When settling down to enjoy the festive season, why not consider watching the Royal Institution’s Christmas Lectures, this year delivered by Professor Sue Hartley, Professor of Ecology at the University of Sussex and Chair of the British Ecological Society’s Publications Committee. Sue will explore 300 million years in the evolution of plants, from the development of ever more ways to defend themselves from predators and attack their enemies, to their uses by humans as sources of food, fibre and pharmaceuticals. The lectures promise to reveal plants as you’ve never seen them before!

Broadcasts of the lectures begin tonight at 7pm on More 4 and continue all week.

The BES Policy Team wish all BES members and readers of the blog a very Merry Christmas and a happy New Year.

On 20 January a joint BES, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) seminar will explore the causes and consequences of declines in insect pollinators. The event will see the formal launch of POSTnote 348 on ‘Insect Pollination’, authored by the 2009 BES POST Fellow, Rebecca Ross.

Pollination is the transfer of pollen from one flower to another, enabling plant reproduction. Pollination by insects is therefore vital for the maintenance of biodiversity and agricultural production. 80% of British wildflowers and 84% of EU crops depend on insect pollinators, mainly bees. Loss of pollinators would cost UK agriculture an estimated £400m per annum, representing 12% of agricultural revenue. Evidence is mounting that British bee species, such as honeybees and bumblebees, are in decline, which could threaten future agricultural productivity and cause further biodiversity loss. What is causing this decline, and is further action needed to restore our pollinators?

We will hear from expert speakers on the scientific and practical aspects of maintaining a healthy pollinator population and there will be a chance to discuss such topics as:

• Does pollinator decline pose a significant threat to the UK?
• What research do we need to understand pollinator decline and mitigate
its effects?
• What can we do to improve the health of managed honeybees?
• What policies do we need to maintain wild pollinators in the landscape
despite increasing demands on land for housing, fuel and food?

For further information and details on how to register for a place at this event, see the ‘Forthcoming Policy Meetings’ section of the BES website.

From the success of the British Ecological Society and Biochemical Society-run Policy Lunchbox network comes ‘Education Policy Lunchbox’, a new initiative for 2010 run jointly by the BES, Biochemical Society and Society for Experimental Biology. As with Policy Lunchbox, there will be a series of lunchtime events through the course of next year, bringing together speakers and those with an interest in education policy to discuss issues of common interest and concern. The events are free, with lunch provided, but registration is necessary as places are limited.

The first speaker of 2010 will be Ros Mist, Manager of SCORE (Science Community Representing Education), on 16 February, discussing the role of SCORE and how people can get involved. For more information see the Policy Lunchbox page on the BES website.

Following the Parliamentary and Technology Committee’s meeting this week, focusing on GM technology in crop production, I took the time to read the Royal Society’s recent report; “Reaping the benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture“, which was heavily cited at the evening event. The report provides an extremely interesting overview of a very complex topic, characterised by Prof. John Beddington as the ‘perfect storm’; how to feed more people, on less land, using less water and energy, in the context of climate change and in a way which doesn’t damage the evironment? The Royal Society steering group conclude that ’sustainable intensification’ is needed to achieve the 50 – 100% increase in crop production needed to feed a population projected to reach 9 billion by 2050.

The report touches upon the gains made during the ‘green revolution’ of the 1960’s, with huge growth in food production in Asia (280%); particularly China, which saw agricultural productivity increase fivefold. A 70% increase in growth was achieved in Europe. The benefits of the revolution were not evenly distributed however; Africa saw a 140% increase, yet food production then fell from the 1970s, only re-gaining 1960 levels in 2005. There have been calls for a ‘greener revolution’, building on the original gains made in the latter half of the 20th century, but investment in research into agriculture has declined in recent years, due to complacency over food prices and availability, the Society concludes.

In expanding food production into the future, the global community faces an important choice: expand the area of agricultural land to increase gross production, or increase yields on existing land. The report concludes that expanding the land area available for agriculture is untenable: to keep pace with current per capita consumption would require a doubling of land used for crops, which would result in undesirable environmental and social consequences and increased greenhouse gases through ploughing. Instead, the report concludes that sustainable intensification on existing sites, coupled with habitat restoration, should be the way forward.

Any system is unsustainable, the report suggests, if it depeneds on non-renewable inputs; it cannot consistently and predictably deliver desired outputs; and it can only deliver these outputs by requiring the cultivation of more land and/ or causes adverse and irreversible environmental impacts which threaten ecological functions. To ensure sustainable intensification, the report concludes, greater investment is needed in crop genetics (both advanced biotechnology, such as GM, and conventional plant breeding) and in crop management practices (such as integrated pest management and planting seed mixtures). Both public and private investment is needed to advance research in these areas: public, to fund those areas which will not yield long-term returns for private companies, such as crop management techniques (likely to have no particular product or intellectual property for commercialisation associated with them); private to transfer the benefits from publicly funded research to markets.

In examining GM particularly, the working group concludes that there is no reason to expect any adverse impacts on health through the consumption of crops including transgenes, and that this technology, although not offering a panacea, can make an important contribution to increasing yields. Over the long term, advances which could be seen include the modification of crops’ metabolism to more efficient convert solar energy to carbohydrate or for the fixation of nitrogen. There could be a shift from annual to perennial crops – there are no perennial crops at present – enhancing carbon storage and reducing greenhouse gases from annual tillage of the soil. The asexual reproduction of seed by high-yielding varieties could be engineered, avoiding costly and lengthy procedures – least accessible to those in developing countries – to produce high yielding varieties breeding cycle after breeding cycle.

The report is wide-ranging in its scope and there is certainly far too much to cover here. One recommendation which the BES could consider taking forward is in relation to the training and development of crop scientists. The working group suggests that attention should be paid to enhancing the plant science component of biology A’levels, as a way to encourage young people to study subjects allied to farming and agriculture at university. The working group also conclude however that, alongside the trend for many universities to close down or reduce their teaching in agriculture and crop science, take up of those courses which do exist is low. For the UK to take a leading role in research contributing to global food security, as the report calls for, there is a need, clearly amongst a disparate range of other measures, for universities to re-examine their courses to make them more attractive to potential research scientists of the future.

The BES Policy Team last night attended a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee exploring GM technology. Entitled, ‘Come back GM, all is forgiven?’, the Chair, Ian Taylor MP, made it clear that the question mark was there for a reason; by the end of the event it was clear that further meetings of the Committee are needed to allow members to explore these issues in greater depth. Opinions from the floor were aligned along two polar opposites and there was not the time available to allow sufficient debate to begin to bring these two sides together.

Presentations from Professor Peter Shewry and Professor Howard Atkinson introduced the topic to those present and set the scene for later discussion. Professor Shewry showed a slide illustrating the global scale of growth of GM crops; these are now cultivated in 25 countries worldwide, across 70 million acres of land and have now been grown for 14 years. In this time, Professor Shewry said, no ill effects to health or the environment have been recorded. In outlining the case for growing GM crops Prof. Shewry said that society needs them for three reasons: to improve the quality of crops (i.e. to reduce diet-related disease); to increase sustainability (through less intensive inputs), and to increase productivity (contributing to food security).

Prof. Shewry’s research is concerned with the health benefits of GM crops, particularly wheat. By modifying wheat crops to express genes for the production of fish oils (long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids), the human dietary intake of fish oils can be increased without recourse to intensification of fish farming. In giving reasons why GM had not been adopted in the UK, at the end of his talk, Prof. Shewry suggested that prejudice, misinformation and elitism in Western nations was responsible, with it reducing opportunities from those in developing countries, with limited access to food, to benefit from this technology.

This was a theme returned to in discussion with Chris Kirk, Chief Executive of the Biochemical Society firmly making the point that those in the West get extremely incensed about the use of GM technology to produce food, yet are content to use pharmaceutical products maunfactured in a similar way. Again, he reiterated the point that concerns in affluent countries are damaging the prospects of less developed countries to benefit from this technology.

Concerns were raised by some present about the potential health impacts of GM crops – one example given was that the effects of exposure to asbestos are felt only 25 years later, so 14 years may be too short a timescale of testing to declare GM foods ’safe’- and the problem of secondary pest emergence in GM cotton (Bt cotton), leading to increased pesticide spraying once more. One audience member raised the important point that many people are genuinely concerned about GM technology and that these concerns cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. He and others called for greater engagement from the scientific community in the debate, communicating with the public and providing syntheses of the scientific evidence for policy-makers.

Jim Paice, MP for South West Cambridgeshire made the point that it was very hard for politicians to find their way through the morass of ’sweeping statements’ made by NGOs such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace; without engagement from the scientific community, such negative, and poorly evidenced, statements would dominate debate. Chris Kirk urged policy-makers and Committee members to read the Royal Society’s recent report: “Reaping the Benefits: science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture” as an authoritative digest of current scientific evidence regardiing GM technology.

Finally, Lord Rooker mentioned the ‘GM Dialogue‘ which the Food Standards Agency has been asked to lead on behalf of the Government. This public engagement project is expected to last for around 12 months and steering group members have recently been announced. With this, a potential further Parliamentary and Scientific Committee meeting on this topic and a Talk Science event at the British Library in January, it seems that GM food may once more be rising up the agenda.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering, of which the BES is a member, is organising a debate on 13 January 2010 between the science spokespeople of the three major UK political parties. Lord Drayson, Science Minister, Adam Afriye, Shadow Science Minister and Dr Evan Harris MP, Liberal Democrat Science Spokesman, will speak at the Institute of Engineering and Technology from 6.30pm. Members of the BES and others interested are encouraged to attend.

This event is free but registration is necessary. on registration there is an opportunity to submit a question to put to the speakers. See the CaSE website for further details.

The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills has today published high level principles on scientific advice to Government, aiming to ensure effective engagement between Government and Science Advisory Councils. The principles follow the furore over the dismissal, by Home Secretary Alan Johnson MP, of Professor David Nutt, Chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Following this incident, members of the scientific community, led by Sense about Science, submitted a draft set of principles to Government. Lord Drayson, Minister for Science, responded with a series of informal meetings with scientists, consultation with Learned Societies and others, resulting in the principles published today. These are now open for consideration as part of the wider consultation on Guidelines on scientific analysis in policy-making, led by the Government Office for Science (GO-Science), which closes on 9 February.

The principles are as follows:

Trust and Respect

- The Government should respect and value the professional status and expertise of its independent scientific advisers.
- Scientific advisers should respect the democratic mandate of the Government to take decisions based on a wide range of factors and recognise that science is only part of the evidence that Government must consider in developing policy.
- The Government and its scientifc advisers should work together to reach a shared position and neither should act to undermine mutual trust.

Independence

- Scientific advisers to the Government are free to communicate in a professional capacity within their field of expertise, subject to normal confidentiality restrictions.
- Scientific advisers to the Government are free to communicate relevant evidence and analysis, including when it is at odds with Government policy.
- Scientific advisers to the Government must be free from political interference with their work.
- Scientific Advisory Committees and Councils have the right to engage with the media and public independently of the Government and are free to seek independent media advice.
- Scientific advisers to the Government should make clear in what capacity they are communicating, for example at conferences or in published papers.

Transparency and openness

- Scientific advice to the Government will be published unless there are over-riding reasons (such as national security) for not doing so.
- The timing of the publication of independent scientific advice is normally a matter for the advisory body but should be discussed with Government beforehand.
- The timing of the Government’s response to scientific advice will demonstrably allow for proper consideration of that advice.
- The Government and its scientific advisers should make it clear whether they are communicating scientific evidence and analysis or conclusions and advice.
- Scientific advisers should indicate their level of confidence in the evidence base underpinning their advice by making explicit levels of uncertainty, ambiguity and ignorance.
- The Government will explain the reasons for policy decisions, particularly when the decision appears to be at odds with scientific advice.
- If Government is minded not to accept the advice of a scientific advisory committee of council particularly on matters of significant public interest, the relevant minister will normally meet with the chair to discuss the issue before a final decision is made.

Publication of the principles follows the release yesterday of a brief report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee: ‘The Government’s review of the principles applying to the treatment of independent scientific advice‘. The principles as published largely accord with the Committee’s recommendations. Now the Committee will be looking to see that the Government takes on board its recommendations as to how these are applied. The Committee recommend that the Government reject an expert committee’s assessment of the scientific evidence only in ‘exceptional circumstances’, with the reasons for this clearly laid out in writing to the SAC chairman. This may be at odds with what the Government intends in the principles, which state only that a minister will ‘normally’ meet with a chair if advice is to be rejected.

From the editorial at www.SciDev.net:

Historians of science have long known that Gregor Mendel, the 19th century Augustinian monk who discovered how genetic traits are inherited, ‘fudged’ some of his data. His experimental methods were not as rigorous as they should have been and he failed to publish results of experiments that did not turn out as expected. Such revelations show that science is less exact than many people would like to believe. But they do not invalidate Mendel’s insights, which have become the cornerstone of modern genetics.

The same could be said of the ‘Climategate’ row that erupted last month after emails were hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. The emails suggest that some university researchers may have selected favourable data in their publications to boost arguments about the severity of climate change and its origins in human activity.

Opponents of action on climate change have leapt upon the emails and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been forced onto the defensive, with its officials condemning publication of the emails as an illegal act intended to discredit the panel’s work. But dismissing the emails on the grounds that they were obtained illegally misses the important point that they show science to be a more human process than is usually portrayed. The emails reveal that the scientists who wrote them were frustrated by the attacks of critics and, like Mendel, were anxious to sharpen the strength of their conclusions.

To gain public trust, scientists are coming under increasing pressure to be open about how they achieve their results. However, if researchers are to be more transparent and avoid accusations of tampering with data as being unscientific, the public must also accept how science is actually practised. To achieve this, scientists must do more to present a human face when explaining their processes and practices instead of hiding behind the claim that science is entirely objective.

Climategate is teaching the IPCC this lesson the hard way. By relying excessively on the apparent objectivity of its research assessments to give the panel its authority, it has made itself and its conclusions politically vulnerable. Now any criticism that challenges the objectivity of research used by the IPCC, however minor, undermines the panel’s reputation.

The IPCC, to its credit, tries hard to be transparent in its own handling of scientific evidence by making good use of communication channels. For instance, it logged and replied online to each of the estimated 300,000 comments received on its latest assessment report, published in 2007. But unless it is prepared to accept a more accurate picture of how scientific evidence is compiled, such transparency will not be sufficient.

The media, too, must improve its understanding and description of science. It often demands a black-and-white picture of scientific evidence, rather than a more nuanced description based on the social nature of scientific inquiry. This undervalues the true robustness of the scientific process and undermines the strength of political decisions based on conclusions emerging from it.

2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity and the International Year of Biodiversity UK Partnership (IYB-UK), including the BES, would like everyone to do one simple thing to preserve life on earth. With your help, it is easier than it sounds.

1) Make your New Year resolution for 2010 to do something to support biodiversity.

2) Choose a simple, fun pledge from the list on the International Year of Biodiversity UK website

Or, you may know something you want to do already.

3) On 1 January 2010 – or as soon as you can in 2010 – let people know what you’re doing: Tweet, email, Facebook or blog your pledge to inspire others to do something similar. Please include the link to www.biodiversityislife.net/?q=do-one-thing in your communication.

On Twitter you could begin your tweet by saying:

“I’m supporting biodiversity by [type your pledge in here and end with the following hashtag] #iyb”

OR

“Biodiversity is our life so I’m going to [type your pledge in here and end with the following hashtag] #iyb”

Together we can make a difference.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Hilary Benn MP, is due to address policy-makers assembled at the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen today, as part of ‘Oceans Day’. The Secretary of State is due to highlight the dangers posed to marine life and human well-being by ocean acidification, and the limited attention which this issue receives compared to others being discussed by climate change negotiators.

The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 30% higher than during pre-industrial times. A proportion of the carbon dioxide which has entered the atmosphere over the past 200 years has been absorbed by the oceans – with constant gaseous exchange between the seas and air. When carbon dioxide dissolves in water, carbonic acid is formed, which dissociates into hydrogen and carbonate ions. The Ph of the ocean, measuring hydrogen ion concentration and hence acidity, is now 0.1 unit lower, with a total decrease of 0.3 or 0.4 Ph units expected by the end of the century. An increase in the acidity of the seas will affect the ability of corals and other organisms to build calcium carbonate shells; studies have shown that coral growth in the Great Barrier Reef is already slowing.

Mr Benn told the BBC News that ocean acidification “doesn’t get as much attention as other problems; it is really important”. Destruction of corals will affect all those who depend on the reefs – from the fish which forage there to the populations which depend on these fish for protein; over 1 bilion people worldwide. He will recommend to policy-makers today that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) investigates ocean acidification during its next major assessment of world climate, scheduled for release in 2013.

Original source; ‘Acidifying oceans’ threaten food supply, UK warns, Richard Black, BBC News Website