
If this is the case, why not take legal action against Deer - a suggestion the journalist himself put
forward to CNN?
If it is true that Andrew Wakefield is not guilty as charged, he has the remedy of
bringing a libel action against myself, The Sunday Times of London, against the
medical journal here, and he would be the richest man in America

15 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
The new investigation also raises questions on how the paper got past The Lancet editorial board
in the first place, and leads us to ask how similar mistakes might be prevented in the future. When
approached by New Scientist to discuss the issues raised this week, The Lancetdeclined to
comment.

2011/01/06 BIS: PROPOSALS PUBLISHED FOR


£200 MILLION NETWORK OF TECHNOLOGY AND
INNOVATION CENTRES
News Release issued by the COI News Distribution Service on 06 January 2011
The government today invited organisations to register their interest in forming a technology and
innovation centre focused on the area of high value manufacturing.
The centre will be the first of an elite national network of centres, to be established and overseen by the
Technology Strategy Board, that will work in partnership with universities and businesses to help
commercialise the results of research in specific technology areas where there are potential multi-billion
pound global markets.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said:
“The banking crisis made one thing completely clear: Britain needs a new kind of growth. It is not right,
sensible or fair to be dependent solely on the City of London and on financial services. We should be at the
cutting edge of science, manufacturing and technology. And this innovation should be happening in towns
and cities across the UK, creating opportunity for everyone, no matter where they live.
“The programme for technology and innovation centres is a key part of our strategy to rebalance the
economy. We have so much potential here in Britain; now is the time to harness it and build the stable,
prosperous economy we want.”
Secretary of State for Business Dr Vince Cable said:
“Britain’s economy has been too reliant on the financial sector and we need to diversify as we go for
sustainable growth. It is crucial that we support UK industry to turn the discoveries of our world-leading
researchers into world-beating products and services.
“The new technology innovation centres will help to equip UK industry with the ability to capitalise on the
future global market opportunities by drawing on leading edge research. They form a key part of the
Government’s work to rebalance the UK economy and create new high-value private sector jobs.”
Universities and Science Minister David Willetts said:
“I am pleased that the first of these centres will be focused on high-value manufacturing as a strong
manufacturing base is an essential component of a balanced and dynamic economy, where exports and
investment drive growth.
"Technology innovation centres will work in partnership with universities and businesses. They will bridge
an important gap giving innovative firms access to facilities and technical expertise, enabling them to
undertake essential development work which can often be beyond the capability of individual businesses."
The Technology Strategy Board is today publishing a prospectus that will fast track the creation of a centre
focused on High Value Manufacturing, and outlines plans to establish a network of six to eight world-

16 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
leading centres in total. It calls for business, academic and other interest groups to comment on the
proposals and help shape how the centres will be developed. Sitting between the worlds of academia and
of business, they will enable cutting-edge research to be pushed forward that can be swiftly turned into
commercial opportunities.
In his foreword to the prospectus, Iain Gray, the Technology Strategy Board’s Chief Executive, says that the
centres represent a significant long-term investment in the UK economy, adding:
“As the UK’s national innovation agency, we are delighted to be taking on responsibility for establishing
and overseeing this new initiative, which offers a high degree of synergy with our other activities that drive
innovation for the benefit of UK business.”
The prospectus outlines plans to establish a further six to eight world-leading centres in the initial
candidate areas of Energy & Resource Efficiency, Transport Systems, Healthcare, ICT and Electronics,
Photonics & Electrical Systems. It calls for the business, academic and other interest groups to
comment on the proposals and help shape how the centres will be developed. The Technology Strategy
Board received funding of £200m in the Comprehensive Spending Review for the Centres.
Notes to Editors:
1. To see the prospectus, please visit:http://www.innovateuk.org/_assets/pdf/corporate-publications/prosp
ectus%20v10final.pdf
2. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, announced the establishment of the technology and innovation
centres during a speech to the CBI annual conference on 25 October 2010. For the full text, please visit:
http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-tran scripts/2010/10/creating-a-new-economic-
dynamism-56115
3. The prospectus [add link] provides the framework and sets out the process for establishing a national
network of elite technology and innovation centres. It describes what technology and innovation centres
are, how they will be run and the process for their development, including the consultation process. Details
of how to submit views or register an interest are provided on the Technology Strategy Board website -
http://www.innovateuk.org/deliveringinnovation/technology-and-innov ation-centres.ashx
4. After consultations a decision will be taken on the establishment of the first centre in March 2011. The
Technology Strategy Board is also inviting views by the end of January 2011 on the initial list of candidate
areas, and other potential areas, for future centres. These will be established in two phases, with the first
phase starting in 2011/2012 and the second during 2012/2013.
5. The Technology Strategy Board is a business-led government body which works to create economic
growth by ensuring that the UK is a global leader in innovation. Sponsored by the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills (BIS), the Technology Strategy Board brings together business, research and the public
sector, supporting and accelerating the development of innovative products and services to meet market
needs, tackle major societal challenges and help build the future economy. For more information please
visit www.innovateuk.org.
6. BIS' online newsroom contains the latest press notices, speeches, as well as video and images for
download. It also features an up to date list of BIS press office contacts.
See http://www.bis.gov.uk/newsroom for more information.

17 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/06 RESEARCH FORTNIGHT TODAY:
CAREERS FUNDING MUST CONTINUE, FINDS
INDEPENDENT REVIEW
By Elizabeth Gibney
A review of progress in achieving goals laid out in the 2002 Roberts Review has said that funding to
develop researcher skills and careers must continue.
The independent review, led by the head of the CBI’s Inter-Company Academic Relations, Alison Hodge,
praised efforts so far but recommended that Research Councils UK ensure specific funding for skills and
career development remains and that all funders contribute financially.
However RCUK’s annual £20 million so-called Roberts funding will disappear from March and it remains
unclear whether the government intends to commit any specific funding for the Roberts agenda. In July
RCUK recommended that funding should instead be embedded in all research grants, but this is likely to be
on a voluntary basis.
The report also showed concern for the jobs of skills and career development specialists. “A large
proportion of this *progress+ is stimulated and delivered by staff who are specifically funded by ‘Roberts
Money’ and there is concern that changes in funding arrangements may lead to these dedicated positions
and activities being lost,” reads the review.
The panel praised work done so far on researcher development and stressed the need to maintain it into
2011 “Both the quantity and quality of career development and transferable skills training, has improved
markedly, even though the impact has not been quantified,” it reads.
The UK is ahead of other countries and recognised overseas for its progress in developing researcher skills,
its adds. “*But+ there is concern that this leading position attained in the UK may be overtaken if attention
to the ‘Roberts Agenda’ is diminished.”
The review also highlighted that more needs to be done to bring skill development into line with industry
needs. “The most worrying point noted by the panel is that there has been very little systematic
involvement of employers in planning the needs for skill development or development of programmes,”
reads the report.
It calls on Vitae, the researcher careers development body, to increase its “relatively low” interaction with
industry and act as a proactive intermediary between employers, recruitment organisations and academia.
The recommendations in the review will be the focus of discussions at the 2011 Vitae Policy Forum, which
is taking place from 12 -13 January 2011 in Leeds.

18 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/06 CASE: IMPERIAL COLLEGE
UNION: LIFE SCIENCES RESTRUCTURING
THREATENS TEACHING
By GUEST BLOGGER
Alex Kendall is President of Imperial College Union

In the summer of 2010, Imperial announced that it was planning to restructure the department of Life
Sciences to deal with a £1.5m deficit. The restructure targeted sections they believed were
underperforming in research, and their aim was that in getting rid of some academics in these sections,
deleting the sections themselves and directing the department towards the new research area of
Integrated Cell Biology, the deficit would be tackled.
The Students’ Union and Staff Union made representation to the consultationover the summer raising
some serious concerns. The data showing the under-performance of the sections appeared to have been
misused; no account was taken of the recent move from another campus of a large part of the affected
section; and the restructure only assessed research, not teaching or administration.

Staff redundancies to hit students


We now know the effect this will have. Out of the two affected sections (Plant & Microbial
Sciences and Cell Biology & Functional Genomics) a total of 14 academics are being made redundant.
These academics are being told to leave by July 2011. Many have PhD students who will not finish their
PhDs before that point; what will happen to these students is unknown, and will depend on whether they
can switch research group, where their funding is tied to and whether the academic managed to find a
position at another institution. This is unlikely in the current economic environment and would still mean
the PhD student would have to move with them. PhD students therefore face the fact that they may not be
able to continue their PhD.
There are also 22 Masters Students on the Plant Sciences MRes course who will be undertaking their
research projects between April and October 2011. They will therefore be unable to take up research
projects with the 14 academics leaving, and the future of the MRes is at risk.
What will happen to Undergraduate modules is clearer – they cannot continue in their current form. Out of
the course convenors for final year plant and microbial courses, nearly zero remain. In one module
(Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions), 4 out of 5 teaching staff are being forced to leave, which no doubt
means that this is the last year of this module. This comes after several years in which the final year plant
and microbial modules have attracted more and more students. The current numbers are at record level.
For final year Biology and Biochemistry, 12 final year modules have been called ‘unteachable’. First and
Second year Biology and Biochemistry are also affected, since the 14 academic staff going do 25% of
Undergraduate teaching, especially in the core second year modules of Applied Molecular Biology and
Animal & Plant Physiology.
Will degrees remain viable?

19 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
The very running of the Undergraduate Biology and Biochemistry degrees is at risk, since both
Undergraduate Directors of Studies, both Senior Tutors and both Admissions Tutors are also being forced
out.
The Department still claims that the changes will not affect the breadth and quality of Undergraduate
teaching, and that there are no plans to change masters or Undergraduate courses. From what we can see
now this statement is completely untrue.
What is worse than the changes they are making, destroying a whole discipline at Imperial, is the way in
which the staff and students have been treated by the management. The mood amongst all those involved
in this process is depressed and upset. For a member of staff to get an email dismissing them with the
reason that their research no longer ‘fits’ is demeaning and disgraceful. This is in stark contrast to the huge
level of support shown by students to the academics, who are amongst the best teachers in the
department.
A meeting with the department, attended by over 400 students and staff, did nothing to assuage fears of
lost teaching. In a College Senate meeting in December when a paper was brought asking for the
restructure to be halted to include teaching alongside research when assessing staff fitness, the concerns
were ignored by Management.
Can the gap be filled?
We now face the reality that although 25% of teaching time needs to be filled, it is hardly likely that many
academics will want to fill the gaps considering how teaching contribution has been ignored. Management
insist that there will be no loss to breadth and quality of Biology and Biochemistry degrees.
They have also admitted that there is no plan as to how to fill the lost 25%. This does not add up. What has
happened here is a sad indictment of how managerial power has overruled academic freedom and
willingness to teach. Evidence was provided to show how those in the sections affected did a lot of
teaching; this was ignored. It appears that evidence-based policy is ignored for expediency and profit.

2011/01/06 E-POLITIX: GOVERNMENT MUST


ADOPT 'STRATEGIC ROLE' IN SKILLS
LSN (Learning and Skills Network) have claimed that the UK economy could falter as a result of the lack of
new skills needed to meet demand in growth sectors.
No-one would deny that the ability of the UK's education system to meet demand for skills in new
technological or occupational areas is vital for the country. This makes the recent research report by LSN's
think-tank, the 'Centre for Innovation in Learning', very worrying reading.
It reveals that the supply of new skills needed for growth sectors may not meet demand, and that as a
result the UK's economy could, in the medium term, falter. If government is to ensure this doesn't happen,
it needs to take action now, because this could prove to be a Sword of Damocles hanging over the
recovery.
Our research report, 'Engaging employers to drive up skills', reveals a dangerous gap between national
policy rhetoric and the attitudes, expectations and capabilities of education providers on the ground. The
research found that many providers are either unwilling or unable to invest in developing the expertise or
resources in these growth areas, because doing so is risky and unlikely to deliver returns for some time.
Whilst education providers fail to act as a result of a lack of direction or support from government, job
opportunities in growth areas may move to other countries.

20 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
The research shows that the vast majority of current and projected provision from FE colleges and
independent providers seems to be in traditional or established sectors such as health and social care,
construction, engineering, financial services or catering.
We found that 71 per cent of FE and skills providers thought that there is little or no potential for local or
regional growth in life sciences, and 56 per cent think this is the case for advanced manufacturing. These
are two sectors which the government sees playing an increasing role in the UK economy as it recovers
from the recession.
Of all the participants in the research, only one respondent mentioned green technology as a realistic
growth area, another area seen by government as critical to the recovery.
Our research clearly told us that the FE and skills sector need help understanding labour market
intelligence and developing curriculum and staff skills in growth sectors. The sector fears a big shortage in
specialist staff in the 'priority sectors' which the government wishes to grow nationally, such as low-carbon
and digital technology.
If disaster is to be avoided, government needs to strategically invest in the development of capacity both
at national and regional level. To begin with, we need to see the establishment of a national programme
which will train the specialist staff who can deliver courses in these important new areas. Without a
strategic approach to capacity-building, any policies intended to stimulate new sector growth are
ultimately doomed to fail, since we won't have the skills to deliver.
Government also needs to adopt a strategic role in planning provision across the country. Providers cannot
be blamed for deciding to specialise in certain areas where they have a leading edge in a particular market.
But the consequences of uncoordinated decisions of this nature may result in some provision becoming
unavailable in some geographic areas, and a glut of provision in others.
The FE and skills sector's need of support is made all the more acute by the budget cuts and the
requirement that it moves from state to private funding. Our research indicates that this issue is causing
particularly grave concern.
The average college's budget will drop from £20m to £16.8m over the course of the Spending Review
period – a huge financial pressure. Developing new provision is expensive for colleges, so at a time when
they are simply trying to survive, without central support and direction, the FE and skills sector cannot be
expected to prop up our recovery. Over to you, Vince…
This article was written by Sarah Gracey, LSN’s Policy Analyst.

2011/01/06 BUBBLE CHAMBER: THE


MURKY CLIMATE OF THE “EDITORIAL PEER
REVIEW” DEBATE
Matthew Wallace
Peer review was a popular topic in 2010. Not that it hadn’t been discussed in the media before, but
it seems the issue popped up more than ever over the past year. Here, I’ll use three examples
among many1 from 2010, which have led to calls for strengthening, ―tweaking‖, or abolishing the
editorial peer review system. The dominant discourses reveal a disconnect both at the level at
which peer review is being analyzed and regarding the expectations of the process. Editorial peer
review is not a ―gold standard‖, nor a way of producing scientific knowledge; it is difficult to

21 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
categorically say whether it ―works‖ or not. It is equally problematic to systematically dismiss
editorial peer review as only a basic means of quality control that leaves all judgment to an ad hoc
post-peer review process (though this approach is certainly effective under certain circumstances).
In order to address concerns about peer review within a specific context, the process itself should
be viewed as a set of practices, mainly used to demarcate boundaries (of science as a whole and of
individual specialties) and to favour consensus building.
Arsenic, climate and clinical trials…

Mono Lake in California, where it was reported that high arsenic levels proved conducive to the evolution of
arsenic-using microbes
Following the backlash from the ―hype‖ of NASA’s public relations efforts, there was a major
debate over whether the article in question should have published in the first place (or whether it
was ―worthy‖ of publication in Science). For others, the problem with this episode, like that of cold
fusion 20 years ago, lay in a hasty ―passage‖ to the public sphere. This implicitly means that
institutionalized editorial peer review is the solution, not the problem. Other perspectives focused
on the self-correcting nature of science, in this case mostly occurring aspost-editorial peer review
discussions. The blogosphere buzz around this article has indeed been something akin to a sort of
extremely ―inclusive‖ form of expanded peer review and is certainly interesting in its own right,
especially as one considers the strengths and weaknesses of the ―blog‖ model of peer review. But
this ―backlash‖ effect could hardly be considered a model for ensuring scientific accuracy.
Peer review became an issue in climate change science on several levels, such as the free
availability of data, the selection of articles for publication and the relatively small errors found in
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. For the IPCC, the issue of
editorial peer review was primarily boiled down to governance. Informed criticism (both external
and internal) has maintained the robustness of the knowledge produced but has called for various
changes in the process or suggested new models for review, despite an already ―expanded‖ form
currently employed. Interestingly, the IPCC has also been (mildly) chastisedfor not relying enough
on peer-reviewed literature (as opposed to grey literature). Naturally, the ―science-for-policy‖ and
the public scrutiny characteristics of this field imply different expectations for review 2, which are
not be applicable as a generalized normative view of the process.

22 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Basic IPCC Organizational Chart
A recent New Yorker articleon the ―decline effect‖ (a weakening over time of positive correlations
being observed in psychology and clinical trials) points the finger at, among other things, peer
review’s bias toward positive results. A similararticle in The Atlantic from earlier last year which
bluntly points out that much of peer-reviewed science is wrong, focuses more on problems with the
peer review process than on any unethical behaviour by authors (though this is also an issue).
Other accusations of bias, though different in nature, have also recently leveled against
reviewers stem cell research.
What does this all mean and where do we go from here?
What strikes me about these three stories (among many) is that (a) peer review itself was not the
initial focus, that (b) none of these cases is centred around blatant fraud or errors making it
through the peer-review system (whereas in previous years, this was the main concern). Most of
all, underlying the debate are perceptions of peer review which examine it in terms of its
impartiality, its ―transparency‖ as a system, the norms and practices of groups of peer reviewers,
and its ability to generate ―sound‖ and ―reproducible‖ knowledge. Needless to say, while these
topics may be related, they cannot be treated en bloc. Similarly, terms such as ―reproducibility‖,
frequently associated (directly or indirectly) with the peer review process, need to be cited within
specific social/cognitive contexts or according to any precise mechanisms.
Scholars in the history, philosophy and especially the sociology of science have a major role to play
in this issue. Editorial peer review as we know it is relatively recent, has developed somewhat
haphazardly not in the same way as grant peer review3. The evolution and institutionalization of
editorial peer review over the past half century has much to do with the lack of clarity in its process
and actors that we perceive today. Many relatively straightforward—but not simple—questions
remain. For instance, how can peer review be understood in the context of ―normal‖ or
―revolutionary‖ science, or even ―marginal‖ areas of science? What can be said about the variability
of peer review practices? Different disciplines and specialties will have entirely different
conceptions of what editorial peer review is (whereas grant peer review is more standardized).
Scholars with expertise in how science ―works‖ can, at the very least, help frame the debate.
There is currently a great deal of research that aims to reconcile different levels of analysis of peer
review, though grant peer review is often its primary focus. But perhaps a discussion of what type
of scientific knowledge peer review can or cannot generate should not be the main avenue.
Another starting point, for instance, is already vast amount of literature examining publication
(and citation) practices as central elements of the reward, communication and stratification
systems of science. New journals such as PLoS One assert that they ―publish all papers that are
23 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
judged to be technically sound‖, putting into question the ―subjective‖ decisions made by
―traditional‖ journals. For one, it makes explicit the need for scientists to promote their work (one
could argue that this is already the case de facto). However, there is little historical precedent this
type of behaviour on a large scale.

Without resolving the


disconnect between ―gold standard‖ and ―basic quality control‖, peer review has thrived thanks to
the Churchill-esque statements of ―it’s the worst system… except for all the others‖. But beyond a
rhetorical strategy, this is revealing as to the self-perception of science and of its practices. It also
reinforces the need to understand peer review in terms of the reward and legitimation practices
that are associated with science. As Daniel Engber pointed out several years ago in Slate
Magazine, one of the problems is that no one really knows whether peer review works or not. This
is indeed problematic, but whether or not it works depends on what you think it’s for4.
Beyond issues of trust or epistemology, peer review is (and perhaps should be) about individual
and collective strategies. In astrophysics, for instance, reliance on preprint articles has increased
dramatically due to the demands of the field. For certain journals elsewhere, the focus may be on
certain types of significance tests, the size of error bars, specific methods for validating
mathematical models, the parameters of clinical trials or any number of orthodoxies.

Happily, Sheila Jasanoff and others have begun to put the peer review issue in some historical and
social perspective, focusing on issues of trust, authority and scientific vs. broader norms of
accountability. Without advocating for or against an overhaul of the system, I believe that there is
more groundwork to be done in order to foster a more coherent debate over editorial peer review
in its various contexts. Avoiding generalizations and focusing on how its ―rules‖ are constructed
and implemented are steps in the right direction.

1. See also, for instance: Mark Henderson, British Medical Journal, 340, 2010, which focuses on
the ―anonymity‖ of peer review. ↩

24 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2. Sheila Jasanoff, Science 328, p. 695, 2010 ↩
3. John C. Burnham, JAMA 263, p. 1323, 1990 ↩
4. Stephen Schneider and Paul N. Edwards, ―Self-governance and peer review in science-for-
policy: The case of the IPCC Second Assessment Report‖, in Miller, C. A., & Edwards, P. N.
(Eds.), Changing the Atmosphere: Expert Knowledge and Environmental Governance.
Cambridge, MIT Press, 2001 (p. 230) ↩

2011/01/06 THE GREAT BEYOND – NATURE:


WAKEFIELD‟S MMR WORK TAKES ANOTHER
KICKING
Andrew Wakefield has been thrust back into the limelight today, along with his discredited views on links
between the MMR vaccine and autism.
The world’s media has jumped at the chance to have another shot at Wakefield, as provided by the BMJ,
which has peer-reviewed the claims of journalist and long standing bane-of-Wakefield, Brian Deer.
Deer’s work for the Sunday Times was the first to really detail the flaws in Wakefield’s claims and the
baseless nature of subsequent public scares over what now appears to be a non-existent link between
receiving the measles, mumps, rubella vaccine and developing autism. Deer was also the target of legal
action by Wakefield over his work, although the doctor eventually abandoned the case.
Now his allegations of fraud in the key paper in the MMR scandal, published by the Lancet, have been
scrutinised by theBMJ.
In an editorial accompanying the latest of Deer’s takedowns the journal’s editors say it is clear that
Wakefield is guilty of fraud:
Is it possible that he was wrong, but not dishonest: that he was so incompetent that he was unable to fairly
describe the project, or to report even one of the 12 children’s cases accurately? No. A great deal of
thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the
discrepancies all led in one direction; misreporting was gross.
Or, as one headline writer succinctly puts it: “Lying MMR Doc set out to scare mums over jabs”.
On one level, all this repetition of what has been widely reported already is likely to make very little
difference to Wakefield. He has already seen that Lancet paper withdrawn and been slammed by doctors’
regulator the GMC.
On the other hand, some are now calling for Wakefield to face fraud charges over his use of public funds in
his research. This would be a serious development, although not one likely to damage his standing among
the dwindling but increasingly fanatic supports of the anti-vaccine movement.
Talking to CNN, Wakefield said he had not read the latest BMJ articles but that Deer’s previous allegations
were false. Wakefield claimed “he’s a hitman, he’s been brought in to take me down because they are
very, very concerned about the adverse reactions that are occurring in children”. He said he did not know
who ‘they’ were.
Posted by Daniel Cressey

25 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/07 NEW SCIENTIST: SCIENCE RIDES
HIGH IN RANKING OF BEST AND WORST JOBS

Debora MacKenzie, contributor


Scientists tend to feel they are singled out for more woe than most in the job stakes. But are they justified
in their moaning?
A California-based job-search company called CareerCast has for several years compiled a ranking of jobs
according to a desirability measure that goes well beyond income. For each type of job CareerCast figures
in rankings of stress, physical demands, hazardous or unpleasant working environments, whether there's a
lot of jobs going, and likelihood of pay increases, as well as salary.
And surprise, scientists and engineers come out looking rather good.
This year's rankings of 200 jobs, from petroleum engineer to dishwasher, have just come out.
Eight of the top ten spots, including mathematicians, statisticians and biologists, are scientists or their ilk.
Seventeen of the 30 science and engineering jobs in the list rank in the top 50. Physicists, sociologists and
aerospace engineers are all in the top 20.
Among medical jobs such as vet, dental hygienist or GP, 14 rank in the top 50, and all but one above 100.
Surgeons face a lot of stress, putting them at 101.Vets and GPs rank between 50 and 100 - their medical
records technicians do better, at 40.
Only one scientist comes in the bottom 100. Worryingly, it's agricultural scientists at position 119,
apparently because of physical demands - shovelling never gets easier - but also poor hiring prospects.
More employers should clearly be reading New Scientist.
Things are jumping for software engineers, though, who come out number one, as well as computer
systems analysts, also in the top 10. That's because of smart phone apps and cloud based software, says
CareerCast - though programmers' prospects have slid this year as jobs move abroad.
CareerCast says you need to look at rankings like these to choose your career path, because it's a hirer's
market out there, and all is often not as it seems in the job advert. "Jobs that promise a 40-hour week
often require 60 or more, and positions that advertise a six-figure salary may achieve that level only if
unreachable conditions are met," it warns, while a supposedly "hot" field may not actually have many
openings.
Never mind all these fuzzy quality of life measurements, though, I hear you fuss - tell us about the money.
The top-ranked software engineers are 12th best paid - these people mean it when they say money isn't
everything. It obviously means something, though: the top 30 for pay are all in the top 50 for job quality.
But most surprisingly, perhaps, 8 of the top 10 best paid jobs involve science, engineering or medicine,
with pharmacists on top, and physicists and astronomers at 3rd and 4th. Even mathematicians,
meteorologists and the common or garden biologist come out in the top 20 for pay. Oh really? I hear
legions of post-docs ask. I thought so too, but CareerCast says it gets its numbers from legitimate sources.
And what of the science grads who become journalists? Editors are at 80 in the overall rankings - and news
reporters rank 12th from the bottom at 188, just after sheet metal workers. Technical writers, however,
are in the top 30.

26 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Does this mean steadily less interesting newspapers, but more legible software manuals? Is this a good
thing? Discuss.

2011/01/07 WALL STREET SESSION: PAY


ATTENTION, PLEASE
The new Darwinian imperative may be 'the survival of the focused.'
By CHRISTINE ROSEN
In the mid-20th century, the French sociologist Jacques Ellul posed 76 "reasonable questions" that he
thought we should ask about any new technology. They included moral questions such as "What values
does its use foster?" and "What is lost by using it?" and social ones such as "What are its effects on
relationships?" Today, as we rush to embrace the latest gadgets and apps, we tend merely to ask: "What
does it do?"
Luckily, John Brockman, the founder of the online science-and-technology site Edge.org, decided to pose a
bigger question to a varied group of 150 writers, artists, scholars, scientists and pundits: "Is the Internet
changing the way you think?" The result is a diffuse but provocative sampling of the ways in which we live
with technology today and think about its effects.
Although the sciences are heavily represented among Mr. Brockman's contributors, the volume ranges
beyond the usual suspects (e.g., the ubiquitous technology booster Clay Shirky) to include visual artists,
architects and musicians whose voices are all too often missing from discussions of technology and
contemporary culture.
Whether poets or programmers, the book's contributors write from the perspective not of "digital natives"
but of creatures from an earlier age who have had to adapt to the changes wrought by the Internet. As
members of a transitional generation, they are poised to address both practical and philosophical themes.
Most of the contributors are enthusiastic about the bounty that the Internet provides, particularly to
scientific research, global communication and personal expression. Indeed, several contributors are
disparaging of those who question the Internet's costs, dismissing such people as "neophobic" or
"curmudgeons and troglodytes." Still, a few writers belie such easy caricature. The neuroscientist Joshua
Greene suggests, in a blunt but apt metaphor, that the Internet, for all its revolutionary pretense, is
"nothing more, and nothing less, than a very useful, and very dumb, butler."

27 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
IS THE INTERNET CHANGING THE WAY YOU THINK?
Edited by John Brockman
Harper Perennial, 408 pages, $14.99

One theme emerges frequently from enthusiasts and skeptics alike: Precisely because there are such vast
stores of information on the Internet, the ability to carve out time for uninterrupted, concentrated thought
may prove to be the most important skill that one can hone. "Attention is the fundamental literacy," writes
Howard Rheingold, the author of "Smart Mobs."
As playwright Richard Foreman observes of his time spent online: "I can't help being reminded of the
Greek philosopher who attributed his long life to avoiding dinner parties. If only I could avoid the equally
distracting Internet, which, in its promise of connectedness and expanded knowledge, is really a substitute
social phenomenon." Thomas Metzinger, a philosopher, argues that the Internet isn't changing the way we
think; it is exacerbating the deceptively simple challenge of "attention management." "Attention is a finite
commodity, and it is absolutely essential to living a good life," he argues. The way we use the Internet
today represents "not only an organized attack on the space of consciousness per se but also a mild form
of depersonalization. . . . I call it public dreaming."
These are not the laments of technophobes. MIT professor Rodney Brooks, an expert on robotics, worries
that the Internet "is stealing our attention. It competes for it with everything else we do." Neuroscientist
Brian Knutson imagines a near future in which "the Internet may impose a 'survival of the focused,' in
which individuals gifted with some natural ability to stay on target, or who are hopped up on enough
stimulants, forge ahead while the rest of us flail helpless in a Web-based attentional vortex."
The substitution of the virtual for the real is another common theme. Paleontologist Scott Sampson
worries about "the loss of intimate experience with the natural world." And computer scientist Jaron
Lanier, the father of virtual reality, says that the Internet has "become gripped by reality-denying
ideology." Several of the book's contributors, particularly artists and architects, make solid arguments for
the importance of unmediated experiences to the creative process.
A few contributors are entirely undisturbed by the possibility of a virtual future. "Large-scale communal
games such as Second Life will become disconcertingly addictive to many ordinary people who understand
little of what goes on in the engine room," predicts the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. "And let's
not be snobbish about that. For many people around the world, 'first life' reality has few charms, and, even
for those more fortunate, active participation in a virtual world is more intellectually stimulating than the
life of a couch potato slumped in idle thrall to Big Brother."
Artist and pop musician Brian Eno offers a more compelling assessment of the opportunity costs posed by
the Internet: "I notice that the desire for community is sufficiently strong for millions of people to belong
to entirely fictional communities, such as Second Life and World of Warcraft," he writes. "I worry that this
may be at the expense of First Life." For Mr. Eno, as for many participants in the online world, the
Internet's ability to give us free music, images and information has increased rather than replaced the
desire for authentic experience, whatever that might be.
In the end, the most striking essays in "Is the Internet Changing the Way You Think?" encourage us to look
back rather than ahead. We are good at storing the past online—the fleeting, trivial past as well as the
distant, information-rich past of researched history—but have we improved our ability to learn from it?
Mr. Brockman's book suggests that we must reckon honestly with the many ways in which we have already
used technology, both for good and for ill. You don't have to be a troglodyte to recognize that there isn't
an app for that.
Ms. Rosen is senior editor of The New Atlantis: A Journal of Technology & Society.

28 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/07 BBC NEWS BUSINESS:
CREATING SERENDIPITY: USING KNOWLEDGE
TRANSFER NETWORKS
By Kabir ChibberTechnology of business reporter, BBC News

Knowledge transfer has helped


connect Welsh farmers with cutting-edge developments in genetics
In the 1960s, small machines suddenly started appearing by the streams and rivers in some of the remotest
parts of Nepal.
These micro-hydro machines resembled small pumps, and used the flow of the water coming down from
the hills to generate cheap and renewable power for villages and farmers.
The technology was first brought to the country by foreign organisations in the 1960s and 1970s, including
the Swiss Association for Technical Assistance.
"Almost all micro-hydro was installed in remote parts of the country not accessed by the national grid or
with no possibility of grid extension in the coming five years," says Shirish Singh, who heads infrastructure
access for the Nepalese arm of Practical Action, a charity that uses technology to fight poverty.
With government subsidies, the technology has taken off. In 1990, there were 700 turbines in Nepal.
There are now about 2,400 in the country, Mr Singh says, and these small turbines scattered throughout
the poor nation generate 1.4% of the country's energy.
By 2004, Nepal had become so sophisticated in micro-hydro technology that Practical Action and USAID
held a two-week training workshop for Sri Lankan manufacturers to teach them how to make the turbines.
From being taught the technology by Western companies, Nepal has reached a landmark moment - it is
able to teach other developing nations about this clean and abundant source of energy harvesting.
'Most innovative'
The micro-hydro example in Nepal is an example of how knowledge transfer can help create industries that
did not exist previously from scratch.

29 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Streams such as these in Nepal are perfect for micro-hydro turbines and provide clean
energy
Last year, an Asian centre of excellence for micro-hydro opened in Kathmandu. People from Afghanistan,
Bangladesh and beyond came to a training workshop to learn about the technology and take it back to
their countries.
Knowledge transfer involves companies deciding to share their intellectual property with other companies,
or pooling ideas together to create new businesses.
More than simple networking, they connect businesses with academics and innovators and are very
popular in the US and Asia, with many networks set up between the two regions.
You would not imagine that Swindon would be a capital of innovation.
The English town does not have the best reputation, but it is where the Technology Strategy Board (TSB) is
based. Created in 2007, the TSB is a non-departmental body sponsored by the British government.
"If there is a mission, ours is to make the UK the most innovative nation in the world," says David Coates,
the TSB's head of knowledge exchange.
The TSB has 15 Knowledge Transfer Networks set up in the UK, which are organised along different sectors
of the economy, such as materials and financial services.
"We want to help people meet others that they would never normally talk to," Mr Coates says.
For example, he says, people in the aircraft-building sector who are familiar with flight simulation should
be talking to those in the gaming industry, which uses high-powered graphics simulation.

Sheffield Forgemasters is sending technology to India and profiting from the transaction
Of the members of the networks, 15% are academics and 75% come from small and medium-sized
businesses. A total of 12% come from outside the UK.
'Ten year's ahead'
Knowledge transfer does not just apply to small firms. Huge corporations do it too.
In June, the steelmakers Sheffield Forgemasters signed a £30m ($46.5m; 35.5m euros) deal with Indian
state-run firm Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) to teach it how make steel-forging equipment.
Deals such as these typically involve a fee for the intellectual property, and royalty payments of 1-3% over
a period of years in return for hand-holding the party through the manufacturing process.
Peter Birtles, group director of Sheffield Forgemasters, says the deal was better for his firm than investing
in an Indian joint-venture, as many competitors have done.
"We work in a very conservative industry, one that is worried about creating future competitors," Mr
Birtles says. "Our view is that they will eventually catch up with the West, and it is defeatist to deny them
help."

30 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
The firm is taking the money it makes from the deal, which teaches the Indians how to make something it
has been making for years, and investing it in research on undiscovered ideas for the future.
"So in 10 year's time, when India has caught up to us, we will be at least 10 years ahead in terms of new
technologies and advancement."
This model is a much more transactional form of knowledge transfer, but it benefits both parties.
There are substantial benefits for the companies in developing countries - companies in China and Korea
that compete with Sheffield Forgemasters have taken decades to get to the same level by going alone.
And Western companies that have a lot of intellectual property but are unable to compete on price and
scale have a way to profit from years of innovation. Companies such as Sheffield Forgemasters.
It is the last UK-owned steelmaker in the UK and remains private and profitable, and fiercely protective of
its independence.

Peter Birtles is keen to preserve Sheffield Forgemasters' independence


"We won't be selling our company to an Indian owner, that's for sure," Mr Birtles says.
Small becomes big
On a completely different scale, the TSB's Knowledge Transfer Network in biosciences has a project that
helps breed more sheep in Wales.
The project connected farmers, scientists and the Grassland Development Centre at Aberystwyth
University to make profitable use of sheep carrying the fecundity gene, which results in more lambs per
ewe.
Since the project was started, with grants from the Welsh Assembly, 94 businesses are using the
technology, up from 34 at the start.
According to the TSB, 4,500 extra lambs were produced for sale in 2010 as a result of the scheme and there
are now 5,500 females with improved fecundity.
In another example, small shoemaker Capulet World and product design firm Sprout Design created a
ballet shoe using new materials to address the pain, discomfort and injury of dancers.
Sales tripled within a period of 18 months, and its "pointe" shoe is available across Europe as well as the
US, Korea to Mexico.
Capulet World is now in the process of setting up its own manufacturing plant in the UK.
For the TSB, these projects are all about re-creating some of the luck and coincidences that gave us huge
leaps in science and technology.
"Serendipity happens all the time," says Mr Coates. "We're just trying to help serendipity."

31 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/07 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG
HARRIS: LIBEL REFORM GETS GOVERNMENT
BACKING, BUT DON'T POP YOUR CORKS JUST YET

Campaigners for libel reform were buoyed today by Nick Clegg's commitment to overhaul the law, but the
deputy leader's speech left many questions unanswered

Nick Clegg delivering his speech today. The key test of libel reform will be whether
bullying threats can be nipped in the bud. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
The campaign for libel reform received a major boost today as deputy prime minister Nick
Clegg delivered a keynote address at the Institute for Government on protecting civil liberties. In a speech
detailing the coalition's plans to reform counter-terrorism law and to make government more accountable
to citizens, Clegg made the following important comments on reforming our illiberal libel laws:

[The government] are taking other big steps to enhance freedom of expression.
In opposition my party made clear that we wanted to see English libel laws reformed.
Almost exactly a year ago I made that case in a speech to the Royal Society. I argued that English libel laws
are having a chilling effect on scientific debate and investigative journalism.
Of course, individual citizens must be able to protect their reputations from false and damaging claims; and
we can't allow companies to be the victim of damaging, untrue and malicious statements.
But, equally, we want public-spirited academics and journalists to be fearless in publishing legitimate
research. Not least when it relates to medical care or public safety.
The test of a free press is its capacity to unearth the truth, exposing charlatans and vested interests along
the way.
It is simply not right when academics and journalists are effectively bullied into silence by the prospect of
costly legal battles with wealthy individuals and big businesses.

Nor should foreign claimants be able to exploit these laws, bringing cases against foreign defendants here
to our courts – even if the connection with England is tenuous.
It is a farce – and an international embarrassment – that the American Congress has felt it necessary to
legislate to protect their citizens from our libel laws.

32 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
This government wants to restore our international reputation for free speech.
We will be publishing a draft defamation bill in the Spring. We intend to provide a new statutory defence
for those speaking out in the public interest, whether they be big broadcasters or the humble blogger. And
we intend to clarify the law around the existing defences of fair comment and justification.
We believe claimants should not be able to threaten claims on what are essentially trivial grounds. We are
going to tackle libel tourism. And we're going to look at how the law can be updated to better reflect the
realities of the internet.
Separately, we are also going to address the high costs of defamation proceedings. As part of that we have
published a consultation paper on proposals by Lord Justice Jackson to reform civil litigation funding – and
in particular no win no fee arrangements – to make costs more proportionate, more fair.
Our aim is to turn English libel laws from an international laughing stock to an international blueprint.
Leading libel reform campaigners, like Tracey Brown of Sense about Science and Simon Singh, were in the
audience to hear the speech, alongside Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty. While the journalists
present asked more questions about the scrapping of the current control regime and the extension of the
Freedom of Information laws, many in the free speech world have welcomed Clegg's announcement on
libel reform as a major milestone.
However, I think it is premature to celebrate victory.
Yes, it is a clear boost that the leading civil libertarian in the government has identified libel reform as a key
issue worthy of personal backing in a set piece speech. Furthermore, it seems a lot of progress has been
made on the detail of the reforms.
But we cannot yet say that we have achieved what is needed. We do not know whether the government is
going to propose an end to the ability of companies (like Tesco or Trafigura) and associations (like
the British Chiropractic Association) to sue for libel rather than use a different, higher-threshold remedy
such as malicious falsehood.
The detail of the drafting of the current common law defences (justification, fair comment and the so-
called "Reynolds" responsible journalism defence) will be critical. And it also remains to be seen whether
internet service providers (ISPs) will get the protection they need to resist unwarranted take-down
requests.
The approach of the Labour Party, which after a slow start did recognise the need for new legislation, will
be important and this is an opportunity for the new leader Ed Miliband to demonstrate that his party has
changed on civil liberties. Maybe he will join calls for the bill to be as liberal as possible, while of course
preserving the right of ordinary citizens – or even celebrities – to defend their reputations against
irresponsible damaging falsehoods.
The key test in libel reform is not whether a complex defence is made easier to demonstrate in a trial but
whether the framework is such that bullying libel threats cannot be launched, or are no longer credible, or
can be struck out at a very early stage.
This means restricting claimants to individuals with reputations and feelings (not companies). It means
making clear that significant harm to a reputation has been caused by the publication of the alleged libel in
this jurisdiction. And it means ensuring that peer-reviewed academic publications are protected as
privileged, and that commenting on them is protected as honest opinion when expressed without malice.
Only that sort of reform will prevent the chilling effect of the current laws.

33 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/08 CIF GUARDIAN BAD
SCIENCE: DO 600 UNWANTED PREGNANCIES
REALLY MAKE AN EXCEPTIONAL STORY?
Media claims about contraceptive implant 'failure' don't put figures into context

Ben Goldacre
'Six hundred pregnancies despite contraceptive implant," said the BBC. "500 fall pregnant after having
contraceptive implant," said the Express. "Contraceptive implant alert," said the Daily Mail: "Hundreds of
women fall pregnant after birth control fails."
The story first broke on Channel 4, and it's still not entirely clear why it's the biggest medical story so far
this year. Some women have had some compensation: but a lot of people get a lot of payouts. There is a
law firm touting for more business, but that's hardly news either, and the news story was: this
contraceptive device has failed.
But is the failure rate exceptional? A figure means nothing if it has no context. Six hundred pregnancies
sounds like a big number, but there is no way to know what it means unless we know how many women
hadImplanon, and for how long. The device was first launched in 1999, so that makes 60 pregnancies a
year, which feels like a smaller number, but that is still not enough information. The figure that
epidemiologists use for context is "person-years-at-risk".
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency estimates that 1.355m Implanon implants have
been sold. Each implant lasts three years which gives a total exposure time of 4.06m women-years at risk.
So 584 unplanned pregnancies means there were 1.4 reported for every 10,000 women with Implanon
implants per year, a failure rate of 0.014% per year. It means implants are still the most reliable form of
contraception.
Back with our 584 unwanted pregnancies, we see the difference between individuals and statistics. For
some of the people who got pregnant, from their end of the telescope, this is a disaster. Some cases may
well have been avoidable. Some will want financial compensation, and you will have your own views on
the state's role in this.
But for a potential user of the implant, or a news editor, looking at the whole population, at its worst, it
still seems to be one of the most effective forms of contraception available even though this particular
implant had a problem with insertion – which has already been improved on.
And lastly, just like a number deserves its context, so too does a scare. In the 1990s a temporary concern
about a modestly increased risk of blood clot, particularly in one type of oral contraceptive pill, resulted in
a mass abandonment of oral contraceptives generally, around the world, including among low-risk women,
and the following years saw an increase in both pregnancies and abortions, with all that this entails. Words
can do harm, just as surely as hormones can.

34 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/10 THE GREAT BEYOND – NATURE:
GIFFORDS SHOOTING RIPPLES THROUGH SCIENCE
COMMUNITY
Tragedy struck over the weekend in Arizona, when a lone gunman made an apparent assassination
attempt against congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (Democrat). Remarkably, Giffords appears to have
survived a single gunshot wound to the head, although six others, including a staff member and a federal
judge, were killed in the incident.
Giffords was an active member of the House Committee on Science and Technology. She served as the
chair of the subcommittee on space and aeronautics until the Republicans took control this year and held
multiple hearings on the future of NASA. She was also a strong advocate for renewable energy, putting
forward several pieces of legislation to encourage the solar industry. Finally, she was a strong supporter of
Obama’s healthcare legislation.
Giffords' involvement in NASA is also personal. Her husband, Mark Kelly, is scheduled to be commander of
the shuttle Endeavour on its final flight in April, which is scheduled to deliver a costly scientific instrument
known as the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) to the International Space Station. Mark Kelly’s brother,
Scott, is already commander aboard the ISS. “I want to thank everyone for their thoughts and
prayers,” Scott Kelly tweeted from the station yesterday.
NASA has declined to say whether Mark Kelly’s role in the upcoming shuttle mission will change, though it
would be difficult to keep up with the gruelling training schedule given the tragedy. Its also probably too
early to say what this means for the Committee on Science and Technology: the House has suspended
normal business this week as a result of the shooting.
Posted by Geoff Brumfiel

2011/01/10 RESEARCHBLOGS: WHAT IT'S


REALLY LIKE INSIDE A UNIVERSITY IN THE AGE OF
AUSTERITY
Here's a grim (and confidential) email from the principal at the University of Dundee explaining to staff the
kind of cuts they need to expect.
There's no reason to think Dundee is specially badly off, or that Pete Downes' preference for "strategic" (or
what my correspondent described as "fashionable") subjects is unusual. Hence I suspect you can view this
as a fairly typical window into the harsh realities now facing academics in many of the universities doing
great research in the UK.
[If you have emails of your own to share, please post or link to them in the comments]
==============================================
16 December 2010

35 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Dear Colleague
Given recent announcements on the issue of higher education funding, I believe it is important that I write
to every member of staff to let them know what the implications are for the University of the budget
reductions that have been announced by the Scottish Government.
I know from discussions with colleagues across the institution that staff are concerned about their own
future and about the University’s future and are in some cases unclear about the effects on them of the
Strategic Review, and so I want to set out what these cuts represent when set against the context of the
ongoing Strategic Review and the voluntary severance scheme.
The Scottish budget, announced in November, heralded a reduction in funding to the Scottish Funding
Council (SFC) of 6.75% for the financial year of 2011/12; but because of differences in the timing of
financial years between universities and government the actual reduction will be more like 7.6%. The total
effect in cash terms of this reduction and of other reductions arising from the way funding is allocated is
around £7.1m in core funding from the SFC for academic year 2011/12. These are seriously challenging
cuts that will inevitably affect the way the University operates. Moreover, there is every indication that
further reductions will follow in 2012/13.
As I write, we are awaiting the imminent publication of the Scottish Government’s Green Paper on the
future of higher education funding in Scotland. I have been lobbying Ministers and MSPs on the need for
competitive funding for Scotland’s universities to ensure we can retain our position on the world stage. I
have also been supporting Universities Scotland’s efforts in this area. However, it is clear that any ‘Scottish
Solution’ to university funding will not release resources to the sector in time to compensate for the cuts
that we are facing.
Soon after I was appointed as Principal, I initiated a Strategic Review, and you will, I am sure, have followed
the progress of this review as it has been discussed at Court and Senate and locally as the consultation
exercise has unfolded. As I have made clear throughout the process of the Review, its purpose is to
strengthen the University by promoting what I consider to be three very important principles of
‘Excellence, Focus and Impact’.
The Review is about ensuring we provide the best possible student experience and deliver excellence in
learning, teaching and research in order to continue to enhance the reputation of the University. As a
Senior Management Team, we have taken the decision to support only the highest quality research activity
- that is research which exhibits 3* and 4* quality or which has demonstrated the potential to do so. There
are, of course, also individual proposals from Schools, Colleges and Directorates. The aim of these is to
focus resources on what we do best and to reduce resource from areas not meeting the required
standards of excellence. In total, the proposals have shown their potential to reduce costs to the
University of around £10m, but over a timeframe of three to four years.
On the face of it, this might look as if the savings from the Strategic Review will match the reductions
announced by the SFC, but this fails to recognise that the reductions in funding from the SFC are just for
2011/12; we still do not know precisely what will happen in the years to follow. But it is clear from both
current economic indicators and the plans detailed in the Comprehensive Spending Review of the UK
Government that publicly funded organisations will have to endure austerity for some considerable time to
come; and we must assume that the reductions identified for 2011/12 will be recurrent and possibly made
more severe in the years to come. The principles of ‘Excellence, Focus and Impact’ are unchanged, but the
University needs to move forward much more quickly to reposition itself in the current funding landscape
so as to maintain its status and reputation as one of the 150 best institutions in the world.

36 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
The savings from the Strategic Review were identified before it was clear that we would suffer such a
tough settlement from the Scottish Government. They are, as a result, neither sufficient nor rapid enough
for the University to cope with the cuts that we face. We must therefore look to accelerate the Strategic
Review and indeed to explore other more fundamental ways of reducing our costs. Only by doing so will
we be able to secure the long-term sustainability of the University and invest in its future growth and
development.
We have launched the voluntary severance scheme to enable us to support the Strategic Review and to
reduce the University’s staffing costs. It provides staff with the means to consider their future options or
explore alternative career opportunities, particularly in those areas where the Strategic Review has
indicated we need to lose staff. It is possible that some staff may not be aware that the voluntary
severance scheme is very flexible. For example, as well as enabling full severance from the University, it
also allows people to take a partial severance payment and reduce to part-time hours, and it even enables
staff to reduce their contract to term-time work only. Additionally, there are opportunities for job-sharing
and backfilling of vacancies from other areas of the University, so that even individuals in areas where
reductions in staffing are not required can apply and benefit from the scheme. The scheme is available
until the end of February 2011.
We should be under no illusions: getting where we need to be will require some hard decisions, but action
is essential to secure the long-term sustainability of this University. I am sure that this letter will have
raised questions and concerns. The Senior Management Team is keen to hear these concerns, and I would
ask you to please feed them back through your Dean or Director.
Our University is a great one. It’s not just me who thinks so; league tables and other accolades bear this
out. Yet to emerge stronger from the current financial difficulties being experienced by the entire sector
will take resilience, industry and determination. Our reputation is built on the quality of our teaching, our
research and the excellent student experience we offer at Dundee and we must not lose sight of this. But I
am confident that we have the resourcefulness to change the University to make it stronger and better.
With best wishes
Pete Downes
Principal

2011/01/10 BUBBLE CHAMBER: SCIENCE


AND THE MEDIA: UPSIDE-DOWN PYRAMID
THINKING

This is the second post to appear in our new section called “quick thoughts.” The aim of this
section is to raise an issue for comment in more detail than the weekly roundup does, but in a

37 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
more succinct format than our longer 1000 word posts. We hope that this section will turn the
spotlight onto those that choose to comment, rather than the author of the post.
I’ve been reading Naomi Oreskes’ book Merchants of Doubt, which I will review for Spontaneous
Generations and post here on the Bubble Chamber as well. I will save my comments for that
review, but the book, and a recent lunch conversation with philosophers and HPSers, has me
thinking a lot about how the media reports on events within the scientific community.
While I was a master’s student, I was course instructor for ―Phil120 – Introduction to Logic,‖
which was interestingly enough a required course for the school of journalism (I have a hot chili on
ratemyprofessor.com, in case you were wondering). The second and third year journalism
students, who constituted a majority of my class, did not understand why they needed to take the
course, and they were vocal about it. As a response to this, and to low marks across the board, I
gave an extra credit assignment: Use your journalism skills and interview a professor or
administrator responsible for the inclusion of this class in your course requirements. Respond to
this interview with your own arguments, either for or against the position presented.

I got many papers, some of high quality, some of not so high quality. One sticks out in my memory.
The professor interviewed had said that students were required to take logic because it promoted
linear thinking and critical evaluation of the facts. The student’s response was that this was not
consistent with what they had learned in their journalism classes: they were taught ―upside-down
pyramid thinking‖ and that ―facts were facts.‖ This was an astute observation. After asking my
class what upside-down pyramid thinking was, and after joking that ―an upside-down pyramid
cannot stand‖ (one student laughed), I realized that the student’s response was dead on: my
students were unable to differentiate between how to reason, and how to present information in a
report. Facts were primitives.

A graphical representation of the "upside-down pyramid."


For those of you that don’t know, the inverted pyramid is a method of informational organization
taught in journalism schools. There are many variations, but the general idea is to organize the
information in the report in order of decreasing importance. The problem is that this model gives
you no method to decide what is important information and what is not. As I talked to my students
I realized that the facts as primitives view put all the information on par. For them, the ―most
important‖ facts became the biggest ones. Sometimes this information was just what happened –
the who, what, where, why – but other times it was just the largest statistic, or the contrary
viewpoint. Buried down at the end of the story (the thinnest part of the pyramid) was the history of

38 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
the debate, the ―minor‖ facts, etc. This part of the pyramid is the most likely to get cut, according to
my students, when an editor puts everything together.

In Oreskes’ book, she attributes much of the dissemination of misinformation to parties that
quoted secondary sources instead of reading the original. Had the original source been read (and
its structure and content reviewed seriously), the information could have never been used for the
purpose it was. This is the critical evaluation of the facts, the evaluation students resisted learning
in my class. In Oreskes’ book, the lack of factual analysis seems to lead to media manipulation –
with industries like big tobacco creating ―another side of the story‖ to be reported on. This gave
scientifically unfounded views traction in the press.

Other stories have caught my attention, with the NASA arsenic microbe story immediately coming
to mind. A Guardian piece posted on our weekend roundup talks about the science and media
relations. Another was this piece which made its way around the blogosphere on precognition,
where the ―dissenting‖ view got a shout out in the closing sentences, only after we hear about the
prominence of the report’s author. Lastly, I was disheartened to hear that myJunior Senator from
Massachusetts used faulty statistics from a special interest group erroneously while speaking about
a critical banking bill (yes, he presented faulty ―recession job loss‖ figures as if they were accurate
―future job loss‖ figures). It took awhile for this mistake (and the origin of the statistics) to come to
light.
I meant to do no more here then offer my story as a personal reflection. I wrote this piece in the
hope that our readers could help me understand the way journalism and science interact. Does the
inverted pyramid style of organization make sense in a world where news is on the Internet, and
there is essentially unlimited space for it? How does one decide what pieces of information a
reader must have? Should journalists play a more active role in analyzing the content of the news?
I would really like to hear from communication specialists and journalists about the current state
of science journalism.

2011/01/10 RESEARCH FORTNIGHT TODAY:


AMBITIOUS ECONOMIC GOALS FOR NEW UK LIFE-
SCIENCES INITIATIVE
By John Dwyer
The UK’s four main healthcare trade associations have launched an initiative they claim will strengthen the
UK economy.
The "united and powerful" initiative, LifeSciencesUK, will facilitate joint working between the UK’s
biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical-devices and diagnostics industries.
The founder members are the Association of British Healthcare Industries, the Association of the British
Pharmaceutical Industry, the BioIndustry Association and the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association, all of
whom will continue to represent their individual sector interests.

39 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
In a statement, LifeSciencesUK said it would build on "the government’s commitment to transform the life
sciences environment in the UK". Its main aims are to improve the investment environment for UK life
sciences firms, to improve access to new medicines, devices, technologies and diagnostics, and
demonstrate the importance of UK life sciences to the UK economy.

2011/01/10 RESEARCHBLOGS: NERC


SETTLEMENT CONFIRMS UNCERTAINTIES AHEAD
FOR SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH, SAYS
DAVID KING
Cuts in funding will not help us meet "the biggest innovation challenge since the industrial revolution," says
former UK government chief scientific adviser David King...
Over the past few freezing cold months we have all become aware of the impact the environment can have
on our everyday life, from transportation to the built environment to energy production. As we move
forward through this century it will be critical to deepen our understanding of environmental science and
human impacts on the environment in order to advance our knowledge of the complex and interacting
systems of the planet.
Environmental science is also at the heart of our economy. With the UK’s environmental economy
expected to grow by £48 billion over the next eight years alone, there are real opportunities for the UK to
lead the world in this discipline. The areas include risk assessments around extreme weather, low carbon
energy sources and monitoring climate systems—all critical to our future development and wealth
creation.
I welcome the recent publication (20 December) of the Natural Environment Research Council delivery
plan for 2011-2015. Its strategic agenda and the five key areas of focus include: increased focus on
strategic research; increased economic impact and societal benefit; attracting and retaining top talent for
the UK; transforming delivery of national capability; and shifting resources into front line science. These
are in my view vital areas to concentrate on in order to maximise and deliver excellence.
However, the allocation to NERC and the other Research Councils confirm that the UK’s science and
engineering community faces a very difficult four years ahead. Research funding lies at the heart of the
UK’s economic recovery and future prosperity. Ten years ago, the UK Government understood that in the
following decades science and technology—and the innovation and wealth creation that follows—would
be key to our ability to face unprecedented new challenges: the deterioration of ecosystems; resource
mismanagement and shortages; decarbonising our economy; and generating a new lean, mean,
competitive manufacturing sector. These will require the biggest innovation challenge since the industrial
revolution.
Some might argue that NERC has got off relatively lightly in the budget allocation. The programme budget
is to be reduced by 3 per cent—excluding the effects of inflation, currently 3 per cent a year—over the next
four years. At a time when our international partners are increasing their investment our decision looks
short sighted. China saw a 30 per cent increase in its research budget from 2008 to 2009. Even this year
they have continued to increase it with an 8 per cent rise in the science budget.
The US has also invested heavily in its research sector through public funding over the past year,
introducing a substantial increase in research funding across board, as well as giving a large boost to

40 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
alternative energy and environmental research. Furthermore In the past few months both France and
Germany have published national strategies demonstrating their commitment to investment in research.
What I believe is more worrying is the decision is that the ‘capital’ part of NERC’s budget has been reduced
by 50 per cent from 2012/13. This spending covers maintenance and other long-term commitments for
NERC, which can’t just be stopped. Therefore the funds will have to come from other sources, such as
research grants. New high performance computing equipment is also needed to improve our
environmental risk management capability.
The Government has made a pledge to be the greenest ever but this needs to be reinforced. We can’t
continue to put off the difficult decisions on energy and the environment for ever - the time to invest is
now. And within the UK Research Councils, priorities need to be grasped, priorities for the future
competitiveness of the UK.
David King is director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford.
He was the government's Chief Scientific Adviser under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and Head of the
Government Office for Science from October 2000 to 31 December 2007.
Posted by John Dwyer at 16:46:24

2011/01/11 BECKY'S POLICY PAGES:


ACADEMY PROPOSES A NEW WAY TO REGULATE
MEDICAL RESEARCH IN THE UK
Over the past year, the Academy of Medical Sciences has been reviewing the regulation and governance of
medical research in the UK at the request of the government. Today they are reporting on what they’ve
found, proposing a new, simplified and streamlined system of regulation which would make it easier and
more attractive to do health research in the UK. Their recommendations include a single Health Research
Agency to deal with all aspects of regulating research in one place and initiatives to put research right at
the heart of the NHS. The government has stated that they intend to make changes to the regulation of
medical research in the UK, these recommendations will inform how they now start to do this.
BACKGROUND
In March 2010, aware of concerns that the complex and bureaucratic regulatory environment is stifling
health research in the UK, the government announced a review of the regulation and governance of
medical research in the UK with a view to making recommendations to improve this. Professor Sir Mike
Rawlins agreed to lead the review which would be undertaken by the Academy of Medical Sciences. In July
2010, the coalition government published a health white paper and alongside this a review of all the arm’s
length bodies associated with the NHS which included proposals to change the way medical research is
regulated in the UK (see previous post here). The government announced that the detail of how they will
do this will be guided by the recommendations this review makes.
WHAT HAS HAPPENED NOW?
The review A new pathway for the regulation and governance of health research has been published. You
can download all the documents here. The Academy’s press release gives a nice quick summary of where
this report fits and what it covers.
WHAT DOES THE REPORT SAY?
The report itself is very detailed, going into all the ins and outs of exactly how the regulation of research
operates in the UK at the moment, identifying what does and doesn’t work. But it comes to some very
41 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
clear conclusions and recommendations. These are all summarised very succinctly on page 2-6. Plus on
page 6 there’s a great guide to where you can find what in the rest of the report.
The report kicks off by exploring what principles should underpin how we go about regulating medical
research in the UK. It identifies four:
1 Safeguard the wellbeing of research participants
2 Facilitate high-quality health research to the public benefit
3 Be proportionate, efficient and coordinated
4 maintain and build confidence in the conduct and value of health research through independence,
transparency, accountability and consistency
(see chapter 2 for detail on the thinking behind these)
The report identifies the key problems with the current regulatory system that are slowing things down:
 Delays and duplication in obtaining research permissions from NHS Trusts
 Complexity and inconsistency across the regulatory pathway
 A lack of proportionality in the regulation of clinical trials
 Inappropriate constraints on access to patient data
 A healthcare culture that fails to full support the value and benefits of health research
And then it makes a series of recommendations which together make up a detailed vision of a new
regulatory and governance pathway:
You can read a summary of how this pathway will look – complete with a great diagram summarising how
research would move through it – and all 17 recommendations together in chapter 10, but the key themes
are:
Putting research at the core of the NHS. There are a number of recommendations aimed at embedding a
culture that values research within the NHS. These include working with medical research charities and
AMRC to inform people about the role and benefits of health research alongside lots of incentives and
levers to encourage those working in the NHS to recognise and promote research. (chapter 3 goes into the
detail around this)
Creating a new Health Research Agency. An arm‘s length body which will oversee the regulation and
governance of health research, effectively becoming a one-stop shop for health research regulation. It will
do this by acting as a national research governance service able to conduct all NHS research governance
checks just once to cut out all the unnecessary duplication and inconsistencies that occur at the moment
across different NHS trusts. (more on how this would work in chapter 4) And it will bring together all the
functions of multiple research regulators to act as a single system for approvals; the National Research
Ethics Service will be part of it (see chapter 8). Some research regulation is devolved; the proposed new
Health Research Agency will aim to work alongside these systems so they can interact seamlessly. There
are some recommendations for changes to the regulation of human tissue; recommending that, for
proportionality, plasma, serum, urine, faeces and saliva should no longer come under the Human Tissue
Act (see chapter 7 for detail).
Changing the regulation of clinical trials. Work to ensure the European Clinical Trials Directive – which
is recognised as having negative impacts across Europe and is currently under review by the EU
commission – is revised to improve and simplify the situation in the UK. And, as this will take a while,
immediately for the MHRA (which regulates clinical trials of medicines) to put in place some changes which
should improve the process of regulation of clinical trials. Eventually the MHRA should work closely with the
new Health Research Agency. (More detail on all this in chapter 5)
Putting in place mechanisms that will make it possible for patient data to be used for medical
research. Progress on improving the use of patient data for medical research has been slow. The report
urges the government to implement the recommendations made in the 2008 Data Sharing review. The
legislative framework around the use of patient data is very complex. The UK Data Protection Act is already
under review and Europe is planning to review the EU Data Directive; the report recommends this is a good
opportunity to clarify some of the legislation in this area. The review also recommends that work should go
forward to develop a system allowing researchers to work with healthcare providers to identify potential
patients to be contacted about research studies in which they might wish to participate (an opportunity
enshrined in the NHS Constitution, the handbook accompanying this says: ―The NHS will do all it can to
42 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
ensure that patients, from every part of England, are made aware of research that is of particular relevance
to them. The NHS is therefore putting in place procedures to ensure that patients are notified of
opportunities to join in relevant ethically approved research and will be free to choose whether they wish to
do so”) (all the detail is in chapter 6)
WHAT NEXT?
Now these recommendations have been made to government, they will be in a position to start finalising
the detail of their plans to change the regulation and governance of medical research. We are expecting a
health and social care bill to be published shortly which will put in place a lot of the changes proposed in
the government’s health white paper, however these changes to regulation are not expected to be
included in this bill; the government mentioned in its response to the consultations on their health white
paper that these changes would be dealt with elsewhere. (seeprevious post here)
Mike Rawlins in his comments accompanying the report launch has suggested that work get under way to
put these recommendations into action as soon as possible, even before legislation is in place:
It is vital that the HRA is established as soon as possible. To achieve its goals it will have to be a genuine
single regulator and not a mere façade hiding the continuation of many separate existing bodies. We
recommend that it is established as soon as possible to start making necessary changes to start making
necessary changes right away and then confirmed in primary legislation in due course.
WHAT IS AMRC DOING?
AMRC and our members have been involved throughout the review process, feeding in information,
evidence and working with INVOLVE to explore patients’ views on medical research and how it should be
governed and regulated.
Simon Denegri, AMRC Chief Executive, has welcomed the report:
The Academy’s report does not only chart a way forward for improving the current regulatory system for
conducting clinical trials. Its recommendations also presents us with an opportunity to make health
research a truly public endeavour with the full engagement of the NHS, its staff and, above all, patients. It
is the active support of patients which is central to the successful conduct of health research and we are
pleased that the Academy has listened to their views during the course of its review. AMRC and its 125
member charities welcome the report and urge the Government to move swiftly to take forward its
proposals.
And reflected in a lot more detail on the content of the report, its reception and what it means for medical
research charities and the people they support as the government takes this forward on his blog here.
There is lots of coverage today. For more detail check out BBC Online and Nature.
Also, the Guardian have a big feature on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, one of the
arm’s length bodies proposed to become part of the new single research regulator.
UPDATE: also, check out my guest blog on the Society of Biology’s fab blogspot

43 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/11 BRITISH HEALTH FOUNDATION:
UK MEDICAL ADVANCES „BOGGED DOWN IN RED
TAPE‟, SAYS REPORT

Patients are waiting longer to reap the benefits of


advances in UK medical research because too many trials get unnecessarily bogged
down in red tape, says a report by the Academy of Medical Sciences.

The Academy recommends urgent changes to the way medical research is regulated and governed to
speed up the rate at which innovative new treatments become available to patients andeliminate
unnecessary bureaucracy. Central to their proposals is the creation of a new single regulator, the Health
Research Agency, to streamline the regulatory process.

Our medical director, Professor Peter Weissberg, said: “There is no doubt that the increasingly
burdensome regulation of clinical research in the UK has slowed down progress and increased costs. This
means that patients are being denied improvements in treatment and young doctors are rapidly losing
interest in undertaking life saving research.

Increasingly burdensome regulation of clinical research in the UK has slowed down progress.
―This report poses sensible and pragmatic solutions that streamline bureaucracy yet safeguard
patient safety. They should be implemented as soon as possible to ensure that patients benefit
more quickly from medical research breakthroughs and that scarce research funds are more
efficiently used.‖

The Academy was commissioned by the Government to conduct an independent review of the regulation
and governance of medical research in March 2010.

2011/01/11 SIMON DENEGRI‟S BLOG:


RAWLINS REVIEW: ACADEMY LAYS DOWN LAW ON
HEALTH RESEARCH REGULATION
By ceoamrc
44 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Over the weekend Professor Colin Blakemore said he hoped the Academy of Medical Sciences would come
up with radical proposals to end the regulatory mess that holds up UK health research such as clinical trials.
I am not sure whether he will feel today’s report by the Academy lives up to that aspiration, but I do
believe it is a good and important document and I suspect so will my members. Why?
For a number of reasons. It prefers careful surgery to the slapdash ‘slash and burn’ approach beloved of
short-sighted politicians when talking about regulation or quangos. Its prescription for the future is
measured and precise – there are no sledgehammers to crack nuts here. It takes a wide-lens view of the
issues, not least the extent to which the NHS has largely been allowed to brush-aside its role in research.
And lastly, for an Academy report, there is a refreshing recognition of the importance of public and patient
involvement. A glint it may only be, but I will take it for starters.
For AMRC member charities who pulled no punches in their commentary on the current system of
research regulation and governance, there will be much support for the recommendations to establish a
Health Research Agency (HRA) and to house a National Research Governance Service (NRGS) within it
which will focus on speeding up NHS R&D permissions. The fact is that current delays mean it takes far
longer than it should to get donor money working for research. Also, some relief that the review panel
resisted calls to collapse the myriad functions of many others regulators into the HRA. The more one
looked at this idea the more it promised a whole lotta pain with little gain.
Its many proposals for improving the culture around health research are not necessarily new – indeed a
number of them have long been muted. But to see them packaged as part of a report which is essentially
about better and more efficient delivery of research is extremely important. It moves us away from
considering them as soft components of reform. They are just as important as cutting red tape and always
have been; ministers must now galvanise this culture change with their own backing.
On patient data issues the Academy nudges rather than propels us towards reform. It focuses on specific
levers and measures such as ‘safe havens’ that might get us out of the current fix, while supporting
ongoing initiatives such as the Research Capability Programme (RCP) pilots and the North West
Exemplar. Its proposal to make researchers part of the clinical care team would likely have benefits
beyond just improving recruitment to clinical trials; it would complement the Academy’s overall call to get
the front-end of this debate right by improving NHS staff and public awareness of the importance of
patient data to research. And it almost goes without saying that I am delighted the Academy strongly
endorses AMRC’s public awareness work in this field on behalf of, and with, other UKCRC partners.
The fact that the report cites a considerable number of voices from the patient workshop that AMRC and
INVOLVE held in November 2010 is helpful to its overall tone and style and it includes the headlines from
our independent report of this event without amendment. It also makes a number of references to the
importance of patient and public involvement to the conduct of health research. But it doesn’t quite give
the weight or billing to the need to facilitate greater involvement in the way that I and many others see as
integral to improving the UK’s performance in clinical research.
And if there is one further criticism I would make, it is that the Academy keeps a respectable distance from
prescribing the leadership make-up and governance systems for the new regulator HRA. It would have
been good to have seen it float a few ideas and proposals that further demonstrated that it had taken on
board the importance of regulation in ensuring public trust and confidence.
I see that Andrew Lansley has been quick off the mark in welcoming the report. Watch this space as they
say.
Of the coverage I have seen so far I rather liked this one most.

45 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/11 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG
ROBBINS: MOBILE INTERNET - BETTER IN
AFRICA?

The pace of change in parts of the developing world should inspire Britain's mobile internet providers to
raise their game.
Yesterday, T-Mobile customers (of which I am one), received an absolutely infuriating
announcement about changes to their mobile data allowances. Explaining that mobile internet data
allowances would be capped "aligned" to 500Mb (a sixth of the previous allowance for some Android
customers), the company delivered a final kick in the balls with the following statement: "If you want to
download, stream and watch video clips, save that stuff for your home broadband."
Not only is this a spectacularly retrograde attitude in 2011, it also makes their own advertising a bit of a
joke, as at least one other person has pointed out. Compare and contrast the above statement with their
blurb for the HTC Desire smartphone, which welcomes customers to a brave new world where they can
supposedly: "Download album art, artist reviews, YouTubeTM videos and photos of artists. And you can
buy tunes direct from Amazon."
Just don't do it on your phone. Of course it would be unfair to single out my provider - other UK services
now have similar caps, adding to the general impression that mobile broadband is increasingly failing to
live up to its earlier promise.
Three years ago I had the opportunity to visit a small settlement on the banks of a minor tributary of the
Amazon river in Brazil. The houses were spartan wooden shacks raised on stilts to avoid the regular
seasonal flooding of the river (less predictable now, they complained, due to climate change), while the
fertile grounds outside were dotted with small clusters of home-grown crops.
It was with some surprise that I entered one of these houses - a place that had taken a river ferry and some
hours traversing dimly-lit mosquito-plagued jungle rivers in a canoe to reach - to find a Nokia mobile phone
left casually on a window ledge. I checked it, and it even had reception, I noted, as my hosts stared at the
red-faced sweaty European who looked like he'd never seen a mobile before and was clearly about to die
from mosquito bites.
It's difficult to get across both the scale of the mobile revolution that has taken place in parts of the
developing world over the last ten years, and it's sheer improbability. When I last visited Kenya, in 1998,
much of the country outside Nairobi seemed like frontier territory, where breaking down meant a ten mile
walk for help, and placing a call once you found a telephone could be a somewhat fraught experience.
I'll be going back there in March, and the country remains as poor as ever.The IMF rank Kenya 150th out
182 countries by GDP per capita, and the aftermath of the hotly disputed 2007 elections saw violence and
killing spread across the land, driving thousands of refugees into neighbouring Uganda.

46 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
And yet underneath the poverty and the violence, underneath the dusty savannah grass itself, thousands
of kilometers of fibre-optic cables have been quietly snaking their way through the Kenyan soil, while
forests of 3G masts have been springing up around every major urban area. In the last two years, three
submarine cables dropped in the Indian Ocean - Seacom, Teams and Eassy - have plugged the nation into
the wider world and established Kenya as a major communications hub, East Africa's gateway to the
internet.
In the process, twenty million mobile phone subscriptions have been sold, equivalent to more than half the
population. More than 80% of the population have network coverage. The explosion in mobile phone use
has driven Kenyans onto the world wide web for the first time, with 2.7 million internet subscribers who
overwhelmingly use mobile devices to access the internet. This in a country where
the average annual income is below £500, and most live on less than seventy pence per day.
The sudden prevalence of this technology has had a profound impact on many areas of African life, with a
dizzying array of services springing up around the new infrastructure transforming everything from
personal finance to public health. Services like Mukuru allow Africans to easily transfer money via their
phones; initiatives like Phones-for-Health are assisting in the tracking of epidemics; the ability to form
wider social networks for the first time has led to 'SMS activism', with political activists using mobile
phones to coordinate an inform large groups of aligned people; and journalism has been transformed by
the ability to rapidly send text, sound and images back from far-flung locations.
So out of interest, and feeling a bit deflated about the size of my package, I had a look to see what sort of
data deal I could get from a Kenyan mobile operator. The very first one I came across was Safaricom. Given
that one Kenyan Shilling is worth about 0.8p, I could get 750Mb of pay-as-you-go data use from them over
a month for about £4.75. That compares with 500Mb for a fiver with my UK provider.
Okay, the prices aren't really directly comparable, the quality of service probably is a bit better here for
many people, and I don't want to sound like I'm starting a Daily Mail rant about 'third world hospitals'. But
if a provider in one of the poorest nations on Earth can deliver 750Mb a month to mobile internet
customers across creaking Kenyan infrastructure for such a small fee, then to me it seems a bit weird that
customers in the UK are still getting messages like the one I started this post with.

2011/01/12 THE GREAT BEYOND – NATURE:


2011: THE YEAR WHEN WHOLE GENOME
SEQUENCING BECOMES BLASÉ?
If you needed any reminder that full genome sequencing becomes normal, even blasé science, see
yesterday’s under-the-radar announcement that sequencing firm Complete Genomics, based in Mountain
View, California, will deliver 600-plus genomes to the Institute for Systems Biology (ISB) in Seattle,
Washington.
The project, which focuses on neurodegenerative disease, is the firm’s third job for ISB, following a batch
of 100 genomes for a study of Huntington’s disease and four genomes for a study of a rare genetic disease
called Miller’s syndrome, which we covered here and here .
Even if Complete Genomics delivers by the end of 2011, the order will represent a drop in the bucket of the
estimated 30,000 human genomes expected to be sequenced worldwide this year, according to a
recent Naturefeature. The Beijing Genomics Institute, a world leader in sequencing capacity, is alone
expected to deliver 10,000 to 20,000 of those genomes.

47 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
A topic getting a lot of play on blogs right now is the cost of such genomes sequences. Complete Genomics
and ISB didn’t release the financial terms of their deal, notes Genomeweb. But the company made news in
late 2009 quoting a $5,000-per-genome cost that excluded its overhead. Costs have fallen since then, so
it’s not inconceivable to think that a $1,000 genome will be announced this year.
But in a recent blog post, Forbes biotech writer Matthew Herper explains “why you can’t have your $1,000
genome”. He’s talking about patient genomes for potential use in medical diagnosis and treatment, not
sequences used for basic research, but his point is well taken. The costs of generating raw-sequence data
may be falling dramatically, but the cost of making sense of all that data isn’t coming down nearly as fast.
Also, a medically useful genome will need to be extremely accurate, incurring additional sequencing costs.
“I'm confident that I'll be obtaining my own near-$1,000 genome in the not-too-distant future,” says Daniel
MacArthur, a scientist at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Centre near Cambridge, UK, on his blog. Genomes
obtained with a doctor’s prescription may not reach the arbitrary $1,000 price point any time soon, he
says, but “individuals with the motivation to seek alternative routes will be able to obtain a perfectly
serviceable genome sequence at a substantially lower price”.
People are already analysing their personal genome scans generated by companies like 23AndMe with
resources like SNPedia and MyKaryoView, and MacArthur expects that growth in genome interpretation
software and databases will help people easily come to grips with their “DIY Genomes".
But if yesterday’s announcement from Complete Genomics is any indication, such pioneers should not
expect many people to pay much notice to their genomes (except, of course, their mothers).
Posted by Ewen Callaway

2011/01/12 BUBBLE CHAMBER: MICHAEL


OPPENHEIMER ON SCIENTISTS‟ ENGAGEMENT
WITH THE PUBLIC
Geoscientist Michael Oppenheimer, who is the director of the Program in Science, Technology and
Environmental Policy at Princeton University, and one of the authors of the latest IPCCreport,
gave a talk at the American Geographical Union meeting about the prospects and challenges that
scientists who want to engage with public issues relating to their research face.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGAUwIksJ58&feature=player_embedded

2011/01/12 NATURE NEWS WORLD VIEW:


UNIVERSITY CUTS SHOW SCIENCE IS FAR FROM
SAVED

48 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Scientific leaders have been too quick to praise the reprieve for research money, says Colin Macilwain. The
slashing of teaching funds will do real damage.
Colin Macilwain
In countries where the economic crisis has hit hardest, science has not done badly — so far. But
universities from Bologna to Berkeley face an almost existential crisis. While governments defend research
spending, they are simultaneously slashing public funding for universities, where most research takes
place.
The reaction from science lobby groups and figureheads in the scientific community to this situation has
been bafflingly cheerful. Either they have lost touch with what's happening on the ground, or else they are
preoccupied with flattering politicians for 'saving science' — when politicians are actually cutting the very
ground from underneath it. Most researchers know what is really going on, however, because they work in
the universities where overall budgets are under the hammer.
“The idea that research will prosper while teaching decays is a dangerous fallacy.”
Science today is so thoroughly embedded in universities that the line between the two has become
difficult to discern. And research in universities requires solid undergraduate and graduate learning and
teaching. It is foolhardy to weaken this foundation, because the modern research university is built on the
energy and ideas of students. Students are not customers of a university; they are its very soul. The idea
that research will prosper while teaching and learning decay is a dangerous fallacy.
The failure of many in the science establishment to pursue this point is most visible in Britain, where
money for research and teaching comes from the same pot: the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills. In the autumn spending review, warmly praised by many who claim to speak for UK science, this
department saw its budget cut more steeply than any other big-spending arm of the UK government — by
8% a year for four years.
When the cuts were announced, John Beddington, the government's chief scientific adviser, joined other
officials in boasting that science had been protected, after Treasury officials were persuaded of its worth
(see Nature 467, 1017; 2010). But the Treasury hadn't given an inch. Science was protected purely by
eviscerating public support for university teaching in England.
The reaction of Wellcome Trust head Mark Walport was typical. "I am delighted that the government has
recognised the huge importance of science," he said. "The government has listened to the voices of the
science community who argued that continued investment in science was vital to the United Kingdom's
future success. It is now up to the science community to ensure it delivers on this crucial vote of
confidence."
One problem with this promise is that it isn't within the power of the universities, or scientists, to deliver a
competitive economy.
As Geoffrey Boulton of the University of Edinburgh and Colin Lucas, former vice-chancellor of the
University of Oxford, have pointed out, governments have started to make crazy assumptions about the
ability of universities to deliver innovative companies and successful economies. In a 2008 League of
European Research Universities paper, What are Universities For?, the duo argued that the thrust of
higher-education policy in many countries is "squeezing out diversity of function and undermining teaching
and learning". Among policy-makers, they warned, "slipshod thinking about universities is leading to
demands that they cannot satisfy, while obscuring their most important contributions to society and
undermining their potential".
Boulton and Lucas were talking mainly about Europe, but there are related problems in the United States.
University management there is too often obsessed with building grandiose labs, to be financed by
overheads on future research grants they expect to win from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (B.
Alberts Science 329, 1257; 2010). With major expansion at the NIH over, and state government support for

49 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
teaching in rapid decline, many institutions are now locked in a futile battle to fill these white elephants,
creating what biochemist Kenneth Mann of the University of Vermont in Burlington has dubbed "a toxic,
uncertain environment" for students.
With the long-term decline of top-class independent or corporate laboratories, almost all Nobel prize-level
science is now done at universities. And the greatest universities, starting at the top with Harvard,
increasingly define themselves chiefly in terms of their scientific prowess — or, more prosaically, by the
amount of research funding they can attract.
When the universities were doing well — and in many parts of the world, they have just enjoyed decades
of expansion — the concentration of scientific research within their walls was more or less entirely
beneficial. When the economic storm struck in 2008, the ride came to an abrupt end. Now, as Western
governments attempt to maintain investment in science as a route to innovation and industrial
development, they are undermining support for students and the quality of their education. Instead of
joining with students and teaching staff elsewhere in academia in protest, too many scientific leaders have
stood aloof. (Martin Rees, until this month the president of the Royal Society in London, is a notable
exception.) Strategically, this approach is a disaster in waiting.
China and India know this and are building universities from the ground up, with a firm emphasis on
student education as their bedrock of energy and ideas. In the United Kingdom and elsewhere, these
foundations are being demolished, and students drowned in debt, to keep researchers' grants flowing. It
can only end badly, and more in the scientific establishment should have the courage to say so.
Colin Macilwain is a contributing correspondent with Nature. e-mail: cfmworldview@gmail.com

2011/01/12 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG:


CLIMATE CHANGE EXHIBIT ATMOSPHERE MAY BE
PRETTY BUT IT LACKS PUNCH
Atmosphere at the Science Museum in London promises 'calm and considered discussion' of climate
change but fails to deliver

An Antarctic ice core containing air


bubbles from 1410 takes centre stage at the Atmosphere climate change exhibit. Photograph: British
Antarctic Survey/PA
Early last month, the Science Museum opened a new gallery on climate science, Atmosphere.
50 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Writing for the Guardian in May, museum director Chris Rapley reflected on the emotive nature of public
debate on climate science, and promised the new gallery would provide a "forum" for people to learn
more about the issue, whether they came from a position of believing in man-made climate change, or not
(or, perhaps most importantly, were unsure). They wanted to avoid "polarised and shrill" commentary, and
instead offer "calm and considered discussion".
The challenges facing the museum in creating this gallery reflect some big questions. Should museums aim
to teach their audiences, or simply offer space for self-directed learning and debate? Should publicly
funded science communication avoid taking sides on controversial topics, or work as advocates for a
scientific view? Should climate science present a united front to the public, or reflect diversity and
uncertainties within the scientific community?
I don't have definitive answers to these questions, and doubt the museum does either. Having visited
Atmosphere, one thing I can say: it is very blue. As with the rest of the Wellcome Wing in which the gallery
is situated, the space is bathed in a deep blue light.
Blue is, apparently, the colour of mystery. I was told this when the Wellcome Wing first opened, back in
the millennial angst of the year 2000. At the time I had a job in the museum's hands-on galleries and
although the blue looked stunning in press photos, it was rather a headache to work in. When staff
grumbled, we were told that the wing's designers had decided on the lighting "because blue is mysterious
and so is science".
Ten years later and the Wellcome Wing has had a bit of a polish, including the glistening new Atmosphere
gallery. It remains very blue, but is it still mysterious?
I should stress that Atmosphere is not darkly mysterious. This is perhaps wise considering issues of public
trust surrounding climate science, which is sometimes painted as shadowy by its detractors. Rather, the
gallery is filled with flickering colours, sounds and shapes. Even the floor seems to move as lights shift
under your feet. The multi-touch, multi-screen, multi-player, multi-coloured experience it provides is not
unpleasant.
It is poetic, even, although maybe more of an aesthetic experience than an educational one. It's all too
easy to float in and out of surfaces without digesting much content. Pretty, but a long way from "calm and
considered discussion".
The gallery is largely structured around questions, such as "What's the difference between climate and
weather?" and "When did scientists discover the greenhouse effect?" But these questions come ready-
made, as do the answers. The framing of the gallery might be one of debate, but the museum still seems to
be set on feeding information to its audiences.
Because there is so much on offer and it's hard to concentrate on the gallery floor, you can have short,
text-based articles emailed to yourself from the gallery to read later. However, the "donotreply" email
address says something about how far the museum is prepared to discuss its content.
Providing information in this way is, in itself, not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe we ask too many
questions of climate science rather than taking time to listen. But if I want to read about climate science, I
go to the newsagent, my favourite blogs, or a library. Museums have objects and space to play with, and I
left wishing they had done more with this.
So, exceedingly pretty as Atmosphere is, the highlight of my trip to the museum was gawping at the Apollo
10 capsule. A humble-looking object, it has actually been around the Moon. You can see scorch marks from
when it re-entered the Earth's atmosphere.
I thought about its history, and the many times I'd stood there before. I remembered conversations I'd had
with people about it. I remembered being moved to read more about the history of space travel, including
the ways images from Apollo missions had inspired green activism in the 1970s, presenting Earth as a
fragile, beautiful and, indeed, blue sphere in space.

51 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Time spent quietly pondering the history of an object is an old-fashioned idea of a museum, but it still has
power.

2011/01/12 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG: THE


MEDICAL ESTABLISHMENT SHIELDED ANDREW
WAKEFIELD FROM FRAUD CLAIMS

Brian Deer spent years investigating Andrew Wakefield's MMR and autism research, which he now alleges
was fraudulent. Here he argues that doctors closed ranks behind one of their own

Andrew Wakefield in May 2010


outside the GMC, which struck him off the medical register. The BMJ now accuses him of fraud.
Photograph: Anthony Devlin/PA
"Just hours ago," announced CNN's Anderson Cooper from New York last Wednesday, "the British Medical
Journal – BMJ – did something extremely rare for a scientific journal. It accused a researcher, Andrew
Wakefield, of outright fraud."
The occasion for this judgment was a BMJ editorial, backing the first report in a series by me. Following
some two dozen of my MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine stories in the Sunday Times – dating as far
back as February 2004 – I'd brought the evidence together in a 16,000-word epic for the journal, plus
10,000 more in references and footnotes. It laid out the full gory detail behind the flaws in Wakefield's
original Lancet paper that kicked off the scandal over MMR and its supposed link to autism, leading to a
significant drop in uptake of the vaccine.

52 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
This followed earlier revelations that he had been hired by a firm of lawyers to make a case against the
three-in-one shot, that he had been paid £435,643, plus expenses, and that families were recruited for the
study through anti-vaccine groups, rather than being a random sample.
But a Philadelphia-based commentator was not impressed by the BMJ's intervention. "It doesn't matter
that [Wakefield] was fraudulent," Dr Paul Offit, a vaccine inventor and author in Pennsylvania, was quoted
in the Philadelphia Inquirer the next day as saying. "It only matters that he was wrong."
I wasn't surprised. From his establishment vantage-point, this was the third time Dr Offit had popped up to
opine on the issue. Twice previously he'd been quoted as saying that my findings were "irrelevant"
(although he'd been happy enough to use them in his books). Science had spoken, his argument went.
There was no link between the vaccine and autism. It was experts like him who should rule on this matter,
he seemed to imply, not some oik reporter nailing the guilty men.
Offit wasn't alone. Over the past few years, many of the MMR vaccine's medical champions have queued
up to take a pop at my investigation. They've never found any fault in its accuracy or originality. But it was
as if they felt that somehow it wasn't right.
"Actually, I would like to speak in defence of Andrew Wakefield," said Guardian Bad Science columnist Dr
Ben Goldacre in a BMJ video, long after I first skewered the man's research but before Wakefield was
struck off by the GMC. "I'm not sure it was necessarily a bad piece of research."
Between July 2007 and May 2010, as the longest-ever General Medical Council disciplinary hearing
lumbered forward from my investigation, Dr Michael Fitzpatrick – another author who has defended MMR
– denounced the GMC's inquiries as a "witchhunt".
So, what's my point? I think these comments reveal a striking pattern: doctors default to defending other
doctors. In fact, until recently there was a GMC regulation that banned them from bad-mouthing
colleagues.
But in the specifics of their stance there seemed the idea that scholarly debate, epidemiology and suchlike,
should arbitrate. Truth would emerge from the "scientific method", not from "we can reveal" media muck-
raking.
Such faith in science was also the apparent view of Wakefield's medical school, when in 1998 he launched
the MMR scare in a five-page paper in The Lancet.
Next week in the BMJ, I will go further, showing how the old boys' network of the medical establishment
was mobilised to protect him. Are you getting the picture yet?
But times are changing. Wakefield's fall from grace is now slicing another scalp. One of the most insidious
cartels at the heart of British science is being torn apart: the two top journals in medical science.
The Lancet once championed him. The BMJ has now nailed him – and commended my contribution. "It has
taken the diligent scepticism of one man, standing outside medicine and science, to show that the paper
was in fact an elaborate fraud," they wrote in last week's editorial.
Let battle commence, I say. Let doctors expose each other. Let journals compete to get the truth out first.
Because 13 years passed before I slayed the MMR monster. And although a single, severed hand may yet
come crawling across the floor, for science and public safety 13 years is still too long.
Brian Deer is an investigative journalist
This article was amended on Wednesday 12 January 2011. The original suggested the quote from Dr Ben
Goldacre was from an article by him in the BMJ. It also didn't make clear the quote pre-dated the GMC's
ruling. This has been corrected.

53 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/13 THE GREAT BEYOND – NATURE:
RESEARCH LEADER IN GREECE RESIGNS
Achilleas Mitsos, the former European Union director general for research who became general secretary
for research in his home country Greece, resigned on 30th December, saying he was unable to deliver the
reforms he had promised.
His resignation followed disputes with the deputy minister for education George Panaretos. Heated
arguments were apparently centred on mechanisms for peer-review to select projects for funding.
Mitsos took office a year ago with a mandate to redesign the structure of research in Greece. He intended
to design a new law which would create an independent granting agency, co-ordinate research across
ministries and introduce evaluation at all levels, involving foreign reviewers.
Continual hostilities with Panaretos, however, led to delays both in the law and in distribution of research
money. Although European Union structural funds have been allocated to supporting research in Greece,
no serious money was transferred to scientists during the whole year.
The government remains committed to the EU standards of research governance that Mitsos supported,
though. Greek scientists hope his successor, currently being sought, will be able to find a way of working
with Panaretos to break through the impasse.

2011/01/13 TIMES HE: TAUGHT


POSTGRADUATE DEGREES MAY SOON BE PRESERVE
OF THE RICH
By Simon Baker
Government warned about a looming crisis in an economically vital area, writes Simon Baker
Taught postgraduate courses in England could become "completely populated" by overseas and wealthy
home students if fees rise to unaffordable levels in the wake of reforms at undergraduate level, the
government has been warned.
There are fears of an impending crisis due to growing uncertainty over teaching funding and the decision
not to extend state support to postgraduates, who in future will be saddled with huge debts from their first
degrees.
Taught postgraduate subjects are currently supported by £150 million in recurrent teaching funding from
the Higher Education Funding Council for England, £110 million of which comes from the mainstream grant
that is being cut by 80 per cent by 2014-15.
The coalition government has yet to specify whether taught postgraduate funding will be affected, and no
mention was made in last month's grant letter from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Geoff Whitty, who retired at the end of December as director of the Institute of Education, University of
London, said that it was "difficult to make any real assumptions about how we should proceed" given the
lack of clarity.

54 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
"Undergraduate funding has been the hot political issue because it affects votes in elections, but in terms
of the long-term health of British universities and the economy we really need to see postgraduate
education as vital," Professor Whitty said.
"If you look around the world, this is the area the more competitive economies are developing."
He wrote to Lord Browne of Madingley last October to express his disappointment that the Browne Review
had not helped postgraduates and said the lack of state support would be felt more keenly than ever, with
part-time students hit hardest as they pay off their undergraduate debt at the same time.
"The fear is that some courses will be completely populated by international students and wealthy home
students. As more and more people get undergraduate degrees, the widening participation issues at a
postgraduate level will come to the fore," he warned.
There is also uncertainty about funding for postgraduate qualifications in specific areas such as health and
teaching, where investment is made through the budgets of other government departments.
Professor Whitty added that specialist postgraduate providers were at risk of suffering the greatest
damage, as they could not cross-subsidise from undergraduate income.
But even if the relatively small amount of Hefce funding for taught postgraduate courses is kept, there are
concerns that the prices of programmes will be affected by the knock-on effect of cuts and higher fees for
lower-level qualifications.
Malcolm McCrae, chair of the UK Council for Graduate Education, said that with undergraduate fees rising
sharply from 2012, it would not be sustainable for institutions to hold down postgraduate charges,
especially as those courses are typically more intensive.
"It would be a hard argument for any university to make, both politically and economically, to say, for
example, we're still only going to charge £3,500 for a taught master's in English without someone saying
'Aren't you heavily subsidising that programme - and if you're not, what's the teaching provision like?'," he
said.
"All those sort of discussions would surface very quickly. I can't see any other outcome."
Professor McCrae said he thought some research-focused universities might charge higher annual fees for
master's degrees than for undergraduate degrees to reflect the more intensive teaching.
Meanwhile, courses in business and economics, with direct paths into well-paid professions, would
continue to charge market rates of more than £10,000, he said.
He added that, in his view, demand for taught postgraduate qualifications would be affected less by fees
than by the employment market and whether graduates feel they need a higher-level qualification to get a
job.
But Paul Tobin, who represents taught postgraduates in the National Union of Students, said the prospect
of such fees without state support was "frightening".
"Droves of people will be unable to study at postgraduate level," he said, adding that fees could go up
"without any discernible increase in quality".
simon.baker@tsleducation.com.

2011/01/13 RESEARCHBLOGS: WHAT FUTURE


FOR POSTGRADUATE EDUCATION?
"Taught postgraduate degrees may soon be preserve of the rich," is the headline of a story by Simon
Cowan in today’s Times Higher Education.
55 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
It is not difficult to see why. As with the Dearing Review in 1997 that first recommended the introduction
of undergraduate student fees, so with the Browne Review, postgraduate taught education and its funding
receives little comment. The Browne Review is sanguine, not least because the report by Professor Adrian
Smith—recently appointed Director General, Knowledge and Innovation at the Department of Business,
Innovation and Skills—suggested that there seemed to be no issues of ‘access’, or widening participation,
in postgraduate education beyond those that already characterise undergraduate recruitment.
However, that report was written in the context of a generally flat rate of postgraduate fees—except for
some premium courses, such as MBAs, etc, and some institutions such as London School of Economics that
have charged all students at an overseas student rate. This fee has typically been below that of the
aggregate currently paid per annum for an undergraduate degree: Higher Education Funding Council for
England grant per student plus student contribution. We must expect that fees for postgraduate taught
degrees, where they are currently below that of undergraduate degrees, will rise to match the new
undergraduate fee regime. That is, that they will be set in the range of £6,000 to £9,000.
The Smith Report, Postgraduate Education: One Step Beyond, showed that, alongside a graduate earnings
premium for undergraduate degrees, there was also an earnings premium for postgraduate qualifications.
With student indebtedness from undergraduate degrees set to rise, we can expect many more students to
be unable to take on an extra year of postgraduate education for which there is no available funding
through the kind of system of support soon to be available for undergraduate studies.
It is significant that the section (7.4) of the Browne Review Report that dealt with postgraduate funding
concluded in line with the Smith Report: “We have seen no evidence that the absence of student support
in the taught postgraduate market has had a detrimental impact on access to postgraduate education. In
the evidence that has been presented to us, we do see that participation in postgraduate education by
higher socio-economic groups is higher than for others; however, it is reasonable to suppose that access to
postgraduate education is a function of the socio-economic make up of the undergraduate population –
where the same trend exists – rather than anything else” (page 55).
This is both disingenuous and dishonest. The Browne Review declined to reflect upon the impact of its own
recommendations that would substantially increase the volume of student debt and would also introduce
differential fees. It is precisely those students most affected by indebtedness from their undergraduate
degrees—students whose parents are unable to pay—who will be excluded from postgraduate education.
As the government creates a system in which higher education becomes a positional good, so other
consequences emerge, namely credentialism and the pressure to compete with others through ever-higher
qualifications where the ability to pay becomes what really distinguishes people.
John Holmwood is professor of sociology at the University of Nottingham.
Posted by John Holmwood at 10:55:38

2011/01/13-17 SCIENCE ONLINE 2011


PROGRAM – #SCIO11
http://lanyrd.com/2011/scienceonline2011/

Thursday, January 13th 2011


Keynote Lecture - Robert Krulwich - at RTP headquarters.

56 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Open Mike: https://scio11.wikispaces.com/Open+Mike

Friday, January 14th 2011


Workshops I at Marriott
Room 1) Blogging 101 - start your own Wordpress blog and use it during the conference - Joe Kraus
Room 2) Death to Obfuscation: on the use of language in science writing - Carl Zimmer and Ed Yong -
Writing about science for a wide audience requires you to write for people who are not obliged to read your
stuff. In this workshop, we'll discuss the value of compelling language in science writing and the most
common obfuscatory traps into which writers fall.
Room 3) Freeing yourself from Blackboard and making your own Drupal site for teaching – Sandra Porter
Room 4) How to produce a high-quality short Video - Carin Bondar and Joanne Manaster
Workshops II at Marriott
Room 1) How to migrate your blog from one system to another - John Hawks
Room 2) Prezi: free yourself from the linearity of slideshows and scale your visuals to your concepts - Stacy
Baker
Room 3) Science Documentary - The Challenges and Possibilities: An insider's perspective on what
programmers look for/what works what doesn't, etc...and also discuss the art of pitching to television... -
Clifton Wiens
Room 4) Online security: How to protect yourself and not be paranoid - Arikia Millikan

Saturday, January 15th 2011

SESSION 1
Room A - Developing an aggregator for all science blogs - Dave Munger, Anton Zuiker, and Mark
Hahnel

ScienceBlogging.org has been a success as an aggregator of science blogging networks, but it has some
limitations—most notably the inability to search and filter posts. We're developing a community-based,
open-source network of all science blogs, and we hope to have a working prototype of this new site ready
in time for ScienceOnline 2010. But the worst thing that can happen to an aggregator is to stagnate, so
we'd like to utilize ScienceOnline 2011 as an opportunity to develop plans for the future of the aggregator.
We're discussing the process on the ScienceBlogging Blog. There is also an outline of the project on this
Google Doc. In order for the site to succeed, it's going to need curators, coders, designers, and editors who
are committed to building a hub for all science blogs and blogging networks. We envision this as a planning
session for the site -- a fairly open-ended discussion where we can talk about the future of the site and
actually come up with a plan for getting it all done.

Room B - Making the history of science work for you - Michael Barton, Greg Gbur, Eric Michael
Johnson, Randi Hutter Epstein and Holly Tucker (Presenter
bios: http://scio11.wikispaces.com/History+of+Science+Panel )

57 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Most scientists know just enough history of science to share a story or two about the quirky characters and
events that shaped their scientific field. However, history can do so much more for scientists to help them
as bloggers, as researchers and even as citizens. In this session we will have a discussion of the ways in
which using the history of science can help you connect to your readers, combat misinformation (such as
quote-mining) on the web, and find common-ground between the sciences and humanities. (We'll also
share some of our favorite historical anecdotes along the way.)

Room C - The Digital Toolbox: What’s Needed? - Kaitlin Thaney (@kaythaney)

The way that science is done is radically changing. The digital age has transformed the means in which we
collate, create and curate and disseminate information – from scholarly articles and datasets to protocols
and biological materials. But there still remain gaps in fully utilizing technology, and we‘re not nearly there
yet. Many of the existing tools are inadequate, clunky, or not designed with the users needs in mind. This
session will explore the underlying infrastructure, tools and technology needed by researchers to help make
their everyday work more efficient.

Room D - Blog as a (book-)writing tool – Brian Switek, Sheril Kirshenbaum, Maryn McKenna and Seth
Mnookin

A popular science book: using the Web from the initial idea to pitching to writing to selling your book. Why
not extend this idea also to magazine/newspaper articles and other media, as well? Make it about using
blogs as a springboard for other forms of science writing and engagement rather than just books alone –
blogs as labs to grow as a writer, etc.

Room E - Demos

1) EarthObserver iPad/iPhone map app: A new earth science map application for the iPad and iPhone
developed by Bill Ryan at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (Jacqueline Floyd).
(Download for free from iTunes.)

2) fluorXchange: A Web 2.0 Application Based on Fluorescence Researcher Needs (Mary Canady)

3) MemexPlex: will demo an open source blockquote/meme and reference management tool for research
and for fun. (Ryan Somma).

SESSION 2
Room A - **Technology and the Wilderness** – Miriam Goldstein, Jason Robertshaw, Danielle Lee and
Karen James #techwild

Technology offers unparalleled opportunity for outdoor education – yet it is viewed as a cause of ―Nature
Deficit Disorder.‖ But little glowy screens can be amazing educational tools. Potential directions include
tools (for example: a citizen science iPhone app from Mote Marine Laboratory), networking (e.g., Outdoor
Afro bringing people of color outdoors together), and exploration (e.g., following up on the Blogging From
the Field/Trash Gyre sessions from past years, citizen science, teenagers blogging their discoveries).

58 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Room B - Experiments with the imagination: science and scientists through the medium of fiction -
Jennifer Rohn and Blake Stacey

Can we stimulate a wider interest in and appreciation of scientists and what they do via the medium of
mainstream fiction, whether be it novels, plays, movies or TV dramas? And how can we leverage online
tools to help? Is it possible to entertain and educate without becoming too pedantic or pedagogical, and
how do we define ―scientific accuracy‖ in the context of made-up stories? This session will explore the
world of imaginary science and how we can leverage its powers without compromising our scientific
principles.

Room C - Data Discoverability: Institutional Support Strategies - Kiyomi Deards, Molly Keener and
Steve Koch **http://tinyurl.com/scio11data**

Funding agencies are increasingly calling upon researchers to make data available beyond that shared in
publications. Without guidelines stipulating deposit in specific repositories, responsibility for developing data
management plans falls upon researchers and institutions. Join Kiyomi Deards, Molly Keener, and Steve
Koch for a moderated discussion of how researchers and institutional constituents can collaborate to
ensure sustainable data management strategies are developed.

Room D - Science journalism online: better, or merely different? - Ed Yong, Virginia Hughes, Deborah
Blum, John Rennie and Steve Silberman

How does the web change our perception of what is ―newsworthy‖? What attributes are valuable in online
science journalism – do we really care about things like scoops, or is context king? How does the web blur
the lines between news and opinion? How does it change the practice of reporting, and what features
present opportunities that can be tapped (e.g. space, context, links, multimedia)? How much reporting do
we bring to blog posts?

Room E - Outreach for Scientific Micro-societies - Julie Meachen-Samuels, John Logsdon and Psi
Wavefunction

What is a relatively small scientific society to do to start online outreach and gain visibility?

- how to efficiently 'harvest' information and insight from already-overloaded researchers in the field

- how to disseminate said information in a way it can be heard – keeping within constraints of small field,
etc.

- balancing qualified researcher input and writers who are not experts in the sub-subfield.

- what to do when topic has a single expert who happens to be deficient in communication, esp outside
their field. Each discipline must have one or two of those.

Come and help with your experiences.

59 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
SESSION 3
Room A - The First Line of Response - The BP Oil Spill: science, outrage, spin, and dead pelicans -
Miriam Goldstein, Kevin Zelnio, Holly Bik, Craig McClain and Andrew Thaler. John Amos of SkyTruth will
participate via Skype. #oil

This session proposes an examination of the role of bloggers in exposing events, correcting mainstream
media (MSM), offering expert analysis, and keeping important issues current after MSM interest wanes.
How did BP, the government's response, scientists, amateurs, bloggers, and MSM journalists use the web
to communicate? Was the public outrage dependent only on dead charismatic megafauna photos, or can
these methods be leveraged for other social/environmental issues? Outcomes from blogging the oil spill will
also be discussed, such as funding opportunities for scientific research and outreach, collaborations, and
media exposure.

Room B - The Entertainment Factor - Communicating Science with Humor - Brian Malow and Joanne
Manaster

How do we find a balance between education and entertainment? When reaching out to the public, how do
you increase the fun factor and audience engagement without diluting the science? There seems to be
growing interest in this question and awareness that some science programming is too dry or boring. But,
even though Brian is an entertainer, he is not a fan of much of what passes for science on television. In a
lot of flashy programs, there's really no interesting science content at all. Let's talk about this and related
issues.

Room C - What's keeping us from Open Science? Is it the powers the be, or is it … us? - David
Dobbs, Melody Dye, Jan Reichelt, Kristi Holmes, John Timmer, Sara Wood

There‘s been a lot of talk about open science — the need to not only make all science publications open-
access, but to change current research, publication, and reputational structures to take full advantage of
the internet, and to accelerate and enrich the flow and development of scientific data, idea, findings, and
discussion. But what‘s holding us back? What changes need be made to ensure a) free and open access to
scientific results and publications and b) a more free, open, faster flow of scientific information? Can we just
start publishing papers on blogs and let the hivemind replace peer review? Do open notebooks really work?
How can we encourage scientists to contribute by reviewing and commenting on others‘ work rather than
focusing just on ―the paper‖? We'll discuss these questions, as well as a) where the current bottlenecks are
b) key functions served by current structures (such as publishing, peer review, and credit/reputation
systems) that need to be replaced in an open system; and c) ideas and efforts already underway to serve
those new functions.

Room D - Still Waiting for a Superhero - Science Education Needs YOU! - Stacy Baker, Marie-Claire
Shanahan, Sophia Collins and 9 students:

Stacy Baker is bringing her students again to discuss online science and education. Her eight students
ranging from age 14-17 will join a panel of educators and scientists to discuss the problems and possible
solutions to the science illiteracy crisis in schools. For example, what does the importance and prominance
of blogging etc. mean for students and teachers/professors? Are the processes and people of science more
visible because of blogging? Does that matter? What would bloggers, journalists, and scientists want

60 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
students to learn to read and engage in online science and online science communication? One approach
is to realise that a real barrier in science education is students feeling science is 'for boffins' and 'nothing to
do with them' - if you can change students' feelings it makes all the difference. Showing students that
scientists are real people (which you can all do, by showing your real selves in whatever medium), and
giving them a say over something (as, for example, in I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here!) can make all the
difference.

Room E - Web 2.0wned: Harnessing new media to enhance your science communication power -
Arikia Millikan, Dave Mosher, Taylor Dobbs

Social media technologies are changing the way science information is passed between scientists,
journalists, and readers — for better or worse. We think it‘s for the better and that resistance is futile. For
some, using new media tools like twitter and the facebook is a self-rewarding reflex that, when applied to
science communication, can have far-reaching effects. Others struggle with how to ―do‖ the social media
thing and view it as labor with little reward. In this session, we will demonstrate how keeping social media
social is the key to success in both gaining readership and participating in the communal conversation of
science journalists. Through a series of case studies and experiments, we will show you awesome and
interesting ways individuals and companies in the science communication field are using new media and
how cultivating your online personality yields both professional and personal rewards.

SESSION 4
Room A - Parenting with Science Online - Kevin Zelnio, Eric Michael Johnson and Carin Bondar

How do parents enrich the lives of their children with science using online tools and media. What are the
good sites, how do we judge trustworthiness of information, how to deal with advertising targeted at our
children when we are trying to educate them online? More importantly, as scientists and science
communicators, parenting with science may come naturally to us so how can we as sci-parents influence
non-sci parents to use online tools and media with their own children. This session will explore how we
have grown to use educational tools over the internet, how our children will be born into an online world and
the pros and cons of allowing use of the internet with or without parental guidance.

Room B - Visual storytelling through science/nature photography - Melody Dye and Allie Wilkinson

Photography can be a powerful tool for visual storytelling. As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand
words. In this session, we'll discuss strategies for crafting a compelling visual narrative that complements
and enriches scientific presentation, be it in a scientific paper, talk, or blog article. We'll also explore open
access online tools that are useful for post-production and publishing.

Room C - Open Notebook Science: pushing data from bench to web service - Jean-Claude Bradley,
Carl Boettiger and Antony Williams

A panel on ONS with an emphasis on archiving and quickly abstracting data from the lab to versatile web
services. How does one keep a notebook that is both comprehensive and comprehensible? How do we
capture the ideas and not just the process? What is the future of Open Notebook Science? How can
integration with web services make open notebooks more automated, more readable, more social? What
are the relative merits of relying on web services developed for scientists vs more general-purpose

61 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
platforms? We will discuss examples from our own experiences and foster discussion around these and
other questions. Send us your thoughts: @jcbradley @cboettig @chemconnector

Room D - Blogs, Bloggers and Boundaries? - Marie-Claire Shanahan, Alice Bell, Ed Yong, Martin
Robbins and Viv Raper

Science blogging is often seen as an opportunity for science and science communication to be made more
open and in doing so, help connect people. Blogging thus might be seen as a chance to break down
cultural boundaries between science, science journalists, and various people formerly known as audiences.
But do these traditional roles still affect blogs, bloggers and their readers? Are blogs still producing a rather
traditional form of popular science, one that largely disseminates knowledge, maintaining a boundary
between those who are knowledgeable and those who are not? Or do they provide new opportunities for
these boundaries to be blurred? Similarly, do blogs help foster cross-disciplinary communication or simply
allow bloggers to keep talking to ever more niche audiences? They allow science writers to connect with
more people, but do they end up as an echo chamber where writers only talk to more of the same people?
And how can bloggers tell if their writing is actually making a difference? This discussion will explore the
boundaries that are maintained and blurred through science blogging, including the value of some of these
boundaries and the importance of being aware of them.

Room E - Can E-Patients Save Health Care? Or at least find a new kidney – "E-Patient Dave"
deBronkart, Joe Graedon, Terry Graedon, Pascale Lane, David Seidman, and Nancy Shute

You don‘t need to be wearing a paper exam gown to know that patients don‘t have much clout in health
care. But the Web has connected patients in ways that make it possible for them to share information in
ways never before possible. ―Patient bloggers‖ didn‘t exist five years ago; now there are thousands, and
they are changing how medicine does business. Some are looking for cancer treatments that could save
their lives -- or a new kidney. Others aim to transform health care altogether with participatory medicine,
with patients and providers using Web tools to collaborate and make medicine better and safer. When
Dave deBronkart (@ePatientDave) was told he had advanced kidney cancer in 2007, he had no idea what
treatment might give him a chance of survival. He found out in 24 hours through other patients online, and
is now a leading voice in the global movement for participatory medicine. David Seidman is a Raleigh-
Durham local who blogs from dialysis, and uses his blog to as a tool in his search for a kidney
transplant.Joe and Terry Graedon are pioneers in opening up access to high-quality online health
information through their peoplespharmacy.com website and forums.They were crowdsourcing information
on medical treatments before crowdsoucing was invented.

SESSION 5
Room A - Institutional Blogging: Online outreach for science, conservation, education and
government organizations - Jeff Ives, Jason Robertshaw, Allie Wilkinson and Stephanie Levi

Blogs, podcasts and social media are a key outreach tool for most non-profit science, conservation,
educational and governmental organizations. Building those assets can be challenging due to institutional
roadblocks, time constraints and limited budgets. Come join the discussion about the difficulties, strategies
and rewards of integrating new media into an institution, including a science outreach initiative focused on
under-represented and low income students, Hashtags: #scio11 #inblogging

62 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Room B - Science-Art: The burgeoning fields of niche artwork aimed at scientific disciplines -
Glendon Mellow, David Orr and John Hawks

 Is science-inspired art a new zeitgeist, or just cyclical?


 An overview of science's influence in art history, and how the internet changes its influence.
 What makes something "science art" anyway? How does it differ from fantasy or scientific illustration?
 Dinosaurs. Hominids/archaeological reconstruction. Space art (how about those NASA animations, do they
count?)
 Also, how is online altering the dynamic?

Room C - How is the Web changing the way we identify scientific impact? - Jason Priem, Paul Groth,
Martin Fenner, and Jason Hoyt

This session will be about alternative ways to measure scientific impact, and about the alternative types of
publications we can measure.

 The tyranny of the IF: how do we challenge institutional overreliance on the Impact Factor?
 Crowdsourcing peer review (post-pub PR, article commenting, "soft-peer review")
 Tenure from tweets: can alt-metrics (downloads, bookmarks, etc) count in evaluating scholars?
 Astroturfing eminence: are social metrics too easy to game?
 alt-metrics and OA: perfect match?
 beyond good ideas: how do we go about researching alt-metrics?
 Scientific contributions beyond papers and research data. What are we interested in, are there unique and
persistent identifiers for these contributions, and what is the level of detail (e.g. blog/blog post/blog
comment?) we want? These contributions could then be associated with a particular researcher using
ORCID, and used both for discovery and for alternative metrics.

Room D - How to explain science in blog posts - Scicurious, Joanne Manaster, Maryn McKenna,
Vivienne Raper, Eric Michael Johnson, Brian Mossop, Carin Bondar, Melody Dye, Christie Wilcox, Ed Yong
and the engaged audience.

Many science bloggers dream about attracting a mass audience, but what's the secret to popular and
readable blogposts? Do you have to write about orgasms, duck sex and dinosaurs or are there other ways
to draw a crowd? This session will discuss how to make your blog an effective tool for getting the public
excited about science... and masturbating squirrels.

Room E - Industry and Academia - Kristy Meyer, Dr. Isis, and Brian Krueger

A discussion on how academic and industry sides of science can come together in social media. Life
Science companies, technology providers, biotech companies, pharmas, and academics are out in the
social space more and more each month. How can the different facets of the research community come
together? How can Life Science companies play their part without being cheesy sales people? Are there
ways for pharma scienctists to collaborate in the social space? What can the industry side learn from the
academic side about open communication?

63 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
SESSION 6
Room A - Lessons from Climategate - James Hrynyshyn, Chris Mooney and Josh Rosenau
"You guys have got to start fighting back" is the message many climatologists are hearing in the wake the
slanderous attack on their integrity that has been called Swifthack, or Climategate. But for many scientists,
fighting back means publishing a really good paper in a reputable journal. That doesn't cut it anymore. How
should scientists and their communicator allies go about planning a strategy? Joining us will be Tom
Peterson, chief scientist at the National Climatic Data Center.
Room B - Video: from YouTube to TV to Hollywood and back: Mini Science Film Festival- Joanne
Manaster and Carin Bondar
What are some of the best science videos on the internet? Who is making them and how are they doing it?
We will provide a screening of several of our favorites and open the floor for discussion of what works and
what doesn't. What kind of science topics/stories make for great video presentations? Which bloggers are
using video posts, and what kinds of techniques do they employ? What is the future of video production
and science?
Room C - Having fun with citations - Martin Fenner, Melody Dye and Jason Hoyt
Citations play a central role in science communication, but their role in the traditional scientific publication is
often rather boring. We love to count citations for measures of scientific impact, but we spend little time
thinking about the context and meaning of citations. In this session I would like to talk about topics ranging
from semantic meaning of citations (using CiTO, the Citation Typing Ontology by David Shotton), citations
of retracted papers, citations of datasets (using Datacite), the importance of an Open Bibliography,
formatting of citations using CSL (Citation Style Language), citations in Twitter and other unusual places,
citation mutations to the integration of unique researcher identifiers (using ORCID). There is some
interesting work on how citation rates follow Zipfian-like distributions; it would be interested to discuss the
background and implications.
Room D - “But it’s just a blog!” – Hannah Waters, Psi Wavefunction, Eric Michael Johnson, Jason
Goldman, Mike Lisieski and Lucas Brouwers
Many young people are eager to communicate science despite their lack of scientific and/or journalistic
credentials. While all science communicators face challenges, this subgroup has their own set of
challenges including cultivating a following of readers from scratch, and high levels of self-doubt, often
referred to as "imposter syndrome." What value does this rapidly-growing group of science communicators
bring do the field? How can the science blogging community encourage and mentor young bloggers? How
can we hold these individuals accountable to the high standards of science and journalism while
simultaneously allowing them to make mistakes as part of the learning process? In addition, established
and successful science communicators will be encouraged to share their tips and tricks with their newer
colleagues.
Room E - Demos:
1) I'm a Scientist, Get me out of Here! 60% of school students taking part in I'm a Scientist visit the site at
home, in their own time, after doing it in class. How do you make science engagement fun, and engage
students who aren't usually interested in science? We'll show you how IAS works, and why. (Sophia
Collins)
2) "Nasty Little Dinosaurs" Will offer a template for running an education-and-equity-oriented
announcement hot off the presses - DESPITE THE PRESSES - science announcement (almost) 21st-
century style <www.projectexploration.org/webcast11311>. -Blogging with the invisible community and why
it might matter - Project Exploration's blog, blogging strategy with students; blogging about science as a

64 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
way to get and keep youth and girls from historically underrepresented populations involved with science
and scientists. (Gabrielle Lyon; <glyon@projectexploration.org>)
3) N.C.Zoo (Russ Williams and Mark MacAllister) - Highlight several NC Zoo Education programs, including
FieldTripEarth, the conservation education website operated by the North Carolina Zoological Society.

Sunday, January 16th

SESSION 1
Room A - Science Online Project Showcase – Karen James, Sophia Collins, Kristi Holmes, Adrian
Ebsary and... YOU!*

Science Online Participant 1: ‗Hi, nice to meet you; so, what do you do?‘

Science Online Participant 2: *briefly describes fabulous project/gig/campaign*

Science Online Participant 1: ‗Wow! Win! I wish I‘d thought of that!‘

Are you Participant 2 in this scenario? Then all of us – not just Participant 1 – want to hear from you! This
session will be a series of short presentations from people all over the science-online-o-sphere who are
creating and doing new things.

List of projects so far:

 Galapagos Live — a live stream of tweets, blog posts, photos and videos uploaded as we (students,
teachers, scientists) traveled among the islands in Darwin's footsteps in October
 NASA STS-133 launch tweetup — if watching a space shuttle launch from the famous countdown clock in
the company of 150 fellow geeks does not inspire you then you are dead inside
 I‘m a Scientist— like science lessons meet the X Factor, where school students are the judges
 VIVO — an NIH-funded open source semantic web application that enables the discovery of research and
scholarship across disciplinary and administrative boundaries in an institution through interlinked profiles of
people and other research-related information
 Peer Review Radio — science radio program and podcast that airs weekly on CHUO 89.1FM in Ottawa,
Canada providing interesting content for its listeners and an educational experience for its staff of over 20
graduate and undergraduate students. We will be expanding to blogging (OttawaOrbital.com) in January.
 Science Cabaret on Air — an off-shoot of Ithaca's monthly science cafe, "a weekly cocktail of science, art
and culture" airing on the Ithaca College station (91.7 WICB) every Sunday at 7pm
(podcasts: http://sciencecabaret.podomatic.com/ )

Room B - Blogging on the Career Path: Opportunities emerging out of the blogosphere - Sheril
Kirshenbaum, Janet D. Stemwedel, Greg Gbur and John Hawks

Many academic scientists are on the tenure track -- a career path that poses both challenges and
opportunities for blogging and other forms of science outreach.

 How do you turn your online presence into opportunities for your research and publication record?

65 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
 How do you convince your colleagues that your blog/website is worth the time and effort?
 How do you quantify your online work for administrators?

Room C - How can we maintain high journalism standards on the web? - Paul Raeburn, Maryn
McKenna

The web in many cases has undermined the wall that traditionally separated reporters from advertisers in
20th century offline journalism. One example is placing pop-up ads in blogs without the bloggers'
permission. With new models of web advertising and funding appearing daily, it seems, can we keep
reporters independent? And what does it mean to be independent when a website is supported by a
foundation, or a single advertiser or patron? Bloggers share responsibility for the credibility of their sites
with their employers, advertisers, or other supporters. How do we make sure that the new financing models
do not destroy our credibility?

Room D - Alternative Careers for Scientists: from grad school to writing for Main Stream Media -
Brian Mossop, John Timmer, Misha Angrist, Jenny Rohn, Kerstin Hoppenhaus and Karyn Hede

Being trained in research and having learned to dissect information, scientists can offer a unique
perspective when writing/creating for main stream media. This panel will include scientists who have found
homes as writers and communicators for various media outlets. This session may be extremely helpful for
other attendees interested in pursuing this career path.

Room E - Talking mathematics on blogs and wikis! - Blake Stacey and Maria Droujkova

Using computer programming and simulations as educational tools! We had a great time chatting over
these things last year, even though we were stuck in the little room behind the coat closet. Since then, the
Math 2.0 interest group grew, and several people are eager to run some math sessions at the conference.
Online math communities is the topic.

SESSION 2
Room A - Engaging undergraduates in science communication - Andrew Thaler, Jason Goldman and
David Shiffman

 Successes and failures in undergraduate blogging. What strategies work for engaging students, how much
guidance or freedom do you give them, what platform or support structure should you provide (if any)?
 Examples of successful (and not so successful) attempts.
 What responsibilities do you have towards your students? Ethical responsibilities - protecting you students
online and providing an alternative for those who are uncomfortable with the assignment, Legal
responsibilities - FERPA and student privacy.
 The social media question. Do you use facebook/twitter and other social media tools to engage with your
students? How much do you really want to know about your students? How much do you really want you
students to know about you?
 How students understand the relationship between more formal scientific communication (articles, books)
and the informal communication of blogs, twitter etc.

Room B - Blogging in the Academy - Tom Levenson and Dr. Isis

66 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Blogging about science – and especially working as a scientist – is deeply exciting to many, and perhaps to
none more than to younger researchers, students and junior faculty. But there are issues associated with
the thrill and the social value of blogging: it is public, permanent, and unmediated. This panel aims to open
up a discussion of what is involved in blogging within the academy, addressing issues of anonymity;
relationships within and between individuals and institutions; hiring and tenure considerations; how
scientists and their societies can work to increase public understanding of science; concerns about status
and hierarchies; editing (self or otherwise), networks and support; audience and intended impact – and
anything else the participants in this session want to raise.

Room C - It's All Geek to Me - Stephanie Zvan, Desiree Schell and Maria Walters

One of the things that the never-ending "scientists are good/bad communicators" argument often leaves out
is that there are multiple audiences out there. Let's turn the discussion around and look at how
communication differs between two of the largest subcultures that science communicators are trying to
reach: geeks and non-geeks. Rather than focusing on who's doing it right or wrong, we'll discuss how our
work changes depending on whether we're doing fan service or outreach. (See more information
here:http://almostdiamonds.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-am-geek-hear-me-mutter-pedantically.html)

Room D - Keepers of the Bullshit Filter: How to crowdsource accountability and accuracy in the new
media world - David Dobbs, Steve Silberman, Ivan Oransky, Paul Raeburn and Maia Szalavitz

Can blogs, tweets, and online-MSM work replace some of the credibility-filter (and fact-checking work) that
people worry will be lost in move from MSM to Whatever Comes Next. Shoot I reckon. Let's talk about it.
Calling "bullshit" is an implicit part of the blogosphere (and the unconference idea). But how does one
actually do it effectively, and without repeating banned words? And who calls bullshit when keepers
produce it instead of filter it out? The panelists will share — and then ask the audience to share —
examples, experiences, and ideas about how individuals and institutions can keep this vital filter. Hazards
and caveats will be discussed.

Room E - Demos

1) Your Favorite Gene powered by Ingenuity. Free search tool that allows researchers to search by gene,
gene symbol, disease, tissue, or pathway and access molecular interaction networks, canonical pathways,
gene regulation data, and more.(Kristy Meyer)

2) Your Favorite Gene Facebook app. (Kristy Meyer)

3) Dexy (http://dexy.it) open source software for easy blogging of code and data, and also a reproducible
research and software documentation tool letting you create docs in any format (even ebooks) in a
reproducible, automated way. (Ana Nelson)

4) OpenHelix free search & learn portal for finding public bioscience databases & resources (Jennifer
Williams)

SESSION 3
Room A - Communicating Science. Have you ever wondered, "What the hell's the point?" - Darlene
Cavalier

67 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Bloggers, journalists, educators, policymakers and (sometimes) scientists are taking great strides to inform
the public of the latest, greatest scientific breakthroughs. Academic fields have sprung up to study best
practices and increase "public understanding of science" with the hope of creating a scientifically literate
populace. While this is all helpful in delivering tools needed to understand the world, or, in many cases,
simply for pure edutainment, did you ever wonder if your motivated ("non expert") readers could do more
with the news and information you're providing? Otherwise, what the hell's the point? There are, indeed,
efforts underway to harness the power of an informed citizenry to shape science and science policies via
citizen science and participatory technology assessment efforts, to name two emerging activities. But more
can be done to give purpose to your work. Getting the public from here (passive sponges) to there (actively
engaged participants) requires work. Whose responsibility is that? Yours. Mine. Ours. We'll explore all of
this and more, including a brief (entertaining) look at of some of the unorthodox methods the Science
Cheerleader uses to turn ―average‖ folks onto science.

Room B - Perils of blogging as a woman under a real name - Sheril Kirshenbaum, Anne Jefferson,
Joanne Manaster, Maryn McKenna and Kathryn Clancy

Being a woman scienceblogger has its own set of challenges, writing under your real name a few more.
Readers may want you to be beautiful, to be their mommy, to be accessible to them in a way they don‘t
expect of other bloggers. They also may hold your decisions and lifestyle to a different standard. "There just
aren't any good women science bloggers out there." "She was picked just because she was a woman." "I
would cure cancer just to capture your heart." "You are a terrible mother if your baby is in daycare and you
are in the lab." These statements exemplify the sorts of unwelcome comments that women science
bloggers can face, and reflect broader issues of cultural and institutional sexism. How do we navigate those
issues, and ensure our own safety, while covering the science that we love? How do we get our writing
noticed when people claim we don‘t exist? Panel members and attendees will tackle these issues and
others as a way to move towards a solution in the issue of gender representation in science blogging.

Room C - Web 2.0, public and private spaces in the scientific community, and generational divides
in the practice of science - Janet Stemwedel and Helene Andrews-Polymenis

I was at a meeting of NSF PIs, trainees, and program officers back in May to talk about how blogging might
fit into scientific work/training, and became aware of a huge generational divide on the appropriateness of
the use of "new technologies" of all sorts. The divide can best be summed up in the words of a PI who said
(to students at the meeting talking about their use of such technologies), "Why is it that your generation
feels compelled to do in public what the rest of us know to do in private?" I think this is a HUGE issue in the
practice of science (and one with interesting epistemological and ethical issues). Would love to see
someone from The Third Reviewer participating in this one, as well as some open notebook/open science
folks, and possibly folks blogging about what it's like to lead a scientific life. Would also welcome a
designated curmudgeon to stand up for the old ways.

Room D - eBooks and the science community - Carl Zimmer, Tom Levenson, David Dobbs and John
Dupuis

Ebooks are by far the fastest growing sector of the publishing industry. The New York Times is about to
launch a best-seller list exclusively for ebooks. New systems, such as Amazon CreateSpace, allow writers
68 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
to directly place their ebooks in the marketplace. In theory, they could do away with the need for a
conventional publisher. Thus, ebooks could potentially disrupt traditional publishing in the same way
blogging disrupted newspapers and magazines over the past decade. In this session we'll survey the ebook
industry, look some examples of science ebooks, and discuss some of the implications of this development.
We'll try to identify ways in which the science online community can take advantage of this opportunity.

Room E - Demos

1) Encyclopedia of Life (www.eol.org) from the perspective of our Learning and Education group
(education.eol.org) around some of the tools we have developed to encourage students and others to
contribute. Our LifeDesk software is an online collaborative space where students can write and publish
species accounts to EOL as an alternative to writing a typical class paper (Jeff Holmes)

2) Dryad data repository (http://datadryad.org/ - Heather Piwowar): Dryad is an international repository of


data underlying peer-reviewed articles in the basic and applied biosciences; will demo and discuss data
deposition, discovery, and citation.

3) Communication methods during the renovation of an academic


library (http://library.du.edu/penrosepen/penrose-library-the-academic-commons Joe Kraus): Joe will
demonstrate the proposed communication system that will use a blog and other social media channels. He
will request feedback concerning interim services and information needs of scientists during a main library
renovation.

SESSION 4
Room A - Defending Science Online: Tactics and Conflicts in Science Communication - Chris
Mooney, Josh Rosenau, Val Jones and Eric Michael Johnson

Climate change "skeptics," intelligent design creationists, anti-vaccine activists and others who oppose
science-based policy decisions are poisoning the well of our national dialogue on important scientific
issues. But what's the best strategy to counter their misinformation? This is perhaps the most contentious
issue among science bloggers and journalists today. Whether it‘s described as ―framing science‖ or
presented as confrontation vs. accommodation, the conflict among science communicators is a debate over
tactics and how to best achieve our shared goals. Some choose to work with moderates in the "anti-
science" group and reframe the way they write about the issues to accommodate the different perspective.
Others feel that this approach merely compromises on settled scientific questions and offers legitimacy to
the more extreme position. Panelists will discuss what they see as the most effective tactics within three
contentious science policy issues: climate science, evolution in public schools, and science-based
medicine. Is there one tactic that is best employed in all cases? Does a multi-level approach undermine
scientific values by not fully defending the evidence and countering false information? When we consider
science policy is it more important to be right or influential in our efforts to strengthen scientific literacy in
our democracy?

Room B - MLK Jr, Memorial Session - David Kroll and you!

Research Triangle Park sits in Durham, a Southern city recognized during the early 1900s for its
progressive attitude toward black-owned businesses epitomized by their "Black Wall Street." While North

69 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Carolina has had its share of racial conflict, it has also been the site of advances in the civil rights
movement such as the 1960 Greensboro Woolworth's sit-in. In the spirit of this history and to commemorate
the contributions of Dr. King, we will discuss efforts to support equality in the scientific and medical
blogosphere. Not well-appreciated is that African-American and Hispanics students use hand-held text-
messaging devices at a rate more than twice that of their white counterparts. Increasing the representation
of minority groups in longer online forms than 140 characters is a challenge facing science and
communication educators.

As this session falls at the end of the meeting, you probably don't want to be talked at so we really want this
to be a true, unconference, audience-led agenda. Here are some thoughts and I will put up a blog post to
further collect ideas:

 How are you using your skills in online communication to engage students and/or fellow scientists from
underrepresented groups?
 How do you fell about the unusual digital divide: while texting is used more by underrepresented groups,
does that compromise writing skills?
 Can middle-aged white guys be allies in cultivating and retaining minority students into the sciences? Or do
they lack credibility and authenticity?
 Women scientist bloggers have been increasingly successful in creating a supportive online community that
addresses their needs - what are the challenges for scientist-bloggers from underrepresented groups?
 More generally, and in the spirit of Dr. King, how has the web been used for nonviolent protesting and
influencing culture?

Room C - Standing Out: Marketing Yourself in Science - Walter Jessen, Pascale Lane and Kiyomi
Deards

An open-floor discussion on the methods and tools for developing, communicating and maintaining your
personal brand in science.

 The advantages and benefits of developing a personal brand in science.


 Where can you turn for help in developing your personal brand?
 What's worked for you? & What hasn't?
 How does personal branding ease transitions between traditional and non-traditional jobs in science?
 How does personal branding increase your impact in academia?

Room D - Blogging networks and the emerging science communications ecosystem - Arikia Millikan
(Wired), Brian Mossop (PLoS), Bora Zivkovic (Scientific American and ScienceInTheTriangle), SciCurious
(Scientopia), Amos Zeeberg (Discover), Lou Woodley (Nature Network), Martin Robbins (Guardian and Lay
Scientist), Andrew Thaler (the Gam), Mark Hahnel (science3point0), Craig McClain (Deep Sea News),
Brian Krueger (LabSpaces), Rachel Pepling (CENtral Science), Alok Jha (the Guardian), Leslie Taylor
(Talking Science), Richard P. Grant (Occam's Typewriter), Maria Jose Vinas (AGU network, via Skype),
Eva Amsen (the Node, via Skype)....
A round-table with editors and community managers of blogging networks and big group-blogs in "hot
seats", audience asks questions, gives suggestions, criticisms, etc. What's the (changing) role of an online
editor on a site aggregating independent blogs? "Merely" a bloggers' assistant for bug fixes and spam
busting or a signposter to content, online marketer, creator of community or what? How closely do you
monitor your community's behaviour? Do you know visit times/bounce rates/preferred pages for all your

70 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
archive and how easy is it to predict what will be "good" (high traffic?) content? Do you encourage "basics
posts" and "explainers"? Do you worry if posts are not "newsy" enough?
Room E - Not All Marketing is Evil: Getting Life Science Companies to Support Science Online -
Mary Canady, Kristy Meyer, Tricia Kenny and Brian Krueger
Life science companies are beginning to realize that online science represents a great opportunity for them
to get exposure and learn about customer needs. Although there have been some missteps in the
commercial support of online science (e.g., Pepsigate, Sciencewide), the possibilities for truly synergistic
relationships exist. In this session we‘ll hear from both sides, from the experience of science bloggers in
getting support to the needs of life science companies. We hope to help create a sustainable infrastructure
for online science, allowing it to flourish while retaining its integrity.

2011/01/14 GUARDIAN SCIENCE BLOG


ROBBINS: THE DANGEROUS FIGHT FOR THE
'CHILD WITCHES' OF NIGERIA

Campaigners believe Leo Igwe's recent arrest is part of a wider campaign of harassment and abuse
directed at him and his family over his pursuit of justice for children branded 'witches'.
"Unlike other ministries where witches and wizards are beaten or stoned to death, Liberty is the only
Ministry that shows mercy to witches." So boast the Liberty Foundation Gospel Ministries, whose leader,
Helen Ukpabio, is claimed to be one of Nigeria's leading 'deliverers' of witches - ministering to up to a
thousand at a time.
Humanist campaigner Leo Igwe and other rational-minded people in West Africa take a rather dim view of
branding children 'witches', and claim that in many cases deliverance is far from the serene and gentle
experience it is claimed to be. According to Igwe and charities working in the region, children "are taken to
churches where they are subjected to inhumane and degrading torture in the name of 'exorcism'. They are
chained, starved, hacked with machetes, lynched or murdered in cold blood."Some are apparently bathed
in acid.
Criticizing these churches is not a great idea if you value a hassle-free life. In 2009 around 200 of Ukpabio's
Liberty followers stormed a meeting of humanists as Igwe prepared to speak, bringing the event to an
abrupt and violent end. Fortunately the police were called and intervened, but Libertyimmediately sued for
$1.3m dollars, apparently incensed that a meeting critical of their activities was allowed by the authorities
to go ahead. The case was swiftly dismissed by Justice P.J. Nneke at the Federal High Court in Calabar.
Unfortunately the authorities aren't always on the right side. Religious groups and powerful individuals can
wield significant power and influence, especially in local communities, and even senior police officers and
lawmakers may share their belief in witchcraft.

71 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Regional leader Governor Akpabio recently caused alarm when - in spite of apparently taking steps to
tackle the child witch issue - he abruptly ordered the arrest of officials working for NGOs like Stepping
Stones Nigeria who are fighting child abuse in the region.
This was supposedly due to allegations of fraud, but NGOs have been successful in bringing the problem of
child abuse to the attention of international media like CNN, and the Governor reacted badly to these
reports, declaring them to be "part of the media propaganda against the state" and insisting that he had
already resolved the problem. The suspicion of many campaigners is that those bringing attention to the
problem may be seen as an inconvenience, an embarrassment, and a challenge to his authority.
No evidence of any fraud has been put forward, but Liberty's websitecontains an example of the sorts of
smears and allegations that have been circulating against NGOs in Nigeria:
"Be informed that some organizations that don't believe in the existence of God called "HUMANIST" have
formed organisations in the name of helping the Helpless Child of Africa from being molested. Stepping
stone Nigeria is one of such Organisations, it has been investigated by the Nigerian Police and discovered
that "Stepping stone Nigeria" is not REGISTERED anywhere in the world. It is used as an Internet SCAM to
extort money from the people who are in sympathy with clips of tortured children by some wicked parents
not necessaryingly on account of witchcraft. As at June ending Stepping stone Nigeria has made from the
public fraudulently the sum of about One Million, Two Hundred Thousand Pounds sterling (£1.2M)"
The allegations are of course nonsense: in reality Stepping Stones are registered with the Charity
Commission in the UK, and detailed accounts are filed there and posted on their own website.
Leo Igwe was due to give evidence to the Akwa-Ibom State Commission of Inquiry into Witchcraft
Accusations and Child Rights Abuses today, but found himself arrested and allegedly beaten before being
released without charge. He described his ordeal to Sahara Reporters:
"It was a terrible encounter and it was premeditated going by the way they executed the plot to hold me
accountable for "kidnapping;" my hands were tied behind me and they beat me mercilessly. [...] My head
was swollen and I kept massaging it so that it does not become permanent; from Tuesday night to this
morning I was kept incommunicado and had no contact with either my family or my lawyers."
The arrest comes straight after a series of similar incidents: Leo and his father were arrested on the 5th
January, and his brother was taken into custody by the state security service a few days later. Regular
arrests have become a feature of life for Leo and his family for some years, and campaigners regard them
as a pattern of harassment related to his campaigning, and his pursuit of a powerful man living locally who
is alleged to have raped a young girl.
Leo Igwe will continue to fight for the children of Nigeria, while theInternational Humanist and Ethical
Union are putting pressure on regional authorities to try and bring an end to the arrests. Stepping Stones
Nigeriahave continue their work in the country in spite of the threat of arrest. All three deserve a lot of
support.

2011/01/14 IN VERBA: PASTURES NEW FOR


SCIENCE POLICY IN CAMBRIDGE
By James Wilsdon
Back in October 2008, the Council for Science and Technology published a thoughtful report on ‘How
academia and government can work together’, which identified the main inhibitors to policy engagement
and made several recommendations as to how both sides could raise their game. These debates have also
been bubbling away in discussions around the new ‘impact’ component of the Research Excellence
Framework, the new assessment model for UK university departments from 2014. This component, if
72 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
framed in the right way, will provide a greater incentive for individual researchers to engage in policy
activities.
One university which has taken this challenge seriously is Cambridge, through the creation of its Centre for
Science and Policy (CSaP), which on Tuesday held a jam-packed party to celebrate its first 18 months of
work. Speakers included Sir John Beddington FRS and Sir Leszek Borysiewicz FRS, who recently marked 100
days as Cambridge’s Vice-Chancellor.
CSaP is doing excellent work in bringing Cambridge academics into closer contact with policy makers, and
by encouraging a flow in the opposite direction, through its Policy Fellowships, they enable civil servants
and others to escape the Westminster bubble and spend time reflecting on their work in Cambridge.
As Dr David Cleevely FREng, the Founding Director of the Centre, describes it in CSaP’s first annual report:
“We have made the deliberate choice not to *inform policy+ through media headlines or doorstep-thick
reports. Our mission is to create environments where policy makers and scientists can talk and listen to
one another, frankly and at length, without every assertion being treated as a soundbite or a barbed
aside.”
There are lots of potential synergies between CSaP’s work and that of the Science Policy Centre here at
the Royal Society, and I hope we can develop some joint activities together over the coming months.
Posted in Policy for science

2011/01/14 RESEARCHBLOGS: LWEC'S


FUTURE LIES IN COMMERCIAL COLLABORATIONS
To many observers, cross-research council funding programmes were particularly vulnerable to
government cuts. So how did they do? Andrew Watkinson of the cross-council funded Living With
Environmental Change programme says growing pressure on funding makes partnership working
increasingly important for LWEC and others.
A theme of collaboration runs through the recent announcement on the allocation of science and research
funding (2011/12 to 2014/15) from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. This includes a
continuing commitment to the cross-council programmes in research areas of key national importance in
the Digital Economy (£129 million), Energy (£540m), Global Food Security (£440m), Global Uncertainties
(£120m), Lifelong Health and Well Being (£196m), and Living With Environmental Change (£562m).
The LWEC programme uniquely includes contributions from all of the Research Councils: Arts and
Humanities RC (£7m), Biotechnology & Biological Sciences RC (£54m), Engineering & Physical Sciences RC
(£54m), Economic & Social RC (£39m), Medical RC (£100m), Science & Technology Facilities Council (£3m)
and Natural Environment RC (£305m). The total of £562m over the four-year spending-review period
compares with £363m over the last three years, bringing the total contribution from the Research Councils
so far to £925m.
To this must be added the significant contributions of the other 16 publicly funded LWEC partners which
include government departments, agencies and devolved administrations. Their future financial
contributions will inevitably come under significant pressure as a result of the UK Government’s Spending
Review. It is widely recognised, therefore, that partnership working will become increasingly essential
through co-design, co-production and co-delivery if the aspirations of the LWEC partners are to be
delivered.
With the merger of LWEC, the Environmental Research Funders Forum (ERFF) and Global Environmental
Change Committee (GECC) earlier in 2010, LWEC is now seen as a transformative cross-government
partnership to optimise the coherence and effectiveness of UK environmental research funding. Its aim is
73 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
to provide government, business and society with the foresight, knowledge and tools needed to mitigate,
adapt to and capitalise on environmental change. By engaging business, policymakers, local authorities and
society LWEC also aims to identify and prioritise the environmental sectors and new markets with most
potential to unlock green economic growth. It is in this context that the LWEC partners, led by NERC and
the Technology Strategy Board, are working with the LWEC Business Advisory Board to identify business
priorities and commercialisation opportunities for environmental research.
The research council commitments to the cross-council programmes are detailed in their new delivery
plans, with NERCtaking the lead on LWEC. These plans will form a significant input into the strategic
frameworks that the LWEC partners are currently developing for the six challenge areas over which LWEC
operates: climate, ecosystem, sustainability, health, infrastructure and social. These will define the
research opportunities over the next four years and the delivery outcomes for business and society. The
research, as in the first phase of LWEC, will embrace themed programmes, research centres and institutes,
innovation platforms, key elements of responsive mode funding and targeted elements of knowledge
exchange. Key to the success of LWEC will be the extent to which it can transform the way in which the
partners work together with business and society to achieve greater impact and efficiency and deliver
outcomes that will enable people, business, NGOs and local government to adapt to environmental
change.
Posted by Andrew Watkinson

2011/01/14 THE GREAT BEYOND – NATURE:


25 YEARS OF SAVING BRITISH SCIENCE
The Campaign for Science and Engineering in the UK, formerly known as Save British Science, celebrated its
25th anniversary last night at a reception in London (full disclosure: Nature sponsored the event).
The campaign was launched on 13 January 1986 with an advertisment in The Times paid for by 1,500
scientists, who were concerned over funding cuts for university science. In 2005, after years of steadily
growing science budgets, the organisation changed its name to the Campaign for Science and Engineering
in the UK (CaSE). It seemed British science had been saved.
But the campaign is not about to give up - particularly in today's climate of budget cuts. Science minister
David Willetts, who spoke at the event, had to endure some personal lobbying, and pointed comments
about government cuts to university funding - not to mention praise for Tony Blair. But thankfully, the joke
that CaSE might revert to its old name was only made once.
Denis Noble, one of the original organisers of the Times advert, reflected on how campaigning had
changed in the past quarter century. In December 1985, Mulvey spent six weeks sitting by his telephone,
calling friends and friends of friends to round up the 1,500 contributors. But last autumn it took
the Science is Vital campaign, supported by CaSE, just a few weeks to gather 35,000 signatures for its
online petition.
Imran Khan, director of CaSE, set out the group's priorities for the next year, which include making science
and engineering an issue in the elections for the UK's devolved governments, and ensuring that the UK
remains a welcoming place for the best students and scientists from around the world.

74 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Images: CaSE director Imran Khan/CaSE, original Times advertisement/CaSE
Posted by Brian Owens

2011/01/14 CASE: 25 YEARS OF CASE –


WHAT‟S CHANGED?
By IMRAN KHAN
This is an edited version of the address CaSE Director Imran Khan gave at the campaign’s 25th Anniversary
Reception.
On January 13th 1986, fifteen hundred scientists clubbed together and paid for advert, to appear in The
Times. It called on the government to Save British Science – and thus a campaigning group was born.
Although we’ve changed our name, we’re still here, 25 years on. We’re still making it our mission to coax
and cajole politicians of all stripes into supporting science and engineering.
CaSE marked our 25th birthday by looking ahead to the next 25 years of science and engineering policy.
But it’s also worth taking a look back.
If science and engineering were to finally give us fully-functioning time machine, and we did take a trip to
1986, you might be surprised about how little has changed.
In 1986, the England cricket team travelled down under, and beat Australia to retain the Ashes.
Kenny Dalglish was manager of Liverpool Football Club.
And Alex Ferguson was in charge at Manchester United.
Speaking of Fergusons, 1986 was the year of a famous wedding, where a royal prince married a
commoner… Let’s hope William and Kate fare better than Andrew and Sarah!
But obviously if it was me doing the time travelling, the very first thing I’d do would be to check science
funding statistics.

75 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
And if I did so, I’d find that – in today’s money – the British Government was spending £10bn pounds a
year supporting science and engineering.
25 years on, and you might expect that figure to have swelled. And indeed we have kept up with inflation.
But in real terms, we’re spending pretty much the same – £10bn a year supporting scientists and
engineers.
In many ways, that sums up why CaSE is still here. Because although progress has been made – in
evidence-based policy, in encouraging more high-tech industry, in getting more people studying science,
and in increasing the output of the research base – it’s not enough.
Better funding for science and engineering are non-negotiables for the UK, if we are to be successful in the
coming decades.
The progress will make as a nation will be built on what our scientists and engineers accomplish – whether
that’s in health, energy, space, agriculture, or transport – or another field.
We need a political climate in which it’s absurd for political parties not to campaign on promises of better
funding for research, and to turn the UK into a genuinely high-tech economy.
Along with the rest of the science and engineering community, CaSE will carry on campaigning until we
reach that goal.

2011/01/14 CASE: CASE‟S 25TH


ANNIVERSARY RECEPTION; A REVIEW
By GUEST BLOGGER
Ben Good and Chloe McIvor are students at the Imperial College Science Communication group.
Time changes many things. In the past 25 years we have experienced the birth of the internet, five
different Prime Ministers – and the unexpected comeback of leg warmers. However, the Campaign for
Science and Engineering (CaSE) is still going strong and yesterday celebrated its 25th anniversary at an
event attended by the great and the good of British science.
The event, hosted by the Instituton of Engineering and Technology (IET) and sponsored by Nature, was
held in Savoy Place with views looking out over some of the city’s greatest science and engineering
achievements, such as the London Eye and the Millennium Bridge. It fitted well with the ethos of an
evening that not only looked at CaSE’s past achievements, but looked forward to the challenges ahead.
The evening was marked by addresses from highly influential speakers; Professor Denis Noble, Lord Robert
May and David Willets MP, warmly introduced by the Director of CaSE, Imran Khan. Professor Noble and
Lord May took us back to the mid 80’s and the start of Save British Science. They discussed the similarities
between the problems facing science and engineering, then and now.
The speeches emphasised the particular success CaSE has enjoyed this year regarding the spending review,
making it a particularly good year to be celebrating their achievements. David Willets was keen to express
his intentions to continue working in the interests of scientists, concluding however, that the audience will
know doubt judge whether or not he is successful.
Challenges ahead
After the speeches concluded, the guests were asked for their hopes and expectations for British science
funding and policy in a further 25 years time. The results painted a picture of high ambition in all areas and
although expectations were below hopes, the majority predicted an improvement for science by 2036.

76 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
One area where science was seen to be succeeding is education, where the proportion of STEM graduates
(currently at 42%) was deemed to be at the ideal level and was predicted to remain so. There was less
optimism regarding equality for women in science, highlighting a potential new challenge.
As the night drew to a close the revellers continued to celebrate, safe in the knowledge that CaSE will go
on protecting the interests of British science and will have many more candles on its birthday cake in the
future.

2011/01/14 BECKY'S POLICY PAGES:


IN THE LORDS YESTERDAY; GETTING GPS EXCITED
ABOUT HEALTH RESEARCH
Lord Turnberg, who is AMRC‘s scientific adviser, had a short debate focused on the NHS in the Lords
yesterday afternoon, exploring some of the impacts all the proposed changes will have on the front-line
and specialised services patients receive. Medical research was one of the areas he focused on.
Particularly how GPs, with their new role in commissioning, will be supported and given incentives to get
involved in research and how this will impact on the care patients receive. Earl Howe was the health
minister responding.
BACKGROUND
In July, the government published a health white paper outlining big changes they plan to make to the NHS.
Since then they have been consulting widely and developing their plans. A Health and Social Care Bill
which will lay out their final proposals and lay the legislative groundwork to start putting the plans into action
is expected to be published shortly.
The full title of the yesterday‘s debate was:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the proposed changes to the
National Health Service will not damage front-line and specialised services.
You can read it here.
INTERESTING BITS ABOUT RESEARCH
The debate was about much more than just the role of research in the NHS, picking up on lots of issues;
where NICE will fit in the new system; concern over how services will be integrated in the new system and
how it will be ensured that they are joined-up; concern that current expertise developed in networks etc,
such as the successful cancer networks, is not lost in reorganisation but is captured in the new structures.
But a couple of the peers posed a few interesting questions about research which the minister tackled.
Lord Turnberg kicked off the debate, welcoming the government‘s investment in health research and
posing questions about:
 the future of OSCHR (the Office for Strategic Co-ordination of Health Research which was set up following
a review by David Cooksey with a remit to co-ordinate funding of health research in the UK);
 the impact the move towards localism will have on research, do GPs really want to be involved in research,
commission research, are their incentives in place to encourage them to value research;
 and following the Academy of Medical Sciences report published on Tuesday (see previous post) whether
the government would be taking action to change the way research is regulated.
I want to say something about localism and its impact on research. In previous debates, the Minister was
reassuringly clear about his commitment to research in the NHS, and the relative protection of the NHS
research budget is of course very welcome. I congratulate the noble Earl and Dame Sally Davies for their
efforts in achieving this. In this respect, what is to happen to OSCHR, the Office for Strategic Co-ordination
of Health Research, the body set up to help co-ordinate research funding between the MRC and the NHS?
My main concern here is the role of GPs and the consortia in commissioning research and teaching. A
recent survey by the Association of Medical Research Charities and Involve found that the vast majority of
patients were happy to give consent for the use of their personal data for research, but that few GPs were
77 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
interested in research, and that even the fairly straightforward business of seeking consent from patients
was regarded by many as difficult and too time consuming. Therefore, if GPs are to have a key role in NHS
research, it will be vital to give them some sort of incentive for their involvement. I should be very interested
in hearing more from the noble Earl about how he thinks we might provide this stimulus.
Finally on research, I expect that the Minister will have seen the excellent recent report from the Academy
of Medical Sciences, commissioned by his department, on the regulation of research. Is it his expectation
that the Government will accept the recommendations in the report, particularly those relevant to
streamlining regulation?
Lord Winston also focused on research, expressing concerns over the impact a move away from
centralisation in the health service will have on development of expertise, teaching and research:
Centralisation is also important for innovation. The key issue is how these expected changes in the health
service will affect our excellence in research. What I really want is reassurance from the noble Earl that the
sorts of things that were developed in the health service hitherto will not be difficult to achieve under the
current proposals in the White Paper. For example, it seems impossible to imagine that in vitro fertilisation
could develop as a research procedure in the structure as proposed. Certainly, during my time at
Hammersmith, I saw by-pass surgery, transplant surgery and the cancer smear test being developed, and
many other examples of innovative surgery and medicine. Many of the great institutions, such as Great
Ormond Street, Hammersmith, and some in Liverpool, Manchester and elsewhere have been made great
and international because they have been able to function in a way that it is difficult to see will continue
under the structure in this White Paper. I want to make certain that the Minister agrees-I know he does-that
the jewel in our crown is the National Health Service. A very special aspect of that, which is internationally
recognised, is the unique nature of academic medicine in this country. I would like him to tell us how
academic medicine will be protected and will flourish in the structure of the White Paper.
WHAT DID THE MINISTER SAY?
On research, Earl Howe reaffirmed that OSCHR will play a key role in the new system coordinating health
research and looking forward to identify anticipate future directions of research; he recognised the concerns
that GP consortia need incentives to get involved in research and that government was acting on these,
and confirmed that government are in the process of considering how best to act on the Academy‘s
recommendations for streamlining the regulation of research.
…there will be payment incentives for quality through the Quality and Outcomes Framework, CQUIN and
the tariff. Under the health and social care Bill, which will be introduced shortly, the Secretary of State, the
NHS commissioning board and GP consortia will also be required to act with a view to securing continuous
quality improvement in services provided by the NHS….
…The noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, asked what is to happen to OSCHR, the Office for Strategic Co-
ordination of Health Research. It has done a fine job over the past three years. It is a very useful
mechanism for facilitating processes for joint working, focusing particularly on translational research. That
body will continue with an increased focus on co-ordination and foresight.
The noble Lord also asked how GP consortia will be incentivised to be involved in health research. I
recognise his concerns. There is not time for me to say a lot, but the department is funding the National
Institute for Health Research Primary Care Research Network. This brings together a wide range of primary
care health professionals and is dedicated to expanding clinical research in primary care. The Academy of
Medical Science’s report, which the noble Lord referred to, was published this week. We welcome the
report and we are carefully considering how to implement its recommendations. I will write to him further on
that.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked in particular about how academic medicine will be protected. The
Government recognise the crucial importance of academic medicine; we are increasing funding for health
research, as has been mentioned, part of which supports lectureships and other awards, and we are
currently consulting on our proposals for education and training. However, again, perhaps I may write to the
noble Lord with further and better particulars.

78 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
2011/01/14 DENEGRI‟S BLOG: GETTING
TOUCHY OVER THE INFORMATION REVOLUTION
By ceoamrc
Over the holidays I caught a BBC Radio 4 item about the days of the touch typist. It was one of those gems
of broadcasting which looked through a narrow lens to tell the listener much about how the world has
changed. It also brought back many memories of my time as a messenger at the old Department of
Education delivering brown envelopes - many of them with a red flag meaning it was from the Minister’s
office - to the typing pool. About the same time my Dad (who was a schools inspector) got one of the first
computers which sat in the corner of his office at the DofE in Arthur C Clarke fashion. Indeed, I am not too
sure who was more afraid of it – him or me.
Since then there has been an ‘information revolution’ of course, And it just so happens that this is the title
of the Department of Health consultation about information use and access in the health service to
which AMRC has responded today . We have made the following key points:
 Research is central to the information revolution’s aspiration of delivering broad benefits to
patients and society through improving access to information.
 We welcome the government’s ambition that by 2015 “The quality and scope of information
available for analysis and research will be considerably higher, more comprehensive and based on
accurate recording.” and urge the government to work with us to ensure the information
revolution can deliver this
 Confidentiality and security must be central to the revolution to underpin patient support for the
use of their data
 Issues around the use of identifiable patient information in research must be addressed.
 We urge that the recommendations of the Data Sharing Review and the ongoing work of the
Research Capability Programme and Health Research Support Service be included in this strategy.
 More focus is needed on informing patients to understand how their data will be used and
supporting them to find out about research opportunities open to them.
The truth of the matteris that good information useage and good communication rely on sound leadership
from the top – in this case Ministers.
As we finalised our response this week, the irony was not lost on me that the Department should be
seeking views on this issue shortly after a Christmas period in which it was roundly criticised for not
pursuing a public information campaign on flu vaccination. Why is it that, in this information age, all
Governments wantonly cut back on communications, marketing and information activities? Ultimatelyit
can only short-change patients.
I sometimes think that when politicians become Ministers they forget that they have become heads of
‘corporate’ beings. Good communications is vital to whatever service their Department is delivering. They
neglect it at their peril - a lesson learnt by most businesses long ago.
For those wanting to get a grasp of some of the issues around the NHS White Paper ‘Equity and Excellence:
Liberating the NHS’ of which the ‘Information Revolution’ is just one aspect, I encourage you to read
yesterday’s House of Lords debate. What would we do without the Upper House I ask myself?
It being the end of the week I should perhaps mention several other interesting bits of news from the last
five days…
First, the data sharing agreement announced by the Wellcome Trust and other research funders.

79 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Second, a union of national importance on the scale of William and Kate it may not be, but this week the
Association of British Healthcare Industries (ABHI), Association of British Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI),
BioIndustry Association and British In Vitro Diagnostics Association (BIVDA) announced the formation
of LifeSciences UK to facilitate joint-working between different parts of the healthcare industry and
strengthen their voice with Government.
And, third, this item about Cancer Research UK setting up a c-team of expertscomposed of four world-class
research groups to launch a new blitz on cancer by targeting rogue stem cells that cause tumours to spread
and become untreatable.
That’s it this week from the A-team.

2011/01/15 GUARDIAN SCIENCE: WE MUST


LEARN TO LOVE UNCERTAINTY AND FAILURE, SAY
LEADING THINKERS
Planet's biggest brains answer this year's Edge question: 'What scientific concept would improve
everybody's cognitive toolkit?'
Alok Jha, science correspondent

Edge of reason: Doubt and


uncertainty are essential elements of the scientific process. Photograph: Getty Images
Being comfortable with uncertainty, knowing the limits of what science can tell us, and understanding the
worth of failure are all valuable tools that would improve people's lives, according to some of the world's
leading thinkers.
The ideas were submitted as part of an annual exercise by the web magazine Edge, which invites scientists,
philosophers and artists to opine on a major question of the moment. This year it was, "What scientific
concept would improve everybody's cognitive toolkit?"
The magazine called for "shorthand abstractions" – a way of encapsulating an idea or scientific concept
into a short description that could be used as a component of bigger questions. The responses were
published online today.

80 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Many responses pointed out that the public often misunderstands the scientific process and the nature of
scientific doubt. This can fuel public rows over the significance of disagreements between scientists about
controversial issues such as climate change and vaccine safety.
Carlo Rovelli, a physicist at the University of Aix-Marseille, emphasised the uselessness of certainty. He said
that the idea of something being "scientifically proven" was practically an oxymoron and that the very
foundation of science is to keep the door open to doubt.
"A good scientist is never 'certain'. Lack of certainty is precisely what makes conclusions more reliable than
the conclusions of those who are certain: because the good scientist will be ready to shift to a different
point of view if better elements of evidence, or novel arguments emerge. Therefore certainty is not only
something of no use, but is in fact damaging, if we value reliability."
The physicist Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University agreed. "In the public parlance, uncertainty is a
bad thing, implying a lack of rigour and predictability. The fact that global warming estimates are
uncertain, for example, has been used by many to argue against any action at the present time," he said.
"In fact, however, uncertainty is a central component of what makes science successful. Being able to
quantify uncertainty, and incorporate it into models, is what makes science quantitative, rather than
qualitative. Indeed, no number, no measurement, no observable in science is exact. Quoting numbers
without attaching an uncertainty to them implies they have, in essence, no meaning."
Neil Gershenfeld, director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Centre for Bits and Atoms wants
everyone to know that "truth" is just a model. "The most common misunderstanding about science is that
scientists seek and find truth. They don't – they make and test models," he said.
"Building models is very different from proclaiming truths. It's a never-ending process of discovery and
refinement, not a war to win or destination to reach. Uncertainty is intrinsic to the process of finding out
what you don't know, not a weakness to avoid. Bugs are features – violations of expectations are
opportunities to refine them. And decisions are made by evaluating what works better, not by invoking
received wisdom."
The writer and web commentator Clay Shirky suggested that people should think more carefully about how
they see the world. His suggestion was the Pareto principle, a pattern whereby the top 1% of the
population control 35% of the wealth or, on Twitter, the top 2% of users send 60% of the messages.
Sometimes known as the "80/20 rule", the Pareto principle means that the average is far from the middle.
It is applicable to many complex systems, "And yet, despite a century of scientific familiarity, samples
drawn from Pareto distributions are routinely presented to the public as anomalies, which prevents us
from thinking clearly about the world," said Shirky.
"We should stop thinking that average family income and the income of the median family have anything
to do with one another, or that enthusiastic and normal users of communications tools are doing similar
things, or that extroverts should be only moderately more connected than normal people. We should stop
thinking that the largest future earthquake or market panic will be as large as the largest historical one; the
longer a system persists, the likelier it is that an event twice as large as all previous ones is coming."
Kevin Kelly, editor-at-large of Wired, pointed to the value of negative results. "We can learn nearly as much
from an experiment that does not work as from one that does. Failure is not something to be avoided but
rather something to be cultivated. That's a lesson from science that benefits not only laboratory research,
but design, sport, engineering, art, entrepreneurship, and even daily life itself. All creative avenues yield
the maximum when failures are embraced."
Michael Shermer, publisher of the Skeptic Magazine, wrote about the importance of thinking "bottom up
not top down", since almost everything in nature and society happens this way. "Water is a bottom up,
self-organised emergent property of hydrogen and oxygen. Life is a bottom up, self-organised emergent

81 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
property of organic molecules that coalesced into protein chains through nothing more than the input of
energy into the system of Earth's early environment."
Economies are self-organised emergent processes of people trying to make a living, and democracy is a
bottom-up emergent political system "specifically designed to displace top down kingdoms, theocracies,
and dictatorships".
But most people don't see things that way, said Shermer. "Bottom up reasoning is counterintuitive. This is
why so many people believe that life was designed from the top down, and why so many think that
economies must be designed and that countries should be ruled from the top down."
Roger Schank, a psychologist and computer scientist, proposed that we should all know the true meaning
of "experimentation", which he said had been ruined by bad schooling, where pupils learn that scientists
conduct experiments and if we copy exactly what they did in our high school labs we will get the results
they got. "In effect we learn that experimentation is boring, is something done by scientists and has
nothing to do with our daily lives."
Instead, he said, proper experiments are all about assessing and gathering evidence. "In other words, the
scientific activity that surrounds experimentation is about thinking clearly in the face of evidence obtained
as the result of an experiment. But people who don't see their actions as experiments, and those who
don't know how to reason carefully from data, will continue to learn less well from their own experiences
than those who do.
"Since most of us have learned the word 'experiment' in the context of a boring ninth grade science class,
most people have long since learned to discount science and experimentation as being relevant to their
lives."
Lisa Randall, a physicist at Harvard University, argued that perhaps "science" itself would be a useful
concept for wider appreciation. "The idea that we can systematically understand certain aspects of the
world and make predictions based on what we've learned – while appreciating and categorising the extent
and limitations of what we know – plays a big role in how we think.
"Many words that summarise the nature of science such as 'cause and effect', 'predictions', and
'experiments', as well as words that describe probabilistic results such as 'mean', 'median', 'standard
deviation', and the notion of 'probability' itself help us understand more specifically what this means and
how to interpret the world and behaviour within it."

2011/01/15 CIF BAD SCIENCE: NOW YOU


SEE IT, NOW YOU DON'T: WHY JOURNALS NEED TO
RETHINK RETRACTIONS
With errors sometimes perpetuated for years, academics need to know the reason for a paper being
retracted

Ben Goldacre

82 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01
Sometimes, something will go wrong with an academic paper, and it will need to be retracted – that's
entirely expected. What matters is how academic journals deal with problems when they arise.
In 2004, the Annals of Thoracic Surgery (ATS) published a studycomparing two heart drugs. This week it
was retracted. Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus are two geeks who set up a website called Retraction
Watch because it was clear that retractions are often handled badly; they contacted the editor of ATS, Dr L
Henry Edmunds Jr MD, to find out why the paper was retracted.
"It's none of your damn business," replied Edmunds, before railing against "journalists and bloggists". The
retraction notice, he told them, is merely there "to inform our readers that the article is retracted. If you
get divorced from your wife, the public doesn't need to know the details."
ATS's retraction notice on this paper is uninformative and opaque. The paper went "following an
investigation by the University of Florida, which uncovered instances of repetitious, tabulated data from
previously published studies". Does that mean duplicate publication, two bites of the cherry? Or maybe
plagiarism? And if so, of what, by whom? And can we trust the authors' other papers?
What's odd is that this is not uncommon. Academic journals have high expectations of academic authors,
with explicit descriptions of every step in an experiment, clear references, peer review and so on, for a
good reason: academic journals are there to inform academics about the results of experiments, and
discuss their interpretation. But retractions form an important part of that record.
Here's one example of why. In October 2010, the Journal of the American Chemical Society (ACS) retracted
a 2009 paper about a new technique for measuring DNA, explaining it was because of "inaccurate DNA
hybridization detection results caused by application of an incorrect data processing method". This tells
you nothing.
When Retraction Watch got in touch with the author, he explained that they forgot to correct for
something in their analysis, which made the technique they were testing appear to be more powerful than
it really was, and actually they found it's no better than the original process it was proposed to replace.
That's useful information, much more informative than the paper simply disappearing one morning, and it
clearly belongs in the academic journal the original paper appeared in – not just in an email to two people
from the internet who run an ad hoc blog tracking down the stories behind retractions.
This becomes especially important when you think how academic papers are used: that ACS paper has now
been cited 14 times, by people who believed it to be true. And we know that news of even the simple fact
of a retraction fails to permeate through to consumers of information.
Stephen Breuning was found guilty of scientific misconduct in 1988 by a federal judge – which is unusual
and extreme in itself – so most of his papers were retracted. A study last year chased up all the references
to Breuning's work from 1989 to 2007, and found more than a dozen academic papers still citing his work,
some discussing it as a case of fraud, but around half – in more prominent journals - still citing his work as
if it was valid, 24 years after its retraction.
The role of journals in policing academic misconduct is still ill-defined, but clearly, explaining the
disappearance of a paper you published is a bare minimum.
Like publication bias, where negative findings are less likely to be published, this is a systemic failure,
across all fields, so it has far greater ramifications than any one single, eyecatching academic cockup or
fraud; unfortunately it's also a boring corner in the technical world of academia, so nobody has been
shamed into fixing it. Eyeballs are an excellent disinfectant: you should read Retraction Watch.

83 | P a g e
2011 VOLUME 01

Potrebbero piacerti anche