The Parliamentary and Scientific Committee last night hosted a fascinating discussion on how best we approach the fiendish problem of climate change.

The first speaker, Lord Broers, ex-President of the Royal Academy of Engineering, concluded with the recommendation that the Government needs to spend more time talking to those with the skills to develop a new low-carbon infrastructure. He argued that the Government is relying upon the private sector to help it meet its extremely ambitious climate targets, but has not actually properly discussed with engineers and the like whether these targets are possible to achieve, or how they will be met. Consultation is essential if we are to achieve a low-carbon transition.

The second speaker, Professor Paul Ekins of UCL, meanwhile concluded that neither technology nor cost is ultimately the constraining factor on climate change mitigation, but rather ‘politics’, i.e. that the public at large is very attached to its high-consumption lifestyle patterns, and that this will not be easy for any politician to properly address.

The discussion afterwards covered a wide range of topics, though perhaps the most interesting was the idea of preparing for the problem of ‘variability against the trend’. That is, we should be aware of the possibility that the coming decade may witness stable, or even decreasing, temperatures before warming recommences, and that this may present a fundamental challenge to climate action. A strategy for such variation should be prepared, or otherwise there is a risk of our climate position being totally wrong-footed by increasing public scepticism.

New research showcased in last week’s ‘Science for Environment Policy‘ digest, produced by the European Commission, suggests that the ‘Species at Risk’ (SPEAR) system could provide an accurate and cost-effective means of assessing the effects of pesticides in streams. Under the Water Framework Directive, all water bodies should achieve ‘good ecological status’ by 2015. SPEAR (pesticides) provides a means to measure the ecological status of a waterway, in respect to the impacts of pesticides on organisms.

SPEAR assesses the impact of stressors on at-risk invertebrates, with SPEAR (pesticides) specifically examining the effects of this one particular stressor. In an analysis carried out under the European Commission’s INTERACT project, researchers applied SPEAR (pesticides) at the level of the family and at the species level at 48 small sites on streams in Finland, Germany and France. The results were then compared. Only five species were found to have SPEAR values that were significantly different at the species and at the family level, including the caddisfly (Anabolia nervosa) and mayfly (Baetis vernus); species-level results indicated that the species were not at risk from pesticides, whilst family-level results indicated that the organisms were at risk.

Overall the results indicate that SPEAR (pesticides) could be used at the family level – which is less costly and time consuming than conducting analysis at the level of the species – and across borders. This methodology can contribute to researchers’ ongoing efforts to examine the ecological status of waterways.

Original research: Beketov, M.A., Foit, K., Schäfer, R.B. et al. (2009). SPEAR indicates pesticide effects in streams. Comparative use of species- and family-level biomonitoring data. Environmental Pollution. 157:1841-1848.

The row over the sacking of Professor David Nutt, the Government’s chief drugs advisor, rumbled on today with the publication of an open letter from over 20 eminent members of the scientfic community, calling for scientific independence to be respected.

Academics including Professor Lord Robert May, former Government Chief Scientific Advisor and president of the Royal Socety and Professor Lord Martin Rees, current Royal Society president, called on the UK Government to sign up to a new set of guidlines, which argue that argue that “disagreement with government policy and the public articulation and discussion of relevant evidence and issues by members of advisory committees can not be grounds for criticism or dismissal.”

When scientific advice is rejected, the experts said, the reasons should be described explicitly and publicly.

The open letter comes after Prime Minister Gordon Brown was called on to respond to the row over Professor Nutt’s dismissal at this week’s Prime Minister’s Questions. The following excerpt from Hansard outlines the question put to the Prime Minister, and his response:

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton) (Con): As a former Science Minister myself, I am well aware that scientific advice can be politically inconvenient, but will the Prime Minister reassure the scientific community that when disagreements happen, he will engage in rational debate rather than shoot the messenger?

The Prime Minister: Scientific advice is valued by the Government in every area. On climate change, on foot and mouth, on dealing with swine flu and on nuclear matters as well as on drugs, we have very good scientists who have been advising us. From the drugs advisory committee, we accepted all but three of more than 30 recommendations. The issue was not the ability of the committee to give advice or the expertise of the members, it was that once Ministers have had to decide a position, after listening to advice on a wider range of social issues than simply the scientific advice, it does not make sense to send out mixed messages to the whole community about drugs. That is why the Home Secretary made his decision.

The BES Policy Team yesterday attended a briefing event in parliament, run by the Field Studies Council and chaired by Phil Willis MP, chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. “Helping the next generation of teachers to get children enthused about science through fieldwork” saw around 50 representatives of teacher training provision, colleagues from the FSC and learned societies come together to hear brief speeches from Mr Willis, Rob Lucas, Chief Executive of the Field Studies Council and Professor Justin Dillon, Professor of Science and Environmental Education at King’s College London.

Rob Lucas posed a question; ‘where will the next Darwin come from’ if students sit in a classroom all day and are not taken outside to learn? He described the situation in which the UK now finds itself as analagous to the bottom of a ‘helterskelter’, at a low in terms of field work provision in schools, with no staircase to find the way back up to the top again. ‘Teachers are the gatekeepers of students getting out of the classroom’, he said, and the commitment of teachers and school managers to outdoor learning is vital. Teachers must have the knowledge, skills and experience to deliver effective field work, and more must be done to ensure this.

Prof. Dillon contrasted his experience as a trainee teacher, spending a week on a residential field course, with the experience of teachers training today; for whom there are no minimum standards for what is an acceptable level of field work experience to undertake during Initial Teacher Training (ITT). Done well, he said, field work works. It improves students’ knowledge, skills and experience, whilst depriving some students of field work and allowing others to benefit from it is morally reprehensible and creates an unequal playing field for later educational opportunity.

Prof. Dillon urged the UK Government, on behalf of the FSC and the Association of Science Education Outdoor Learning Group, to make sure that ITT contains minimum standards for field work experience and training, as set out in the document ‘Initial Teacher Education and the Outdoor Classroom: Standards for the Future‘, published in 2007.

During the question and answer session, Mr Willis was asked what legislators could do to help effect change in ITT to ensure field work was better recognised and supported. Mr Willis paid tribute to the House of Lords as containing a cadre of people distinguished in and passionate about science, something he acknowledged that the House of Commons lacked. He said that the biological education community should target individual MPs with a genuine interest in education and lobby them to support a simple campaign (one for minimum standards would work well, he suggested). He also encouraged those present to target Science Learning Centres, finding out whether their CPD courses included fieldwork, and to encourage the Department for Children, Schools and Families Select Committee to run a major inquiry into outdoor education. MPs could also be encouraged to run an adjournment debate about the issue, to which the Minister for Education would have to respond.

Overall this was a useful and interesting event but it’s clear that those supporting field work in schools need to move beyond talking to one another and those already ‘converted’ to the cause. Working with curriculum awarding bodies, as Karen Devine, Education Officer at the BES, and others, are already doing is vital; making sure that field work is a fundamental component of the curriculum. Mr Willis also challenged the community to move beyond anecdote to the use of high quality, peer reviewed scientific evidence to support the need for field work in biology education.

Read more about the BES’s work in Science Education

The Policy Lunchbox network today heard an extremely interesting presentation from Dr Anu Devi, Projects Coordinator at Science for Humanity. Science for Humanity is a charity, registered in 2007 and based at the University of Oxford, which matches science capability to human needs. Through fostering a network of organisations and individuals, Science for Humanity aims to turn science into solutions to alleviate poverty, advance community development and provide economic benefit to the poor.

Anu outlined the projects which Science for Humanity is currently developing and for which she is responsible. There are six projects in total including ‘Peru Coffee’; a project to improve soil fertility for coffee production on the Eastern slopes of the Andes impacted by deforestation and ‘Green Charcoal’, a project seeking innovative technologies to transform crops such as candlenut seed kernel, palm seed kernel and cotton strokes into green charcoal. A further project examines how science can help to supply clean drinking water to a village in Thailand, purifying the water and removing harmful bacteria such as E.coli. This project in particular demonstrates the importance of working with local people to educate them about the benefits and risks of different interventions; strong public resistance to the use of chlorine in the water means that a policy to introduce such a measure will not work without an education programme to overcome this.

Anu described Science for Humanity as playing a brokerage role between communities, building links and facilitating the exchange of information between those who have identified humanitarian problems (termed ’seekers’) and those who have the capacity to solve them (scientists, or ’solvers’). Science for Humanity identifies a project and communicates this to its members (of which there are now around 1,000, joining through the website). Through this mechanism Science for Humanity can match seekers and solvers and hopefully lead to positive outcomes for development.

Although small in scale at the moment, over time Science for Humanity hopes to influence research, aiming to secure funding to support scientists to work on particular projects, and policy making. The organisation envisions changing policy through encouraging the scientific community to think outside their specific research area, encouraging governments (local and national) to consult with scientists and take an evidence-based approach to combating humanitarian problems.

When questioned about scientists’ willingness to get involved with Science for Humanity Anu was very positive, stating that very many scientists wish to apply their research to real-world problems. Science for Humanity’s projects and discussion forums allow them to get involved and do this. Anyone can sign up to become a member of Science for Humanity through the organisations’ website; membership is free. You can also follow Science for Humanity on Facebook and Twitter.

Policy Lunchbox is a monthly forum for policy officers and others to meet one another, exchange ideas and information through free seminars and discussion. The network is maintained by the Biochemical Society and British Ecological Society. Information about forthcoming events is available on the Biochemical Society’s website.

The latest update to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species has been published today, revealing that the number of species threatened with extinction is growing. 47,677 species are on the list, of which 17,291 are at serious risk. This includes 21% of mammals, 30% of amphibians, 70% of plants and 35% of invertebrates. Amphibians are the group most seriously at risk, with 1,895 of 6,825 known species threatened with extinction. 484 of these species are ‘critically endangered’ and 754 are ‘endangered’. 39 species of amphibian are either ‘extinct’ or ‘extinct in the wild’.

Commenting on the report, Jane Smart, Director of the IUCN Biodiversity Conservation Group said: The latest analysis… shows that the 2010 target to reduce biodiversity loss will not be met…It’s time for governments to start getting serious about saving species and make sure it’s high on their agendas for next year, as we are rapidly running out of time.”

Source: BBC News

Access the BES and IEEM position statement on ‘Conserving and Managing Biodiversity Beyond 2010′

Lord Mandelson is to set out the Government’s plan for the future of universities today, with a statement to the House of Commons expected at 3pm. Lord Mandelson is expected to emphasise the Government’s desire to build greater links between universities and business, seeing higher education as a way to reinvigorate the economy.

Speaking on this morning’s ‘Today’ programme, Lord Mandelson outlined his plan, which will be focused around three main areas: giving students more consumer-style information; improving social mobility and access to the professions by those from poorer backgrounds and aiding economic recovery.

Universities are to be told to treat students more like customers, allowing them to see how their fees are being used. Each university will be asked to publish course-by-course graduate employment rates, teaching time and drop out rates. This is widely interpreted as a precursor to raising tuition fees for students. A review of student tuition fees is expected to be launched within the next few weeks and will report after the general election.

Speaking on ‘Today’, Lord Mandelson said that research needed to be concentrated on providing economic benefits. Where extra degree places are provided by universities, these should be focused on ‘STEM’ (Science, Engineering, Technology and Maths) subjects, he said.

Further information:
Mandelson to announce plans to modernise ‘ivory tower’ universities (Guardian)
Vision for universities laid out (BBC News)

An interesting piece in the New York Times (October 26th) explores whether ‘biotech foods can explore the world’. Six experts, from economics, agriculture and policy, deliver their views on whether GM provides an answer to projected food shortages. The United Nations estimates that the number of people hungry worldwide could surpass 1 billion this year. Can GM help to feed a growing population, in the context of climate change and environmental degradation?

Professor Paul Collier, University of Oxford and author of “The Bottom Billion”, believes that climate change has made the use of GM technology inevitable. Describing GM as akin to ‘nuclear power; nobody loves it’, Prof. Collier states that GM offers both faster crop adaptation and a ‘biological, rather than chemical’ approach to increasing yields. Professor Collier delivered the BES Lecture at this year’s BES Annual Meeting (September, University of Hertfordshire).

Vandana Shiva, founder of Navdanya, an NGO and movement of 500,000 seed keepers and organic farmers in India, argues that climate resilient traits don’t have to come from genetic engineering, citing artificial selection practised by farmers for centuries as a means of creating these attributes. Describing seed banks, such as those maintained by Navdanya, as ‘biological capital for the green revolution’, Vandana Shiva states that society must create an ecological approach to boosting production and conserving resources, working with smallholder farmers.

Per Pinstrup-Anderson, Cornell University, sees science as playing a key role in helping farmers to grow more food, without damaging natural resources: “Science must be put to work to develop drought tolerance and pest resistance in crops, higher nutrient quality of staple foods, reduced animal diseases, mitigation of negative climate change effects and a host of other solutions to the current food losses and risks facing farmers and consumers in developing countries.” He sees GM technology, used appropriately, as part of this science-led solution.

Raj Patel, a fellow of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, believes that GM crops may not necessarily be the answer, citing a report prepared by a task-force led by Professor Robert Watson, Chief Scientific Advisor at Defra and previously Chief Scientist at the World Bank. “Agriculture at a Crossroads”, produced by 400 experts between 2005-2008, expressed concern that GM had failed to show promise and stressed that to feed the world, political and technological change are necessary. ‘Agroecology’ is one of the farming techniques endorsed by the report – building soil, insect and plant ecology. Mr Patel expresses disappointment that agroecology has not been endorsed by Governments, suggesting this may be because it is not lucrative for big business.

Finally, Jonathan Foley, University of Minnesota, expresses his view that the careful use of GM crops may be appropriate. How can civilisation double food production in the next 40 years, given continued population growth, increasing meat consumption and pressure from biofuels? We need to reduce the environmental impact of our farming methods, which have caused widespread damage to soils, ecosystems, watersheds and the atmosphere. Jonathan Foley suggests that society needs to find a ‘third way’, borrowing from ‘organic and local’ and ‘globalised and industrialised’ systems. A new ‘hybrid solution’ which boosts productivity, conserves resources and builds a more scalable and sustainable agriculture is necessary. Incorporating GM crops which use less water and require less fertiliser could be a part of this.

Original article: New York Times, 26 October 2009

Summary from: SciDev.net, 2 November 2009