Women in science
The cost-benefit analysis put forward by Seirian Sumner and Nathalie Pettorelli to explain why women are leaving science (16 July, p 26) can be extended to show that gender imbalance also harms the quality of science.
There is evidence at , the website of the Genset project mentioned. It includes a consensus report by a panel of science leaders on the gender dimension in science and offers recommendations to improve the situation.
Gender issues influence scientific endeavour at three levels: participation, cultures and research. There is plenty that we can do to stop women leaving science, but we need also to train women and men on the relevance of sex and gender issues in research, in peer review, in funding committees, in journal editorial policies and in the sociocultural context in which research is organised.
A lack of women in labs makes it more likely that bias will persist in scientific knowledge-making. For example, the first voice-recognition products did not work for women because the technology was designed and tested mainly by men; our knowledge of pain is largely based on research that excluded females, but pain is different for women and men 鈥� of the 10 prescription drugs banned by the US Food and Drug Administration between 1997 and 2000, .
Weeding out such errors is a core condition of scientific excellence. This is the strongest cost-benefit argument for bringing more women into research and decision-making bodies, and retaining those already in the system.
Lost in space
Your lead-editorial writer hoped for a new chapter of space exploration, probably crewed, to follow the shuttle (9 July, p 3).
This won’t happen. Why not? The moon landings were part of the cold war. Like the Manhattan Project, they were financed in a way that never allowed their necessity to be questioned.
Today, by contrast, NASA must compete openly with all other public purposes, including the huge efforts that are needed to confront the dangers threatening our planet.
The American public still enjoys space dramas and the thought of future glory, but shows no wish to spend its money on them. President Barack Obama understood this well when he proposed further moonshots before he was elected and then commuted the offer to something vaguer and more distant afterwards. Space-talk is probably enough. And if it’s enough in the US, it will probably be enough for other countries too.
How much does this matter? Scientifically, uncrewed probes have shown themselves far better suited to exploring space than human astronauts who 鈥� despite enormous effort 鈥� remain much too vulnerable for the work. And we can now see that, for this same reason, the wider projects of space colonisation that were once popular are not at all practical.
There remains a vast realm of fantasy in which several generations in the west have invested their dreams 鈥� a realm which has proved imaginatively nutritious but which needs to be kept separate from real life. Of course we should attend to the splendour of the heavens but we do not need to invade them and plant our flags there.
DNA defence
The apparent “theft” of crystallographic data by Francis Crick and James Watson suggested by your “Lab rats” feature (9 July, p 40) can be easily explained by , dated 10 April 1969.
In it he discusses the background to how results from Rosalind Franklin’s work on the crystal structure of DNA came their way via reports by the biophysics committee set up to unite groups working for the UK’s Medical Research Council.
In this letter, Perutz, in whose lab Crick and Watson were working, stated quite clearly that “the reports were not confidential. The committee served to exchange information, but was not a review body; we were never asked for an opinion of the work we saw”. And further on, “since the report was not confidential I saw no reason for withholding it”.
One wonders how non-confidential data from King’s College London can be described as having been “stolen”.
Even Perutz himself was unsure who he gave the report to and said so in the same letter: “As far as I can remember, Crick heard about its existence from [Franklin’s colleague Maurice] Wilkins, with whom he had frequent contact, and either he [Crick] or Watson asked me if they could see it.”
Incidentally, Francis and Odile Crick were friends of Franklin, and on one occasion they all went on a touring holiday together in Spain.
Much to applaud
Your article on Australia’s recently proposed carbon tax misrepresents it, and perpetuates misconceptions about its emissions target (16 July, p 12).
The policy will put a price tag on about 60 per cent of emissions, a larger share than the European Union emissions trading scheme and with a higher price. This will create strong incentives for cuts.
The exclusion of agriculture and forestry is standard practice internationally, not a “loophole”. Free permit allocations to 鈥� those emissions-intensive sectors that may suffer from untaxed overseas competition 鈥� may not be ideal, but the design provides clear incentive to reduce emissions per unit of output.
Fugitive emissions such as gas leaks from coal mining and other sources are included, but are exempt in the EU.
Policies since the 1990s have slowed Australia’s emissions rise in the face of strong economic growth and an 18 per cent rise in population over the last decade. The minimum 5 per cent emissions reduction target by 2020, compared with 2000, is ambitious, equivalent to a 32 per cent cut in per capita emissions. The conditional targets 鈥� cuts of up to 15 or 25 per cent 鈥� also compare favourably with the EU, US and others.
The implication that the shift from carbon tax to permit trading in 2015 will increase uncertainty is muddle-headed. It means domestic policy will impose a strict limit on emissions, net of international trading, so if anything it will improve predictability.
From Harry Verberne
Fred Pearce was unjustifiably negative about Australia’s carbon tax. It is being introduced in the face of relentless attacks by the parliamentary opposition and vested interests.
Australia’s absolute contribution to climate change is small but large in per-capita terms. This carbon tax is a start but only a start, and I would like to believe Australia will spur an impetus to global action.
Churchill, Victoria, Australia
Futile gesture
You report that the anaesthetic pentobarbital will no longer be sold by Danish firm Lundbeck to prisons in US states with the death penalty (9 July, p 5). This follows the end of production of sodium thiopental for the same reason.
This is a futile act. The lethal injection contains a series of drugs to ensure death, given as an intravenous infusion 鈥� a sedative to produce unconsciousness, a muscle relaxant or paralysing drug such as curare to stop breathing, and potassium chloride to stop the heart.
Any drug that can produce unconsciousness will do the first job; thiopental, pentobarbital, methanol 鈥� after all, one is not worried about side effects, propofol, or a vast range of others. I think I might go for a bottle of whisky, as a humane gesture.
Ethics on a chip
Justin Williams’s skill at encasing living brain tissue in polymer and “poking it with a sharp object” (25 June, p 6) is remarkable. That said, I wonder if he is aware how hazardous is the moral realm into which he has strayed.
He and his colleagues believe that connecting similar small samples of heart, brain and lung tissue with those of ever more organs to create a “body on a chip” may someday yield medical benefits. But the inclusion of living brain tissue raises the question: at what point does such a created organism become sentient and deserving of moral consideration? The point at which it transmits nerve signals to other tissues as described? At which it receives information, or perceives sensations such as pain?
No excuses
As usual we hear from a hacker whose actions could lead to the loss of money by millions, justifying such actions by claiming only to be highlighting faults in the system (9 July, p 26). I wonder when we’ll hear from a burglar claiming to have only broken into your house to point out the inadequacy of your locks?
Relative risks
After reading the differing views on nuclear power across the globe (25 June, p 12), I was saddened to see decisions in Germany, Italy and Switzerland to stop pursuing nuclear energy, obviously as a backlash following the dangerous meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant.
To the leaders of the respective countries, I have one thing to say, quoting the late Dixy Lee Ray, former chair of the US Atomic Energy Commission: “A nuclear power plant is infinitely safer than eating, because 300 people choke to death on food every year.” That’s something to chew on!
Schuey shushed
Wouldn’t an electric-powered Formula 1 championship (16 July, p 19) be kind of, well, quiet? Part of the spectacle of F1 is the roar of 24 V8 engines at 18,000 rpm. You have to hear it to believe it.
Having a bunch of cars as quiet as golf buggies would take away the “soul” of the race. How about keeping internal combustion but use hydrogen as the fuel instead. It could be sourced using carbon neutral methods 鈥� solar powered electrolysis, perhaps?
Terror firma
The article about barriers to the impending proliferation of personal helicopters treated the matter from a purely technical perspective (2 July, p 19).
It is difficult enough to keep track of criminals and terrorists without giving them all another dimension to work in, to say nothing of the consequences of “road” rage… and engine failure during rush hour.