Uncertain atmosphere
Referring to our study “Inverse modelling of national and European CH4 emissions using the atmosphere zoom model TM5″ by P. Bergamaschi et al (Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, vol 5, p 2431), Fred Pearce reports that “Now two teams that have monitored concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere say they have convincing evidence that the figures by many countries are wrong, especially for methane. Among the worst offenders are the UK…and France…” (24 June, p 10). This statement, however, is not supported by our work.
Our study suggests that the methane emissions of some European countries could be higher than the official values reported to the secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), but for other countries the emissions are lower and the total emissions of all 15 EU countries (those that were members before 2004) were found to be close to the UNFCCC values.
As comprehensively discussed in our paper, however, it is very important to consider the large uncertainties in both approaches.
The uncertainties of the methane emissions reported to UNFCCC are estimated at 20 to 50 per cent. However, our approach also has significant uncertainties. Our study primarily demonstrated the feasibility of setting up a verification system. To reduce the uncertainties in the “top-down” estimates we need a much denser network of atmospheric measurements and the application of different, independent atmospheric models.
Right to investigate
Considering the charges that may soon be levelled at Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who published research showing an association between autism in children and the MMR vaccine, New 杏吧原创 is surely right to defend the general principle that doctors should be free to voice their concerns (17 June, p 5). But along with that freedom comes responsibility. Against a background of alleged misrepresentation and misconduct, it seems entirely fitting that the UK General Medical Council (GMC), a body whose purpose is to protect the health and safety of the public by upholding proper standards, should investigate all aspects of the Wakefield affair.
It is a gross oversimplification to equate the hypothetical charges in this case with an attempt to suppress the legitimate publication of novel, controversial or even disturbing research findings. After all, the recent Korean cloning scandal should have forcefully reminded us that there is nothing sacrosanct about publication in a peer-reviewed journal 鈥� it’s the integrity of actions beyond the message that really matters. On the other hand, if the GMC’s actions were motivated by some kind of sinister, politically inspired witch-hunt, then that really would be a story worthy of editorial comment.
No harm in magic
I was surprised to note that the authors of Comment and Analysis take such a dim view of magic and such an elevated view of the role of Christianity in the development of science (24 June, p 25). Sir Isaac Newton’s interest in various occult subjects is well known. Most of the magicians of my acquaintance have a strong interest in science. Many of them have degrees in various sciences and in mathematics. I note that the majority of papers submitted to the Koestler department of parapsychology at Edinburgh University, UK, exhibit more than a passing acquaintance with various interpretations of quantum physics.
Christianity seems to have been rather averse to scientific inquiry until the Reformation, and we must not forget the enormous contributions made to science by Greek, Hindu, Arabic, and other cultures. Insights from such cultures were often what provoked developments in what we call “western science”.
Victim embryos
John Harris says that there are “no victims, no rights are violated nor interests compromised” by the wide-open reproductive choices he propounds (17 June, p 24). We can argue about when the embryo acquires its own rights, but Harris’s baby will arrive with a prior and overwhelming expectation of perfect health and even specific physical characteristics, rather than the usual rather more blank canvas on which to make its mark in the world. Sounds like a victim to me.
From Roger Goodman
Our enlightened 21st-century minds rationalise and justify the aberrant act of mass-producing embryos with no intention of letting most of them see daylight by proclaiming our empathy towards the childless. For most of humankind’s existence however, societies would have argued that the needs of the community as a whole, rather than of individual sad couples, should take precedence.
Collins Creek, New South Wales, Australia
The net's 'dark fibre'
Celeste Biever reports on the threat to net neutrality posed by big telecoms companies (24 June, p 30). The one thing missing from the report was the issue of “dark fibre”.
I think it is fair to say that most telecoms companies use fibre-optic cable these days rather than copper cable, and when they lay such cable, they frequently lay far more than they need because it occupies so much less space and because they always have an eye on the future. Such unused fibre is known as “dark” in the industry.
Some industry analysts estimate that up to 95 per cent of the fibre in place now is “dark”, meaning that the telecoms companies have 20 times as much capacity as they actually use. So why, I find myself wondering, are we being told that the internet is “creaking” under the load?
Frontiers of physics
Troy Barston thinks physicists are asking questions which are too esoteric for practical use and suggests a “white paper” to decide the direction of research (17 June, p 26). This misunderstands the nature of fundamental scientific research and the breadth of physics.
It is unfortunate that in the popular mind physics frontiers are limited to finding the tiniest building blocks and the highest energies. The vast majority of us are exploring other frontiers: condensed matter, plasmas, high precision, fluid mechanics, evolution, complexity, chaos, meso-scale, emergent phenomena and more. How can a “white paper” hope to manage the sheer breadth of physics research?
If anything is wrong with science today, it is the over-institutionalisation and excessive dependence on funding from taxes. “White papers” and political bets on “winners” stifle individuality and hinder true progress.
Vanishing together
You suggest that “If one half of an entangled pair of particles were to cross the event horizon and disappear into the singularity while the other did not, then this entanglement would be destroyed” (10 June, p 34).
Why should it? Since other manipulations of one half of an entangled pair result in a corresponding effect to the other half, quite regardless of intervening distance, isn’t it possible that the entanglement would remain, and both halves of the particle pair would “disappear into the singularity”?
Soggy UK edition
Having inadvertently dropped a UK edition of New 杏吧原创 in the bath and then repeated the same mistake in New Zealand, I can verify that the Australasian version can be dried out and remains readable, unlike the soggy papier m芒ch茅 that the UK edition is reduced to. Different paper rather than different content, I assume.
For the record
鈥� Chris Mason of University College London was incorrectly referred to as Chris Major in the news item on stem cells from blood (24 June, p 18).
鈥� Our article on “faster” vaccines stated that “For each amino acid, there are up to four possible codons” (3 June, p 16). Reader Keith Bradnam points out that arginine and serine have six possible codons.
Master dome builder
According to the information disseminated by Ely Cathedral in the east of England, King’s College Chapel’s fan vaulted roof in Cambridge and the even wider one over the Lady Chapel of Ely Cathedral were built as learning exercises for the building of such a roof over the nave of the cathedral, which is wider still (10 June, p 42). It is further stated that the sacristan who controlled, designed and even initiated such activities was John of Wisbech. He died, as did most of his crew, in the Black Death of 1348, hence the nave still has a wooden roof. This would appear to be a little earlier than the date of 1501 mentioned by your correspondent.
Vaccine shortage
I would like to add a few stark figures on the availability of vaccine for H5N1 influenza (17 June, p 10). If every factory producing the current vaccine based on hens eggs is working, there will only be enough to protect 112 million people each year from a global population of 6500 million. Although we can treat 900 million people with the standard 15 micrograms of vaccine for a single seasonal influenza virus, this must be divided by 12 for bird flu because US trials show it takes 12 times the normal dose to immunise against H5N1.
An aluminium hydroxide adjuvant makes the vaccine 3 times as potent but even then one must divide 900 by 4. However, the yield of active H5N1 vaccine is only 25 to 50 per cent of that for seasonal vaccine, so at best one must divide 900 by 8, which gives 112 million doses.
Only the US is attempting to make up the huge shortfall by investing $1 billion in vaccine production and several more billions on pushing through the new generation of vaccines. The public in the UK and elsewhere need to ask why their governments are not doing more.
The higher picture
I was disappointed to see that while the magazine’s cover art gave a breathtaking image of an eco-friendly metropolis, complete with people-carrying tubes and exciting wind turbines modelled into skyscrapers, the accompanying articles suggest that the only way forward is to abandon the idea of high-rises completely and move to less dense “medium-rise” buildings (17 June, p 36 and 43).
However, high-rise buildings are an extremely efficient way to pack a large number of people into a relatively modest space. Wouldn’t the very nature of medium-rise developments mean that they occupy a much larger area to house the same number of people as high-rise cities do? And wouldn’t this offset any advantages that the novel design would bring?
Living in an island state which is immensely shy of high-rise developments, I see first hand the effects of urban sprawl on a chronically limited supply of land. Instead of demonising compact skyscraper cities, efforts should be directed to designs turning these “people-packers” into the eco-friendly high-rise cities your magnificent cover art portrays.
Who can we trust?
Bill Joy highlights real concerns with the proliferation of ever more powerful technologies (17 June, p 54). However, his suggested solutions seem somewhat naive. His argument is founded on an implicit distinction between “us” and “malign individuals” 鈥� but that is obviously never a clear divide. Can we really be confident that the “us” he refers to 鈥� US, European and some other governments, military organisations and large corporations, or factions therein 鈥� are completely safe and trustworthy, given the numerous documented breaches of trust they have all committed and attempted to hide from scrutiny?
Joy’s argument that market forces would be a better regulator of risk ignores the fact that governments and military organisations are generally unaffected by markets, so will develop technologies according to their own, market-independent agendas. Restricting emerging technologies to those already at the top table will greatly increase the asymmetric distribution of power and wealth, which can only heighten tensions between the rich and poor worlds.
As much as Joy may like to retreat into an information-protectionist world, our best hope is actually through increased openness and transparency. However, balanced with this, to paraphrase, “the price of technology is eternal vigilance” 鈥� which will have profound effects on our conceptions of privacy and freedom.
Memories of rain
In the article about Barentsburg in Svalbard I read that “Last summer, it rained for the first time in living memory” (17 June, p 56). I must wonder whether Barentsburg is blessed by a surprisingly dry microclimate, or whether living memory doesn’t go as far back as the summer of 2003, because back then I spent a week in a camp just across the Isfjord, and summer rain seemed an extremely and unpleasantly common experience. Which isn’t surprising, considering that Svalbard is sited at the northern reaches of the Gulfstream and summer temperatures above freezing are perfectly normal.