- Email: [email protected]
Plague of plagues
Letters– Medical reporting From Mark MacDiarmid In discussing the dance between the media and big pharma, and the distorted reporting of medical advances that can result, Peter Aldhous looks for remedies in self-regulation and consumer pressure (6 January, p 17). He shies away from suggesting more formal regulation of this emerging public health nightmare – perhaps because of the prevailing wisdom that the global economic freight train does its thing best in the absence of non-market-based interventions. Yet in one activity that is central to market economies this prevailing wisdom is not applied. The raising of capital through publicly traded shares is almost always a highly regulated affair, and the dissemination of information through prospectuses and other invitations is controlled by stock exchange rules and laws administered by government watchdogs. This is done to protect investors and to promote commercial stability.
Surely the reliability of public health information is at least as important as the protection of investors in equity markets, and should be regulated accordingly. Katoomba, New South Wales, Australia
No evidence for bias From Richard Laming, British Soft Drinks Association You report a study that found research funded by the soft drinks 20 | NewScientist | 27 January 2007
070127_R_Letters.indd 20
industry has different results from research funded by other sources, and go on to suggest that there may be bias in the research itself (13 January, p 4). This inference is unjustified, for two reasons. First, there is the choice of which research to fund. The authors of the study raise, but do not test, the hypothesis that research likely to be helpful to industry is more likely to attract its funding. They therefore have no grounds to reject this hypothesis in favour of the suggestion that it is the source of funding that determines the outcome of the research. Maintaining a diversity of sources of funding for scientific research will ensure that a wider range of research projects can attract funding. Secondly, there is the conduct of the research itself. The whole point of the scientific method is to ensure that research results are not influenced by the sources of funding. Public scrutiny, including the processes of publication and peer review, prevent this from occurring. The authors of the study put forward no evidence that such influence has occurred, so there are no grounds for suggesting bias. The soft drinks industry is required by regulatory authorities to demonstrate the safety of its products and so has an extensive commitment to credible and authoritative science. London, UK
Plague of plagues From Larry Stoter I read the item on the search for lethal DNA sequences with increasing puzzlement (6 January, p 12). What possible justification could there be for engaging in research with such horrendous potential? Splice a DNA sequence lethal to humans into a common virulent virus or bacterium and you have the plague to end all plagues. Has researcher Greg Hampikian not considered where
his research could lead? While I am sure he does not intend to develop a bioweapon, I am less confident about the US Department of Defense, which you report is funding the research. Hitchin, Hertfordshire, UK
Make the most of waste From Alex Scott Thanks for taking on the hugely important and complex topic of how we tackle consumer waste (6 January, p 31). Ed Douglas
The editor writes: ● Hampikian has considered this. He says the US government needs to understand what these sequences are in order to develop drugs against them should they ever fall into terrorists’ hands.
Bush fire burden From Ian Jackson When countries assess their annual carbon dioxide emissions, they count up their cars and power stations, but bush fires are not included – presumably because they are deemed to be events beyond human control. In Australia, Victoria alone sees several hundred thousand hectares burn each year; in both 2004 and the present summer, the figure has been over 1 million hectares. How many powerstation-years’ worth of CO2 emissions does this represent? As I look out of the window, visibility is very poor because of the thick bush-fire smoke cloud that blankets about a tenth of Australia. Meanwhile, government TV advertising makes us feel guilty for the CO2 we emit when we leave an extra light on. This seems disproportionate. Couldn’t a fraction of the billions of dollars earmarked for nuclear power stations be used to reduce real gas emissions – by stopping forests from burning? Let’s have serious planning to prevent forest fires rather than rely on the desperate efforts of volunteer firefighters. There would be obvious gains from reducing the toll on wildlife, livestock and property, but shouldn’t fire-prone countries that make the effort gain carbon credits too? Drouin West, Victoria, Australia
picked out some key points, but if products are to be positive for the environment, rather than just a little less bad, then there are only two ways to go: designing products so that they are readily recyclable or making them biodegradable. The concept is known as cradle-to-cradle production and does not necessarily require consumers to change their behaviour. The next wave of materials coming out of the chemical industry are bioplastics from corn and other crops that can be used to make biodegradable products. Oil is getting more expensive and the chemical industry is looking to keep its costs low. Economics, not designers with undefined ideas of designing “emotionally satisfying” products, will drive these changes. Biodegradable products can be considered as nutrients that can be thrown away. They could even be beneficial for our wider environment. Hughenden Valley, Buckinghamshire, UK From John Thorn Ed Douglas says that it is price competition between retailers that makes it cheaper to replace rather than repair. It seems to me that the root of the problem is that almost any consumer item bought in the developed world is www.newscientist.com
19/1/07 5:44:35 pm
Surely the reliability of public health information is at least as important as the protection of investors in equity markets, and should be regulated accordingly. Katoomba, New South Wales, Australia
No evidence for bias From Richard Laming, British Soft Drinks Association You report a study that found research funded by the soft drinks 20 | NewScientist | 27 January 2007
070127_R_Letters.indd 20
industry has different results from research funded by other sources, and go on to suggest that there may be bias in the research itself (13 January, p 4). This inference is unjustified, for two reasons. First, there is the choice of which research to fund. The authors of the study raise, but do not test, the hypothesis that research likely to be helpful to industry is more likely to attract its funding. They therefore have no grounds to reject this hypothesis in favour of the suggestion that it is the source of funding that determines the outcome of the research. Maintaining a diversity of sources of funding for scientific research will ensure that a wider range of research projects can attract funding. Secondly, there is the conduct of the research itself. The whole point of the scientific method is to ensure that research results are not influenced by the sources of funding. Public scrutiny, including the processes of publication and peer review, prevent this from occurring. The authors of the study put forward no evidence that such influence has occurred, so there are no grounds for suggesting bias. The soft drinks industry is required by regulatory authorities to demonstrate the safety of its products and so has an extensive commitment to credible and authoritative science. London, UK
Plague of plagues From Larry Stoter I read the item on the search for lethal DNA sequences with increasing puzzlement (6 January, p 12). What possible justification could there be for engaging in research with such horrendous potential? Splice a DNA sequence lethal to humans into a common virulent virus or bacterium and you have the plague to end all plagues. Has researcher Greg Hampikian not considered where
his research could lead? While I am sure he does not intend to develop a bioweapon, I am less confident about the US Department of Defense, which you report is funding the research. Hitchin, Hertfordshire, UK
Make the most of waste From Alex Scott Thanks for taking on the hugely important and complex topic of how we tackle consumer waste (6 January, p 31). Ed Douglas
The editor writes: ● Hampikian has considered this. He says the US government needs to understand what these sequences are in order to develop drugs against them should they ever fall into terrorists’ hands.
Bush fire burden From Ian Jackson When countries assess their annual carbon dioxide emissions, they count up their cars and power stations, but bush fires are not included – presumably because they are deemed to be events beyond human control. In Australia, Victoria alone sees several hundred thousand hectares burn each year; in both 2004 and the present summer, the figure has been over 1 million hectares. How many powerstation-years’ worth of CO2 emissions does this represent? As I look out of the window, visibility is very poor because of the thick bush-fire smoke cloud that blankets about a tenth of Australia. Meanwhile, government TV advertising makes us feel guilty for the CO2 we emit when we leave an extra light on. This seems disproportionate. Couldn’t a fraction of the billions of dollars earmarked for nuclear power stations be used to reduce real gas emissions – by stopping forests from burning? Let’s have serious planning to prevent forest fires rather than rely on the desperate efforts of volunteer firefighters. There would be obvious gains from reducing the toll on wildlife, livestock and property, but shouldn’t fire-prone countries that make the effort gain carbon credits too? Drouin West, Victoria, Australia
picked out some key points, but if products are to be positive for the environment, rather than just a little less bad, then there are only two ways to go: designing products so that they are readily recyclable or making them biodegradable. The concept is known as cradle-to-cradle production and does not necessarily require consumers to change their behaviour. The next wave of materials coming out of the chemical industry are bioplastics from corn and other crops that can be used to make biodegradable products. Oil is getting more expensive and the chemical industry is looking to keep its costs low. Economics, not designers with undefined ideas of designing “emotionally satisfying” products, will drive these changes. Biodegradable products can be considered as nutrients that can be thrown away. They could even be beneficial for our wider environment. Hughenden Valley, Buckinghamshire, UK From John Thorn Ed Douglas says that it is price competition between retailers that makes it cheaper to replace rather than repair. It seems to me that the root of the problem is that almost any consumer item bought in the developed world is www.newscientist.com
19/1/07 5:44:35 pm