For the record
鈥� We misidentified a photo as showing the Microscopy, Electrochemistry and Conductivity Analyzer from the Phoenix Mars spacecraft (28 July, p 45). It actually shows part of the mass spectrometer for another instrument on Phoenix. Also, we said that Viking 2 landed on Mars on 3 September 1996: it was in 1976.
鈥� We said that flames propagate so quickly through mixtures of gases that the changes in pressure create shock waves leading to an explosion (4 August, p 38). In fact, shock waves travel supersonically, much faster than the fireballs being described, and do not form part of John Dold’s hypothesis.
鈥� Apologies to Alan Kostelecky, whose name we misspelled in the feature on neutrinos (4 August, p 30).
Living fire
Richard Findlay’s enthusiasm for fire (28 July, p 23) leads him to repeat the common error that it satisfies all seven criteria necessary to be considered alive. Alas, fire does not display irritability, neither here nor on Mars: if one pokes a flame with a stick it will neither run away nor turn around to attack (although the stick may be consumed as a source of nutrition).
On the day that we discover a flame-like entity that does indeed respond to such treatment we will know for sure that we have something new.
Rising tide
James Hansen forecast that sea level will rise by 5 metres by 2100 and, in support, referred to the end of the last ice age when sea level rose by 1 metre every 20 years (28 July, p 30). I forecast effectively the same thing for the same reason more than 20 years ago in a letter to New 杏吧原创 (13 February 1986, p 50). It’s good to see other climatologists are catching up.
Mars evades
Ivan Semeniuk is wrong to say the “Viking landers surprised researchers when they discovered that the top 10 centimetres of Martian soil contain oxidants that would sterilise any life there by breaking down organic molecules” (28 July, p 42). They discovered no such thing. This idea was put forward to explain the contradiction between the positive result of the labelled release (LR) experiment and the failure to find organics in the sister gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GCMS) experiment.
Gil Levin, who was responsible for the LR experiment, still insists his positive result indicated that life was discovered on Mars. The GCMS has been shown to lack the sensitivity, to a large degree, required to contradict that result. The biggest puzzle of all is NASA’s reluctance to conduct further, more conclusive tests, despite several subsequent visits.
The editor writes:
鈥� While it is true that Viking did not “prove” the presence of oxidants in the Martian soil, this is the most widely accepted for the Viking results. A US experiment called on board the Russian Mars 96 probe would have definitively answered the question about oxidants, but that mission failed soon after launch in 1996.
Cloning people
The only human clones known are monozygotic twins: so it is understandable that Hugh McLachlan turns to them for a reassuring analogue to cloning by somatic cell nuclear transfer (21 July, p 20). Such reasoning by analogy can be useful, but you must take care to note any particular model’s weaknesses, as well as its strengths.
The twin analogy is highly relevant to the biological side of cloning, but minimally relevant for understanding the psychological and social consequences of cloning, since it does not reflect the age difference between the progenitor (somatic cell nuclear donor) and clone. Parents of identical twins may reasonably expect one to strongly resemble the other; but as contemporaries, one twin cannot rear the other.
Parents of a genetic replica would likely have a preconceived, vivid and idealised mental template of the clone’s progenitor, which would powerfully shape their expectations of the child. If a parent were also the progenitor, we could reasonably anticipate a heightened risk of narcissistic overinvestment in the child.
If you show people images of young children’s faces that have been morphed to resemble their own, they report more psychological investment in those children than in real children. Whatever the putative and conscious motive for cloning, such as infertility, the wish for a child resembling the progenitor would surely also be part of it.
Should reproductive cloning be illegal? I believe that these risks, and certain others, are sufficient to justify the UK policy.
Discussions of cloning policy in the US are complicated by another issue: many people categorically opposed to abortion are also against research on embryonic stem cells and for them, all cloning is reproductive cloning. Though I oppose cloning to make human babies, current political reality here does not admit the critical distinctions necessary for scientifically enlightened national policy.
Rising tide
Thank you for the excellent article by James Hansen (28 July, p 30). Science can never eliminate all doubt, but policy advocates, whether environmental pressure groups, political parties or corporations, often indulge in spin and gross oversimplification to get a clear message across.
Of course, climate change sceptics use the uncertainty of science as a weapon to avoid action. We are reminded of tobacco companies pouring millions into denying the link between smoking and cancer, when there was clear evidence of it in the 1950s. If climate change deniers succeed in discouraging scientists from speaking plainly and in delaying action to break our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels, this could lead to chaos on an extraordinary scale.
From Roger Clark,
If the rising sea level scenario James Hansen depicts is anything like realistic, then limiting future carbon emissions is not going to be enough to divert a global tragedy. It appears that humanity has 鈥� inadvertently 鈥� thrown a spanner in the climate works. Promising not to throw many more spanners in is scarcely going to mend the machine.
This suggests we need to approach the problem on two levels: undertaking a major geoengineering project to keep the Earth away from the tipping point and at the same time pushing for long-term lifestyle-changing initiatives. Clearly a balance has to be struck so that soothing the symptoms of global warming does not give the “business-as-usual” brigade an excuse to continue without taking the medicine which is needed to ultimately cure the disease.
But by now, hopefully, the global community is sufficiently awake not to fall for Bush’s rhetoric of denial yet again.
Even if Hansen’s prophecies prove pessimistic, beginning geo-engineering trials now will give us a chance to experiment with various alternative techniques, rather than being forced to enact last-minute emergency measures without adequate testing.
Fontmell Magna, Dorset, UK
From David Bellamy and John Etherington
James Hansen complains that his scenarios are ignored because they contain too much doom and gloom. Mike Hume, of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK, bewails “the phenomenon of ‘catastrophic’ climate change” and tells us “the language of catastrophe is not the language of science”. Where is this consensus we hear so much of?
North Shore City, New Zealand and Llanhowell, Pembrokeshire, UK
Prometheus rebound
The feature “Building for a cooler planet” conflated energy saving with reducing carbon dioxide emissions (28 July, p 8). Yes, reducing CO2 will certainly help to save the planet from global warming, but energy reduction is a different kettle of fish. Unfortunately, many economists propose that energy reduction leads to economic growth, and thus to more energy being expended.
How this may happen is easily illustrated. Mr A gets rid of his second car, puts energy-saving light bulbs into his house, and has his holiday in Brighton instead of Barbados. At the end of the year, he is several thousand pounds better off. What does he do with the money? Spends it. And whatever he spends it on is likely to involve more energy expenditure.
Similarly, Ms B has a business. She too puts in energy-saving measures and at the end of the year shows a surplus. What does she do? Opens up another factory or diversifies her product line. The result? More energy is expended.
Saving energy will not help the planet. Reducing CO2 will.
At the end, no harm
You quote a researcher as saying that when the US Food and Drug Administration stopped the sale of the potential anti-cancer drug dichloroacetic acid (DCA), it “is doing the absolutely right thing to help protect vulnerable cancer patients” (28 July, p 7). Another way of looking at it is that they are doing absolutely the right thing to protect researchers, at the expense of cancer patients.
I fail to see the need for placebo-controlled clinical trials to test whether DCA has an effect on people who will die in a few months on standard treatment.
From Patrick Corley,
One of the impediments to research on DCA often mentioned is that it is out of patent (28 March, p 8). Even medicines that are out of patent can earn significant profits for a drug company through exclusive marketing rights if they are granted “orphan status” for a particular condition.
To get this, a drug must benefit those with a rare disease 鈥� defined as one that affects fewer than 500 people out of every million in a population. Certain cancers, such as Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Ewing’s sarcoma and childhood cancers, are classified as rare diseases. DCA has already been granted orphan status in the US to encourage investigation of its use in treating congenital lactic acidosis.
Dublin, Ireland
Nuclear safety in Iran
Najmedin Meshkati asserts that Iran is prevented from having access to “the independent safety review, knowledge and practices” of the IAEA’s technical cooperation programme (14 July, p 46). This is incorrect.
In accordance with the relevant resolutions of the IAEA board of governors and the UN Security Council, the agency continues to assist the Islamic Republic of Iran in strengthening its capabilities in the area of nuclear safety. Technical advice, based on international safety codes, standards and proven practices, is being provided, for example, in relation to a review of the Bushehr nuclear power plant’s final safety analysis report.
Technical workshops have also been conducted to improve Iran’s capabilities in a number of safety-related areas including design safety review, quality assurance, safety culture, personnel training and qualification systems, emergency preparedness and physical protection. In providing such safety assistance to Iran, the IAEA has engaged leading international experts as well as a number of national stakeholders, including the national nuclear safety regulatory authority. This has assisted the authority in the implementation of its functions and responsibilities during the design, construction, preparation for commissioning and start-up, and operation of the plant.
Nanosafety
I found your editorial on nanotech safety misleading (14 July, p 3). Considerable effort is being expended in meeting regulatory and research needs.
As you mention, the Royal Society’s 2004 report looked at possible ethical, social or health and safety issues raised by nanotechnology that were not covered by existing regulations. The UK government acted on its main recommendation: to ascertain whether current regulations are robust enough to protect public health and the environment. Several expert assessments, including a cross-government review by the Economic and Social Research Council Centre for Business Relationships, Accountability, Sustainability and Society, and Cardiff University, found that the UK’s existing regulations are largely appropriate and can be adapted, where necessary, to protect human health and the environment from the known hazards of nanomaterials.
This leaves the “unknown” hazards; and further research is certainly needed. Defra has taken a number of initiatives, including the recent Environmental Nanoscience Initiative in collaboration with the Natural Environment Research Council and the Environment Agency.
As you point out, the diversity of nanotechnologies makes the research agenda enormous 鈥� too large for any one country to realistically manage. The UK has led an international research effort. Notably, the OECD, the club of leading capitalist countries, has established a Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials, which has drawn up plans to find answers to nanoscience’s most pressing questions.
While there is, of course, always more that could be done, we are putting substantial effort into this. I am therefore confident that we are making reasonable preparations for the possible risks and that we are in a good position to realise the many potential benefits of nanotechnologies.