Category: Policy - Page 2

Bioscience to Biosecurity; the Policy Lates talks

Policy Lates is a discussion series from the Society of Biology‘s policy team, held at our HQ at Charles Darwin House. We bring a panel of experts together for an informal debate on a contemporary science policy topic, with lots of time for audience questions and convivial discussions. In July 2013, Policy Lates looked into the issue of biosecurity in the life sciences, and the potential for intentional or accidental harm coming from new technologies and discoveries. Talks from the debate, entitled ‘Bioscience to bioweapons: how do we benefit from open dual-use research whilst avoiding misuse?’, are now available: Professor Malcolm Dando FSB (Chair) Professor of International Security, Division of Peace Studies, School of Social and International Studies, University of Bradford. Professor Wendy Barclay Chair in Influenza Virology, Department of Medicine, Imperial College London. Daniel Grushkin Freelance journalist; vice-president and co-founder of Genspace community biology laboratory, New York….

“Sorry James, this is not my cup of tea”

Guest post by Dr James Revill, Research Fellow with the Harvard Sussex Program, SPRU, University of Sussex. The issues raised in James’ post will be discussed at our ‘Bioscience to Bioweapons’ Policy Lates event next Thursday, and on Twitter with the hashtag #PolicyLates. The strategic use of disease in warfare has been subject to a long standing and cross-cultural taboo that condemns the hostile exploitation of biology as the act of a pariah. In short, biological weapons are simply not cricket. However, such disapproval is not fixed but context dependent and remains malleable to engineered erosion by governments and other groups . This is a particular concern in light of the twin challenge posed by the changing capacity and geography of bioscience and the evolving perceptions of security, including the perceived rise of terrorism and new wars in the 21st Century, on the other. Such circumstances have been converging to once again…

Not by good intentions alone

Guest post by Tatyana Novossiolova, a Wellcome Trust doctoral candidate studying the governance of biotechnology in post-communist Russia at the Division of Peace Studies, University of Bradford. The issues raised in Tatyana’s post will be discussed at our ‘Bioscience to Bioweapons’ Policy Lates event next Thursday. In May this year, Science reported the creation of a hybrid between the H5N1 avian influenza virus, which has 60% mortality rate in infected humans but does not easily spread from person to person, and the H1N1 virus, which caused several thousand deaths during the 2009 global pandemic. In light of its limited practical utility, the experiment was denounced as ‘appalling irresponsibility’. Back in 2011, similar concerns were raised following the announcement that two teams working independently in the Netherlands and the US created contagious H5N1. Far from being isolated cases, those experiments epitomise the worrying trajectory that some bioscience research has taken over the…

For better or worse: the dual use of biology

Guest post by Piers D Millett, Deputy Head of the Implementation Support Unit for the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) Unfortunately, biology has huge potential to be used as a weapon, most likely by deliberately instigating disease. As yet we have no sure fire way to maximise the benefits of biology whilst minimising any risks. I believe you are going to hear a great deal more about ‘dual use research of concern’ (DURC) over the next few years. In January this year, members of the international influenza research community ended a year-long self-imposed ban on research designed to make a bird flu virus spread from mammal to mammal. It is the most high profile recent example of DURC. The moratorium had been put in place “to explain the public health benefits of this work, to describe the measures in place to minimise possible risks, and to enable organizations…

MPs’ thoughts on academic career paths

From a potential ban on neonicotinoids to the importance of the EU, there were some provocative questions at last week’s Voice of the Future. There were many times when I had my preconceptions challenged by the MPs’ answers, and many issues I hadn’t stopped to consider. This Storify (below) sums up the debate brilliantly, and you can watch the entire event here, but I’ve taken the opportunity to share some of my thoughts, and look forward to your comments. Unsurprisingly, a major issue raised by young people was the career structure in academic science. Unlike most commercial settings, aspiring academics must do multiple short-term contracts after which many will never get permanent jobs in research. Universities and Science Minister David Willetts MP was keen to explain that there are reasons for the high number of PhD students relative to senior staff, including that the structure shouldn’t be too top…

Opening up policy

James Lush, Policy Manager at the Biochemical Society, discusses whether policy making is becoming more open The question “do we know what is desirable in open policy making?” was one of the opening gambits at the Experts, publics and open policy event held at the House of Lords on 15 January. Sir Roland Jackson, Chief Executive of the British Science Association (until April), said that broad participation is vital for openness in policy-making. But how can this be incorporated into the current processes without relying on anecdotes? And how do we know that the views of the people who are asked (or, more problematically, put themselves forward) are representative? There is, of course, more than one public. There are signs that government is becoming more open. For example, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee is to start live tweeting some of its evidence sessions. Stephen McGinness, the Committee Clerk, has…

Podcast: views after the #policylates debate

At the first #policylates debate, held on the 29th November at Charles Darwin House, the panel discussed whether or not the UK Parliament could do with more scientists. With the online poll initially showing 96% ‘yes’ votes, this was reduced to about 60% ‘yes’ amongst audience members by the end of the debate. The debate became rather heated at times, perhaps unsurprisingly between the Liberal Democrat Dr Evan Harris and the Conservative Dr Phillip Lee. Labour’s Chi Onwurah remained a professional chair throughout, only revealing her own views after the debate had closed. Haralambos Dayantis has produced a brief podcast from interviews with panellists and selected audience members, which will give you a flavour of the evening’s proceedings. Podcast credits: Haralambos Dayantis is the man behind the curtain, responsible for producing the podcast and helping co-ordinate the first #policylates event with the Society of Biology. Kaz Janowski…

Podcast: #policylates debates – do we need more scientists in Parliament?

Next Thursday we will be holding the first ever Society of Biology #policylates debate, ‘Do we need more scientists in Parliament?’ If the results from our website poll are anything to go by then the answer would be a resounding yes. To find out if the answer is really this clear cut, Press Officer Rebecca Nesbit investigates in this podcast. She speaks to guests about the advantages and pitfalls of having more scientists in Parliament, science policy and the #policylates debate series. We will be live tweeting as @Society_Biology at the event next Thursday 29th November from 7pm using the hashtag #policylates and will be taking questions to put to the panel. If you have any questions or views to share please comment below or join in the discussions already taking place on the Society of Biology LinkedIn group or our previous blog. Rebecca’s podcast guests were: Harry Dayantis – Imperial Science Communication graduate Dr Jennifer Rohn – Cell biologist, novelist and founder and Chair…

Do we need more scientists in Parliament?

Haralambos Dayantis blogs about the Society of Biology’s upcoming debate on ‘do we need more scientists in Parliament?’ The first #policylates event at Charles Darwin House is only a few weeks away, where panellists will be discussing whether we need more people with STEM backgrounds in Parliament. The issue has already generated some discussion on the Psci-Com mailing list, and various debates in Parliament have touched upon the issue. In a debate on cuts to the House of Commons’ operational costs on the 8th November, Adam Afriyie MP argued against cuts to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) of which he is chair. Supporting Afriyie’s defence of POST, Andrew Miller MP (chair of the Science and Technology Select Committee) noted the importance of scientific advice in Parliament: “There are hugely important challenges that none of us, whatever our backgrounds, are properly equipped to deal with. Even if…

Science, sport, and politics combine for Parliamentary Links Day

Around 250 MPs and distinguished scientists gathered at the House of Commons to discuss Science and Sport, as the Society of Biology hosted the biggest ever Parliamentary Links Day. House of Commons speaker Rt Hon Jon Bercow MP opened the event, telling delegates that although there was a ‘great distance to travel’ in terms of promoting scientific understanding among MPs, there had been a great deal of progress in recent years. Science and Universities Minister Rt Hon David Willetts MP said Parliamentary Links Day had become “the biggest gathering of scientists coming to parliament”. “Often the sporting environment is one of the first places where technical innovations are seen and can be tested. Sport drives innovation,” he said before taking questions on scientific understanding in politics. In the first of two panel discussions Andy Parkinson, chief executive of UK Anti-Doping, explained how new scientific techniques meant…