The independent Committee on Climate Change (CCC) has advised the UK government to increase investment in low-carbon technologies in order to boost green, economic growth and to achieve the target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050—relative to 1990 levels. The findings were published today in a report to the Government’s Chief Scientific advisor, Sir John Beddington.

Currently, the government funding for research and development of green technologies is about £550m per year. The committee warns that any cutback of this amount would lead to the UK “losing out on ‘critical’ opportunities to build a green economy”. (press release)

The advisors say that if new low-carbon technologies don’t get government support they may end up in a pre-commercial ‘valley of death’ and never find their way to the market. Along with protected funding, they say that clear, long-term objectives from the government are needed in order to boost investor confidence in such technologies.

The UK spends far less on energy research, development and demonstration (RD&D) than many other developed countries as a percentage of the GDP—only about a third of Sweden’s spending, and almost as little as a ninth of Japan’s (report). The CCC says that investing in low-carbon technologies would actually benefit the economy in the long haul.

In fact, at a press launch today, Julia King, the vice-chancellor of Aston University and formerly Director of Advanced Engineering for Rolls Royce, explained that the UK is particularly well-placed to accelerate and drive the development in six technologies: Offshore wind, marine, carbon-capture storage, smart grid & meters, aviation, and electric vehicles.

The report also identifies certain green-technology fields that are in particularly pressing need of increased funding. Such areas are electric cars, offshore wind, marine, and aviation technologies. The CCC says that these technologies should get increased funding promptly after the current financial pressures have eased.

Beddington, who requested a review in October 2009, welcomed today’s report: “Innovation will be enormously important if the UK is to meet its climate change goals, and to do so affordably. We need to develop and deploy the most promising low carbon technologies quickly across all sectors. In times of austerity we must also make sure we invest public money to maximum effect.” (press release)

But one wonders if we’ll ever see these ambitious goals being reached. Last week, the Department for Energy and Climate Change announced that it will make £34m worth of cuts to its low-carbon technology programme (engineer).

In an opinion piece in the Guardian today, Chris Goodall, author of ‘Ten Technologies to Fix Energy and Climate’, who stood in the UK general election in May as a Green Party candidate, said: “Marine energy was not one of the support programmes sliced last week but there is clearly no prospect of any increase in the minimal sums devoted to supporting the industry. The UK had a fighting chance of becoming the world’s major exporter of tidal and wave power equipment but, as with wind power two decades ago, we will lose out to countries with poorer natural resources but greater willingness to invest in hugely expensive R&D.”

The UK government will reform the English libel laws, announced the Justice Minister Lord McNally today. The declaration was made at the second reading of a Defamation Bill put forward by Anthony Lester QC, libel lawyer and Liberal Democrat peer. (Telegraph, Guardian)

The government’s announcement came as a surprise to Lester, who said that while listening to the minister he had “wondered if I’m alive at all or whether I’m in heaven, because I never thought to hear a reply of that kind” (Telegraph).

English libel laws have been widely criticized for being ‘unbalanced’, favouring the protection of reputation over the freedom of expression. They are also thought to be unnecessarily complicated, outdated, and costly. (Nature editorial)

Recent libel cases have sparked debate about the laws and resulted in successful campaigns such as “The Libel Reform Campaign” by the organizations Sense about Science, English PEN, and Index on Censorship. One such case was the British Chiropractic Association suing science writer Simon Singh for having said they ‘happily promote bogus treatments’ in a Guardian article. Similarly, cardiologist Peter Wilmhurst was recently accused of libel by the company NMT Medical for criticizing a new heart device called Starflex, designed to close a type of hole in the heart. This raised questions about scientific discourse: Should scientific debate really be settled in the court room? And is it plausible that scientific journals should have to retract or amend papers due to threats of libel, when the papers have already gone through robust peer-review?

Current English libel laws are unique in that they put a great burden of proof on the defendant. When a claimant has proven that the words in question are defamatory, the law presumes in the claimant’s favour, assuming that the words are false. It is then up to the defendant to establish a defence, which can be a cumbersome and costly process. It is often easier to just remove the potentially defamatory content. This fear of libel charges has a ‘chilling effect’, as it can stifle academic debate and freedom of expression. (Defamation Bill explanatory notes)

Another problem with the libel laws is that they don’t recognize the fact that statements can be interpreted differently by different people. A defendant accused of libel has to show that their statement is ‘substantially true’— a so-called ‘fair comment’—which is a difficult case to win.

The media has no specific privilege serving ‘public interest’ under the law. If it did, it could perhaps have helped Simon Singh in justifying his criticism of the BCA—appealing to the public’s right to know. But instead, he had to prove he was making a ‘fair comment’. The whole process took 2 years and cost £200000 pounds. (Guardian)

The internet further complicates the application of libel laws, due to the so-called ‘multiple publication rule’, which means that every time a reader accesses a page it counts as a new publication. Although there is a one-year limitation period for libel actions, that time starts again every time a defamatory text gets downloaded on the internet.

Since foreign publications can be downloaded in the UK, it means that a foreign company can sue for libel here. Foreign companies suing each other in English courts — even when the circulation of the publication has been mostly elsewhere — is called ‘libel tourism’. In fact, the Wilmhurst case is an example of this: Wilmhurst is being sued in London by a US company for something he criticized at a US conference that was posted on a US website.

It is hard to speculate on whether Lester’s bill could have passed if the government hadn’t decided to step in, promising to reform the laws itself. The government plans to publish a bill of proposed reforms early next year, after a consultation over the summer. McNally said it will focus on the freedom of speech, protection of public interest debate, the multiple publication rule, as well as cutting down on libel tourism.

More than two dozen Iranian academics and scientists in the diaspora have publicly lent their support to the Iranian opposition – the so-called ‘Green Movement’ – and its de facto leader Mir-Hossein Mousavi, in a statement circulated by email (see signatories and full text below). The move comes on the eve of the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on 11 February, and expressed the academics’ solidarity with the Iranian people on a day which is expected to witness renewed protests in Iran.

“Notwithstanding the diversity of thought of the millions of Iranians in Diaspora, especially among the tens of thousands of intellectuals, academics and scholars abroad, there has indeed emerged a consensus of unequivocal support for the Green Movement,” reads the statement, adding that they and many of their compatriots inside Iran, “reaffirm their irrevocable commitment to the much anticipated realization of civil and constitutional rights and the enactment of the rule of law, justice and democracy in Iran through non-violent civil disobedience”.

For some of Nature’s past coverage of events in Iran see:

Editorial:

“We are all Iranians”, 2 July 2009

News

Iranian academics fear more killings, 19 January 2010

Plagiarism scandal grows in Iran, 9 December 2009

Iran presidential candidate speaks out, 8 July 2009

Iran diaspora responds to protests, 24 June 2009

The full text of the statement, and signatories, is below the fold.

Continue reading →

In a country reeling from bad economic news and even worse partisan battling in Congress, US President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union message last night.

His 71-minute speech to both houses of Congress barely mentioned science. This is par for the course for most US presidents but something of an omission for Obama, who has rhapsodized before about the importance of science and innovation in stimulating economic growth. The few science mentions in the speech included:

– A pledge for “continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies”, with a brief plea to Congress to pass “a comprehensive energy and climate bill”.

– A vague reference to “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants”. No nuclear plant has been built in the United States for more than 30 years, and the Obama administration has stripped all funding for the only proposed long-term storage site for nuclear waste in the country, at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

– Mention of the administration’s outreach to the Muslim world on science and technology initiatives, including sending high-profile science envoys recently to countries such as Egypt and Indonesia.

– A shout-out to the science funding in last year’s economic stimulus package. The question now is how long-term science budgets will fare under Obama. On Monday, he is scheduled to release his proposed budget request for fiscal year 2011 — which could either continue the increases in basic science agencies from last year, or cut them as part of his proposed freeze on discretionary funding.

Image: Obama earlier this month / White House photo