Feed aggregator
Out with “minister for Adani” – in with a minister for renewables?
Consumers vs the empire: The economics favour partial grid defection
UK govt launches £246m battery storage investment round
Weatherill lets fly at right wing attack against renewables
Innovation, disruption and the utility business model
NT indigenous communities begin shift to hybrid solar and storage
Fossil fuels and Australian tools: It’s time to go fully electric
Scientists 3D print brain-like tissue
The trials, tribulations and absolute joys of electric motorcycling
New diesel and petrol cars face 2040 ban in UK
On a mission to Mars (with Hawaii stopover)
Call for action to protect Scotland's endangered capercaillie birds
Survey finds Highlands population has halved since 1990s, believed to be because of climate change and human activity
Conservationists have called for action to protect the capercaillie, one of Scotland’s rarest and most treasured birds, after data showed its population had fallen 50% in just over two decades.
An extensive field survey of capercaillie breeding grounds in the Highlands estimated a population of only 1,114 birds between 2015 and last year, compared with an estimate of 2,200 between 1992 and 1994.
Continue reading...Scientific integrity must be defended, our planet depends on it
Science is the best method we have for determining what is likely to be true. The knowledge gained from this process benefits society in a multitude of ways, including promoting evidence-based decision-making and management. Nowhere is this more important than conservation, as the intensifying impacts of the Anthropocene increasingly threaten the survival of species.
But truth can be inconvenient: conservation goals sometimes seem at odds with social or economic interests. As a result, scientific evidence may be ignored or suppressed for political reasons. This has led to growing global trends of attacking scientific integrity.
Recent assaults on science and scientists under Donald Trump’s US administration are particularly extreme, but extend far more broadly. Rather than causing scientists to shrink from public discussions, these abuses have spurred them and their professional societies to defend scientific integrity.
Among these efforts was the recent March for Science. The largest pro-science demonstration in history, this event took place in more than 600 locations around the world.
We propose, in a new paper in Conservation Biology, that scientists share their experiences of defending scientific integrity across borders to achieve more lasting success. We summarise eight reforms to protect scientific integrity, drawn from lessons learned in Australia, Canada and the US.
March for science in Melbourne. John Englart (Takver) What is scientific integrity?Scientific integrity is the ability to perform, use and disseminate scientific findings without censorship or political interference. It requires that government scientists can communicate their research to the public and media. Such outbound scientific communication is threatened by policies limiting scientists’ ability to publish, publicise or even mention their research findings.
Public access to websites or other sources of government scientific data have also been curtailed. Limiting access to taxpayer-funded information in this way undermines citizens’ ability to participate in decisions that affect them, or even to know why decisions are being made.
News of the rediscovery of the shrub Hibbertia fumana (left) in Australia was delayed until a development at the site of rediscovery had been permitted. Political considerations delayed protection of the wolverine (right) in the United States. Wolverine - U.S. National and Park Service. _Hibbertia fumana_ - A. OrmeA recent case of scientific information being suppressed concerns the rediscovery, early in 2017, of the plant Hibbertia fumana in New South Wales. Last seen in 1823, 370 plants were found.
Rather than publicly celebrate the news, the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage was reportedly asked to suppress the news until after a rail freight plan that overlapped with the plants’ location had been approved.
Protecting scientists’ right to speak outScientists employed by government agencies often cannot discuss research that might relate to their employer’s policies. While it may not be appropriate for scientists to weigh in on policy recommendations – and, of course, constant media commentaries would be chaos – the balance has tipped too far towards restriction. Many scientists cannot publicly refer to their research, or that of others, let alone explain the significance of the findings.
To counter this, we need policies that support scientific integrity, an environment of transparency and the public’s right to access scientific information. Scientists’ right to speak freely should be included in collective bargaining agreements.
Scientific integrity requires transparency and accountability. Information from non-government scientists, through submitted comments or reviews of draft policies, can inform the policy process.
Although science is only one source of influence on policy, democratic processes are undermined when policymakers limit scrutiny of decision-making processes and the role that evidence plays in them.
Let science inform policyIndependent reviews of new policy are a vital part of making evidence-based decisions. There is room to broaden these reviews, inviting external organisations to give expert advice on proposed or existing policies. This also means transparently acknowledging any perceived or actual vested interests.
Australian governments often invite scientists and others to contribute their thoughts on proposed policy. The Finkel Review, for example, received 390 written submissions. Of course, agencies might not have time to respond individually to each submission. But if a policy is eventually made that seems to contradict the best available science, that agency should be required to account for that decision.
Finally, agencies should be proactively engaging with scientific groups at all stages of the process.
Active advocacyStrengthening scientific integrity policies when many administrations are publicly hostile to science is challenging. Scientists are stuck reactively defending protective policies. Instead, they should be actively advocating for their expansion.
The goal is to institutionalise a culture of scientific integrity in the development and implementation of conservation policies.
A transnational movement to defend science will improve the odds that good practices will be retained and strengthened under more science-friendly administrations.
The monarch butterfly, now endangered in Canada, and at risk more broadly. Jeremy KerrMany regard science as apolitical. Even the suggestion of publicly advocating for integrity or evidence-based policy and management makes some scientists deeply uncomfortable. It is telling that providing factual information for policy decisions and public information can be labelled as partisan. Nevertheless, recent research suggests that public participation by scientists, if properly framed, does not harm their credibility.
Scientists can operate objectively in conducting research, interpreting discoveries and publicly explaining the significance of the results. Recommendations for how to walk such a tricky, but vital, line are readily available.
Scientists and scientific societies must not shrink from their role, which is more important than ever. They have a responsibility to engage broadly with the public to affirm that science is indispensable for evidence-based policies and regulations. These critical roles for scientists help ensure that policy processes unfold in plain sight, and consequently help sustain functioning, democratic societies.
The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr Carlos Carroll, a conservation biologist at the Klamath Center for Conservation Research.
Euan Ritchie receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Euan Ritchie is a Director (Media Working Group) of the Ecological Society of Australia, and a member of the Australian Mammal Society.
James Watson receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Jeremy Kerr receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through a Discovery Grant and Discovery Accelerator Supplement.
Martine Maron receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the National Environmental Science Programme, the Science for Nature and People Partnership, and the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. She is a Director of BirdLife Australia and a Governor of WWF Australia.
Mega-farms’ devastating effects go far beyond the chicken shed | Letters
The “unnoticed” expansion of mega-farms raises serious concerns about farm animal welfare and our food system (Mega-farms transforming UK countryside, 18 July). Even less visible is the air pollution generated by intensively housed animals and the devastating impact it is having on nearby wildlife.
At high concentrations, such as from these mega-farms, ammonia and other nitrogen emissions cause direct damage to lichens, mosses and other plants, including bleaching and discolouration.
Continue reading...Solar energy and moonshine politics | Brief letters
Did I invent the solar panels scheme which paid a generous feed-in tariff to install panels on your roof? I think I may also have imagined a green deal which was so advantageous that nobody much took it up. I fear this new initiative (UK ‘on verge of clean energy revolution’, 25 July) is going to place a similar strain on my mental faculties when it vanishes without trace under the label “green crap”.
Murray Marshall
Salisbury
• Paul Brownsey (Letters, 24 July) takes a negative view of civil partnerships that is not shared by many same-sex and heterosexual couples, who view them as a way of conferring the same legal and financial protection that is provided by marriage, without taking on board all the religious and societal baggage of that institution. As such many see them as superior rather than inferior to marriage.
John Mills
Stoneleigh, Warwickshire
Astronaut shares 'burrito of awesomeness' aurora video
Google enters race for nuclear fusion technology
The tech giant and a leading US fusion company develop a new computer algorithm that significantly speeds up progress towards clean, limitless energy
Google and a leading nuclear fusion company have developed a new computer algorithm which has significantly speeded up experiments on plasmas, the ultra-hot balls of gas at the heart of the energy technology.
Tri Alpha Energy, which is backed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, has raised over $500m (£383m) in investment. It has worked with Google Research to create what they call the Optometrist algorithm. This enables high-powered computation to be combined with human judgement to find new and better solutions to complex problems.
Continue reading...Vote in the Observer Ethical Awards 2017
Vote in the Observer Ethical Awards, now in their 11th year. You can vote in as many or as few categories as you like using the form below.
Continue reading...Trump proposes scrapping Obama-era fracking rule on water pollution
Bureau of Land Management says it is moving to discard 2015 regulation as it duplicates state rules and ‘imposes unjustified costs’ on oil and gas industry
The Trump administration has proposed scrapping an Obama-era rule that aimed to ensure fracking for oil and gas does not pollute water supplies.
Related: Pennsylvania nuns oppose fracking gas pipeline through 'holy' land
Continue reading...