Science stories of 2006

It's been a year of little leaps. Nothing Earth-shattering or, at least, nothing the world has noticed yet. Someone once remarked to me that the most important scientific result of the year just gone wouldn't be recognised until several years later, when its implications were much clearer. For what it's worth, here's what James and I thought were the most interesting and noteworthy science stories of 2006. Perhaps the low-key year is an unconscious repsonse to the Hwang scandal - the Korean scientist faked research and papers on cloning and was discovered at the end of last year.

It was also a year of warnings: a worsening biodiversity crisis, the Arctic ice cap predicted to be ice-free in summer by 2040 and UK chief scientific adviser David King making his starkest predictions yet on the effects of climate change. One piece of good news (possibly) on the last front: with British economist Nicholas Stern's report on the potential cost of climate change, will 2006 go down as the year the world work up to the problem?

It wasn't entirely quiet on the discovery front: the spectacular Stardust mission to bring comet dust back to earth; the Tiktaalik fossil (pictured) that gave biologists clues on how animals made it from water to land; and flowing water on Mars. Here's to more brilliance in 2007...


Fish out of water, polar ice, and leakage on Mars

Tiktaalik

A crocodile-like fossil called Tiktaalik roseae, found on Ellesmere Island, Canada, sent scientists wild with excitement. A missing link between fish and land animals, it showed how creatures first walked out of the water and on to dry land more than 375m years ago. Tiktaalik - the name means "a large, shallow-water fish" in the Inuit language - lived in the Devonian era lasting from 417m to 354m years ago, and had a skull, neck, and ribs similar to early limbed animals, known as tetrapods, as well as a more primitive jaw, fins, and scales akin to fish. It showed that the evolution of animals from living in water to living on land happened gradually, with fish first living in shallow water.

Arctic ice

Sir David King, the UK's chief scientific advisor, warned that, unless governments around the world took urgent action against climate change, global temperatures would rise by 3C, resulting in global famine and drought and threatening millions of lives. Cereal crop production could drop by between 20m and 400m tonnes, 400 million more people would be at risk of hunger, and 3 billion would be at extra risk of flooding and without access to freshwater supplies. This year, scientists calculated the Antarctic ice sheet is losing 36 cubic miles of ice every year. They also made the startling prediction that the Arctic ice cap will lose all of its summer sea ice by 2040, given the accelerating rate of melting observed in recent years.

Cellardyke swan

The dreaded avian flu, H5N1, turned up in a dead swan in Cellardyke, Fife. The virus seemed to remain confined to wild birds, however, and the potentially deadly flu caused no human casualties in the UK. It does not mark the end of H5N1, however. Scientists predict it will be back in the coming months and begin to spread around the world again as birds begin migration. For it to become deadly to humans, H5N1 needs to mutate so that it can transfer easily between people. So far this has not happened.

Stardust

Nasa's adventurous Stardust mission brought the dust of a comet back to Earth. The mission was full of firsts: the first time a probe had been flown so close to a comet; the first extraterrestrial use of the advanced aerogel material - a hi-tech mousse made of glass and air sometimes called "frozen smoke" - to trap the grains of dust; and the first successful sample return to Earth since the moon landings. The first results were published in December and showed that scientists would have to rewrite the textbooks on comet formation. Not only are these objects more than simply dirty snowballs, as had been previously thought, scientists found materials in them that suggest they could have kickstarted life on Earth.

Pluto

The underdog planet, smaller than the moon, was kicked out of the planetary club by the International Astronomical Union. The 2,500 scientists of the union decided on a definition of a planet as a body that orbits the sun, is so large that its own gravity makes it roughly spherical, and, crucially, also dominates its region of the solar system. Their decision will force a rewrite of science textbooks because the solar system is now a place with eight planets and three newly defined "dwarf planets" - a new category of object that includes Pluto. The category also includes an asteroid called Ceres and an object bigger than Pluto, initially called 2003 UB313 but later named officially as Eris.

Messing about in space

2006 was the year for doing weird, risky and just plain daft things in space. In February, an old Russian space suit filled with clothes was shoved out of the International Space Station. This was the cosmic equivalent of taking out the rubbish and the zero-G Guy Fawkes eventually burned up in the atmosphere as planned. In July, a Las Vegas property magnate called Robert Bigelow launched an experimental inflatable space hotel. The unconventional inn in the sky was crewed by cockroaches and Mexican jumping bean moths. In November, Russian cosmonaut Mikhail Tyurin hit the longest golf shot in history from the ISS. A Canadian golf manufacturer paid for the stunt.

Water on Mars

The universe may not be such a lonely place after all. Earlier this month, Nasa scientists revealed the first evidence for flowing water on Mars. By comparing images taken by the now defunct Mars Global Surveyor satellite in 2001 and 2005 they saw tell-tale grooves cut by water bursting out of a crater wall and flowing between boulders. Researchers had previously found evidence that ancient lakes once dotted the Martian surface and vast quantities of water are locked up as ice at the planet's frosty poles. The flowing water would have quickly boiled and evaporated despite temperatures ranging from -8C and -100C because of the extremely low pressure. But the fact that it was there ups the odds for life on the red planet.

Extinction fears

In July, scientists warned extinctions are happening at 100 to 1,000 times the natural rate in geological history. Nearly a quarter of mammals, a third of amphibians and more than a tenth of bird species are threatened. Climate change is expected to force a further 15% to 37% of species over the edge. In November we learned that the current rate of extraction from the seas is predicted to cause the collapse of all the world's fish and shellfish stocks by 2048. Another study suggested that tigers would become extinct in just two decades.

Mature mums

The bounds of reproductive medicine were pushed a little further in July when a child psychiatrist became the oldest woman in Britain to have a baby. Patricia Rashbrook, 63, had the boy by caesarean section after receiving fertility treatment in eastern Europe. The birth provoked criticism from groups who said that her age would mean she was not physically able to bring him up.

Neanderthal refuge

Neanderthals may have clung on in Europe until as recently as 24,000 years ago - 11,000 years later than scientists had thought. A cave that was perhaps their last European refuge was revealed in a study published in September. Gorham's cave in Gibraltar was home to 15 neanderthals.

Read More...

What is your business doing about climate change?

A survey released by the Carbon Trust today suggests that most UK consumers want to know the carbon footprint of the products they buy, and are more likely to buy a product if they know it has a low ecological impact.

In the survey, 74% of UK consumers agreed that climate change was a serious issue but the same number thought businesses were not doing enough to tackle their carbon emissions; 66% wanted to know the footprint of the goods they bought with 67% preferring low-carbon products.

Euan Murray of the Carbon Trust said that a new type of low-carbon consumer was emerging on the back of rising concern over climate change. "These are people that want to use their spending power to make a difference and feel like they are making their contribution also," he said.

The consumers surveyed by the Carbon Trust said that environmental concerns came into more than half of their of decisions when buying cars, electronic goods, and food and drink.

"As people learn more about the issues, more consumers understand that this is something they can do that helps them play their part, then more consumers will differentiate based on carbon footprint and environmental performance of businesses."

The survey also showed that 64% of consumers would prefer to buy from companies with a low carbon footprint.

Last week, Sir Nicholas Stern published an analysis of the potential economic impacts of climate change. He forecast that, if left unchecked, the costs could cost the world up to 20% of its GDP.

Mr Murray said the report presented good opportunities for businesses financially and in terms of reputation. "By reducing your carbon footprint as a business, you're typically reducing your energy consumption and that means you save," he said. "Then, by working with other companies in your supply chain, that means you can work to reduce the carbon footprint of the products that ends up in the consumer's hands. We believe companies will be able to grow market share on that basis."

Michael Rea, strategy director at the Carbon Trust, said: "Now is the time to take action and Governments, businesses and consumers all need to work together to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change. We believe that the businesses that embrace the challenge will succeed. Inaction is no longer an option."

Read More...

Tony Blair: Save the world, become a scientist

I like to think that I’m well on my way to becoming a wizened, cynical hack that holds public figures to account (stop sniggering at the back – I said I like to think). But there are some things that still secretly impress me.

Last week, I interviewed British prime minister Tony Blair on the eve of a talk he was due to give on science. The fourth in a series of speeches on securing Britain’s future, many pundits are saying that this is his goodbye tour, where he points out how wonderful he has been and show that he still cares about real issues. Rather than leadership battles and invading other countries, I assume.

Political press officers are a hard-nosed bunch so I didn’t get a huge chunk of time with Blair, to be honest. Fifteen minutes of very stage-managed time on a train to Didcot, to be precise. He previewed the main points of his speech, which I wrote up for the paper:

Irrational public debates and scare stories about science will damage the development of research in Britain if left unchecked, the prime minister believes.

Speaking to the Guardian ahead of a speech on science, Tony Blair said that he would stand up for science against the distrust engendered by historic problems such as the BSE crisis and the scare over the MMR vaccine.

"We've got to understand the importance of science to the future of the economy and to the future of society," he said. "In my view, for the next generation, development of science is as important as economic stability for future prosperity."

His talk in Oxford today is part of a series of speeches on securing Britain's future. Mr Blair will raise issues on public trust in science and what he sees as hurdles to attracting more young people to subjects such as physics, chemistry and engineering.

"I want to stick up for science and say why it's important and why we have rational debates about scientific issues rather than allow irrational debate," he said. "We've made that a very strong part of what the government's about and will continue to do so. The damage it can do otherwise is rather frightening."

He cited the scare over the triple vaccine, MMR, in recent years and the BSE epidemic among cattle in 1990s as examples. "Scientists got the blame [for BSE] and I think that's ludicrous. It wasn't scientists feeding rubbish to the animals, it was scientists who had to investigate and finally did discover what was going on."

Upcoming technologies such as genetics would throw up plenty of ethical issues, which would need careful consideration by a scientifically-literate public.

Public distrust in the past had led to a loss of research expertise in genetic modification. "The GM thing shows you can very suddenly lose a whole swath of the public ... [but] if you look around the world at the moment, bioscience is obviously where we should be heading."

Mr Blair argued that the potential for GM crops in Britain was limited for practical reasons. "If you look around the world to where GM crops are being developed most, it's where you have vast farming tracts. The future agriculture for this country is more likely to be in organic niche farming."

But he added that this should not prevent the UK from taking a lead on research in the area.

The speech will also outline how to encourage young people to consider taking science subjects at school and university. "There is a point in getting people enthused and saying, this is where the glittering prizes are. A lot of young people are interested, but they don't see it as a career except as a boffin. They don't see it as a career in which you develop one of the leading edge companies. They see science as what you do in a laboratory."

I also asked him about the Stern report on the economics of climate change, published last week. I wanted to know whether he would be taking that personally to George Bush and arguing that now, America had even less reason to avoid acting on climate change.

Blair’s too used to this question to give a straight answer, of course, but he did infer that it’s a long game with the US on climate change. He mentioned talking to Schwarzenegger about joining the EU carbon-trading scheme, of engaging with companies and other states in the US.

He also said that, while the Bush administration’s priorities are based around energy security, American companies will move quickly once they recognise the economic benefits involved in developing technology to tackle climate change. Indeed, many US companies are already spurring ahead.

I also raised the issue of a British astronaut with him, as per my last post. He laughed at this and said he could see himself as the first Brit on the Moon when he retired. Unfortunately, his mind was too stuck in the paradigm of his forthcoming speech and his messages were all about climate change. He called that the new Moon landings in terms of the inspirational effect they could have on the young. Save the world, he was saying, by becoming a scientist.

It's strange that a government so famously good at PR can't see the problem with that. The nitty-gritty of climate change is hardly going to inspire legions of kids today, a generation of people bred with MTV attention spans. Getting anyone to the stage where they see the genuine beauty of science will take something profoundly exciting. The prism through which today’s young see the world needs more than worthiness to inspire them. Sorry to say it and I wish it weren’t true. I'm sticking with astronauts. At least to get them through the door.

Evan Harris, the Lib-Dem science spokesperson will give his thoughts on Tony Blair’s speech on Monday’s Guardian science podcast. Worth a listen.

Read More...

Exposing the lies of the climate change deniers

The Royal Society (the UK’s academy of science) has written to the oil company ExxonMobil to insist it stop funding climate change deniers. These groups (nothing more than PR fronts for the oil industry) have created so much doubt and confusion about limate change that the environmentalist George Monbiot argues they have set back action on the issue by a decade. And, all the while, the world desperately runs out of time.

A key passage from the Royal Society letter to ExxonMobil reads:

I was very surprised to read the following passage from the section on Environmental performance under the sub-heading of “Uncertainty and Risk” (p.23) in the “Corporate Citizenship Report”.

“While assessments such as those of the IPCC have expressed growing confidence that recent warming can be attributed to increases in greenhouse gases, these conclusions rely on expert judgement rather than objective, reproducible, statistical methods. Taken together, gaps in the scientific basis for theoretical climate models and the interplay of significant natural variability make it very difficult to determine objectively the extent to which recent climate changes might be the result of human action”

These statements also appear, of course, in the ExxonMobil document on “Tomorrow’s Energy” which was published in February. As I mentioned in our meeting in July, these statements are very misleading. The “expert judgement” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was actually based on objective and quantitative analyses and methods, including advance statistical appraisals, which carefully accounted for the interplay of natural variability, and which have been independently reproduced.

And there you have a good example of how these PR firms create confusion. On reading ExxonMobil’s report, anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the IPCC were a bunch of astrologers plucking ideas on climate change out of the air. If you had never heard of the IPCC before, would you believe that they their judgements were scientific and proper?

Do just a moment of Googling and it's easy to discover that the IPCC is an august group that sets the scientific standard in climate research. But how many people will bother to look that up? And, of those that don't, how many will be left confused?

Is there really a debate amongst scientists about the reality of human-influenced climate change? The answer is no. But the damage done by ExxonMobil (among others) done by creating the doubt in the first place is tough to repair.

Big oil has a lot to lose with any cutbacks on carbon emissions imposed by legislation to deal with climate change. So it’s no surprise that they have a vested interest in sewing doubt about whether climate change is really a problem. They do it by labelling any research that doesn’t support their proposition “junk science” and labelling anything that doubts climate change “sound science”.

The anti-climate change lobby groups (mostly US-based) have a range of impressive-sounding names meant to instil the idea that they are academic think tanks or grassroots citizens’ organisations: TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and the Congress of Racial Equality, for example.

Why scientists haven’t got more riled about this, and earlier, is anybody’s guess. Much of Monbiot’s thesis is well-known, if not in well publicised. Relying on the slow and steady scientific method to convince the rest of the world that climate change is happening isn’t a good idea - perhaps scientists (and journalists) need to use the same campaigning tactics used by big oil, as described by Monbiot in an extract from his new book in the Guardian. The Royal Society should be applauded for using its clout (there are many climate scientists in its ranks) to point out the hypocrisy and lies touted by climate change deniers.

Most surprising (and sinister) is the description of how the climate change denial industry sprung from Big Tobacco’s desperate attempts to discredit research suggesting that smoking caused lung cancer.

Read Monbiot’s new book (called Heat and published by Allen Lane) and open your eyes to the distortion that is possible with a sinister PR machine that will vociferously argue for anything as long as the price is right.

Read More...

A problem far bigger than global terrorism

Jonathan Freedland's clear and persuasive writing is always a rewarding read. Today, he turns his attention to climate change, arguing that former US vice-president Al Gore's new film, An Inconvenient Truth, finally made him realise what the biggest political issue of our time is. About time, too.

The UK government's chief scientific adviser, David King, has made climate change a central plank of his tenure, saying famously that it is a bigger problem than global terrorism. And he's dead right.

The amount of carbon in the atmosphere (in the form of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane) is currently around 380 parts per million (ppm). Various countries want to limit future emissions so that no-one gets above 450ppm, but this is proving difficult. And anyway, no one country lives in a vacuum, so controlling the UK's emissions does nothing to combat the huge rise in CO2 predicted from rapidly-developing countries such as India and China. No-one can rightly deny their desire to industrialise and raise large parts of their population out of poverty. But that does involve building lots more CO2-producing power stations.

The critical figure is 550ppm. If we get to this much carbon in the atmosphere, global temperature will rise, on average, by 3 Celsius. Doesn't sound much but Prof King said that this would lead to a worldwide drop in cereal crops of between 20m and 400m tonnes, put 400 million more people at risk of hunger, and put up to 3 billion people at risk of flooding and without access to fresh water supplies. And that's a best-case scenario. There are more details in an article I wrote for the paper earlier in the year.

Climate change is happening, like it or not. Exactly how far it will go might be the cause of some debate amongst scientists but there's no doubt that it is happening. And we can't consider the arguments at leisure anyway. Peter Smith, a professor of sustainable energy at the University of Nottingham argued recently that we only have 10 years to come up with climate-friendly solutions to generating energy, for example. By 2026, he says it be too late to do anything substanstive in slowing global warming.

If it took a film by Al Gore to persuade someone as informed as Freedland that climate change needs immediate attention, we've obviously got a longer way to go than I previously thought with getting the general public on board.

The problem is that a lot of climate change news tends to be so negative that people slip into despair. What can we do, they ask. We need to get more pro-active with solutions in the climate change message, something Freedland says that Gore does in his film. It's something the Guardian's new environment web site is trying to do. For now, I say get militant - drag everyone you know to go and watch this film. Details of show times here.

Read More...