Tony Gilland

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
Nuclear spin.png This article is part of the Nuclear Spin project of Spinwatch.
Tony Gilland

Tony Gilland was the science and society director of the Institute of Ideas which was founded after the collapse of the magazine LM, formerly Living Marxism - the monthly review of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and director of its offshoot, Debating Matters. Gilland was also a Living Marxism and Spiked contributor and is thus associated with the LM network.

Current and recent Roles

According to his Battle of Ideas 'speaker profile' Gilland is now studying for a PGCE in Mathematics. The current description of Gilland states: 'Tony stood down as the director of the Institute of Ideas Debating Matters competition earlier this year to pursue a career in education. He is currently training to teach secondary school Maths in Kent'[1]. However, this wording is used on all of his Battle of Ideas 'speaker profiles' back to 2007, so it is unclear when this referred to exactly. Given that he did not leave debating matters until March 2014, according to his Linkedin profile, it is likely he began the PGCE in either 2013 or 2014. Prior to this, from its foundation in September 2000 until March 2014, Gilland was the Science and Society Director for the Institute of Ideas (which is part funded by GM company Novartis[2] ), where he organised public conferences on issues relating to science, environment and health; and commentated on these issues on national radio and TV. During this time he also chaired and spoke on 29 Battle of Ideas panels between 2005-2014, only failing to appear on the 2013 programme. Many of these panels were heavily weighted with other members of the LM Network. According to his Linkedin profile he has received recommendations for his time working here from Anne Ferguson (a Director at PwC), Simon O'Connor (Principal / CEO at GEMS Education), David Aldrich (Head of Relationship Management, E-EMEA at Moody's Investors Service), Sarah Dauncey (a digital learning consultant) and Jack Watters (VP at Pfizer)[3]. During this time he also helped establish the competition Debating Matters from 2002-2004, and was its director from 2009 until March 2014. In addition he established Debating Matters India in collaboration with the British Council in July 2008. He continues to sit on a six member organising team for this competition alongside Mayur Porwal, Arnab Banerjee, Debanjan Chakrabati, Claire Fox, and Justine Brian[4]. Gilland also contributed 15 articles to Spiked between March 2001 and May 2008[5].

Previous Roles

Between September 1997 and August 2000, Gilland was the Director of a (now seemingly defunct) company called Open Dialogue Ltd. His Linkedin profile states that during this time he:

Investigated and wrote research reports and articles about the controversy surrounding agricultural biotechnology. Engaged with scientific and commercial sectors on strategies to better engage with the debate about GM crops; leading to my participation in the US State Department's International Visitor Leadership Program[6]

Prior to this he was a 'Senior Business Analyst' for Kinetica Natural Gas, for whom he was a representative in discussions with the Department for Trade and Industry in the build up to the UK Gas Act of 1995. He also represented the company in industry forums, including with the industry regulator Ofgas. From September 1991 until February 1995 he was a 'Senior Researcher' for the (now defunct) Centre for the study of Regulated Industries (CRI)[7], which was formally established by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA)[8]. During this time Gilland carried out a number of sectoral regulatory reviews alongside Peter Vass. This included a review of the regulation of the Telecommunications industry in the UK, a Customer Consultation and Periodic Review in the Water Industry, and a review of regulatory policy in the energy sector.

Education

Gilland graduated from the University of Oxford in 1990 after stdying for a BA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics, beginning in 1987. Prior to this he studied for his A Levels at Harrow Weald Sixth Form College, taking Further Pure Maths, Economics, and Sociology between 1985 and 1987.

Links with the Network

Genes & Society Festival April (2003)

In April 2003, Gilland organised the Genes & Society Festival for the Institute of Ideas with sponsorship from Pfizer and assistance from CropLife International. Of the main contributors that Gilland brought in for the two day event, as many as 15-20 are known to be part of the network behind LM/IoI. Predictably, though, there was nothing to alert either their fellow contributors or the audience to this affiliation. This typifies the often underhand approach of the LM network. In addition, the claimed expertise of some of the network members was seriously open to question. Genes & Society Festival contributor Thomas Deichmann provides a good example of this.

The Festival was organised by Gilland alongside: Dave Wilson (Production co-ordinator), Geoff Kidder (Administrator), Dolan Cummings (convenor of 'Cultural Refelections' strand), Ellen Raphael & Ellie Lee (convenors of the 'Genetics and Reproduction' strand), Joe Kaplinsky & Jan Browman (convenors of the 'Genetics and Progress' strand), and Shirley Laws & Toby Marshall (convenors of the 'Genetics and Education' strand).

Sense About Science Working Party on peer review (2004)

Gilland was a member of the Working Party on peer review set up by Sense about Science, whose director Tracey Brown is also part of the LM-network, as was another member of the Working Party Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre (SMC). Gilland is a regular attender at SMC events. Despite the Wellcome Trust being well known for its generous support of work on the public understanding of science, and being a regular donor to Sense About Science, the composition of this working group was deemed so narrow that they declined an offer to be a part of the working party. The Wellcome Trust said in a letter that this 'extremely narrow' group ran 'the risk of being seen as a closed and defensive strategy' and argued the project was based on many assumptions based on little direct evidence[9]. The final report covered many topics frequently cited by the LM network, which would not instantly spring to mind as relating to peer review including multiple general references to GM along with MMR, mobile phone radiation and other "scares", as examples of concerns not based on rigorous peer reviewed research.

Debating Matters: Nuclear Power (2011)

In August 2011, Gilland published a topic guide to Nuclear Power entitled 'After Fukushima, we should abandon nuclear power'. The document provides and air of balance. However, despite this title and some balanced portrayal of the debates over nuclear technology the contents largely paint a different picture of the author's perspective on nuclear power to the title. For example, with the inclusion of theories of conspiracies to exaggerate the damage of Fukushima, the downplaying of previous nuclear accidents and description of nuclear as a low-risk technology:

In response to the calls for an end to nuclear power, some commentators argue that the reaction to the Fukushima disaster has been seriously overblown [Ref: New York Times], with coverups rampant, doom-ridden predictions rife and figures distorted to fuel anti-nuclear sentiments [Ref: The Times]. Comparatively speaking, nuclear still remains one of the safest forms of energy, with Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima the only three major accidents to have occurred in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries [Ref: World Nuclear Association]. Why abandon nuclear when it creates abundant, low-carbon energy with minimal risks simply because of the fear attached to this form of energy?[10]

In addition, when considering the future of nuclear the safety of nuclear energy was again stressed as the topic guide asked:

If the reaction to Fukushima shows that we are still fearful of nuclear technology, should we accept public fear or

make the case for nuclear as a relatively safe, abundant and clean fuel that can meet the worlds needs? Or should we accept that the risk of a serious nuclear disaster, like Chernobyl or worse, is too great for us to contemplate as a society?[11]

The document lists Greenpeace International, No2Nuclear Power, UKERC and World Nuclear Association as having had some involvement with the creation of the topic guide. Suggested reading included pieces by Damian Carrington, Charles Clover, Richard Black, Jonathon Porritt, Ulrich Beck, Roland Nelles, Dr. Éric Notebaert, Paul Josephson, Mark Lynas, Péter Zentai, Bjorn Lomborg, David Aaranovitch, two pieces by nuclear convert George Monbiot, Jeremy Warner, Frank Furedi, and Roger Highfield.

Views

Media Presence (1997-2013)

Tony Gilland has a limited media presence, appearing 38 times in a Nexis search for "Tony Gilland". This presence largely relates to promotion of the Debating Matters competition and surveys carried out by the Institute of Ideas. One such survey reported in the Times found that: forty-one per cent of scientists felt regulation and ethical oversight had gone too far, 40 per cent said that the level was about right, and 10 percent felt more checks were needed. Despite this markedly mixed response, the article reported that Tony Gilland 'said that while the respondents were self-selected, their views reflected a clear mood that science was overregulated' and argued 'if we really want value for money from publicly funded scientists then we have to be willing to allow them to pursue their curiosity and see what comes of it'[12]. He

Writing for Living Marxism/LM (1998-2000)

In 1998 Gilland, together with the 'father' of the RCP, Frank Furedi, sent a letter headed Research Proposal: The impact of safety panics on the debate about the use of GMOs in food production to the major supermarkets, the Food and Drink Federation and the National Farmers' Union. For £7,500, it offered to educate their customers 'about complex scientific issues'.

LM network resources

The LM perspective on such issues is made clear in Gilland's article "Food frights" (LM, Feb 99) in which he argues that the 'panic' about GM food is not based on science or fact, but on fear. 'Until more people are prepared to challenge the way in which the flow of "information" to consumers and the public is controlled by a minority of people within campaign groups and sections of the media, the ability of consumers - and society - to enjoy the benefits of GM technology will be undermined'[13].

Like other members of the LM network, Gilland follows Furedi in believing that the public rejection of GM foods is 'irrational' and stems from a 'culture of fear' and of risk-aversion which is undermining a belief in science as a driver of human 'progress'. The need is to confront such irrational fears and the mistrust of science and technology that they lead to. 'The GM debate,' writes Gilland, 'is the terrain upon which society's relationship to science and human endeavour is currently being worked out.'[14]

Like other followers of Furedi, Gilland invokes 'science' and 'technology', particularly biotechnology, as panaceas that can be deployed without care or reservation. A good example of this attitude of unquestioning acceptance is provided by an article contributed to a Spiked Online debate on GM,[15] entitled Let the Sowing Begin.[16] Here Gilland argues that the UK's GM farm-scale trials were 'an unnecessary obstacle to the introduction of this beneficial technology'. He also twice refers to GM crops simply as a 'benign technology'. No argument or evidence is advanced in support of this position. For Gilland, like Furedi's other followers, it is simply something that can be assumed. Anything that does not fit with that assumption is rejected.

Writing for Spiked (2001-2008)

Gilland contributed 15 articles to Spiked between March 2001 and May 2008[17]. He continued to write on the benefits of GM and critices work raising concerns against the technology. In a February 2002 piece for Spiked, entitled "GM food: putting fear before facts,"[18] Gilland wrote that, 'The Royal Society's review of Pusztai's research, published in June 1999, concluded that his research was "flawed in many aspects of design, execution and analysis" and "no conclusions should be drawn from it". This was pretty much the end of the Pusztai story.' In fact, it is less than half the story. Gilland makes no mention of the fact that a year after those claims by the Royal Society, Pusztai's research was published in the Lancet after successfully being peer reviewed. Nor does he mention that the Royal Society has been the subject of much critical comment for the tactics deployed by its leading Fellows in their efforts to discredit Pusztai and to suppress his research.In these he expanded his repertoire from Living Marxism, which had exclusively focused on the merits of GM, to include an attack on environmentalists as enemies of scientific progress and apologists for underdevelopment. Typically for Spiked writers, this included a glowing report on Bjørn Lomborg's work 'The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World' in which he argues environmentalism has inflicted a negative view on humanity:

Facts are crucial, but Lomborg’s analysis of the facts have led him to something just as important - the understanding that a human-centred world is something to be celebrated. Building on these points is the only way we will ever get to explore the full potential of being human. In this sense, the issue is not simply one of resource optimisation and prioritisation...but one of recognising that human beings are our most important resource, as an asset not a burden.

While it is important to win the argument that in general things have got better and better, this alone would be too complacent. You only have to look at the underdeveloped character of so many parts of the world (of which Sub-Saharan Africa is the most glaring example), which the phrase ‘sustainable development’ has become an apology for, to see how human lives, creativity and potential are being squandered[19]

He also Implies that the IPCC's research is unscientific and stifling debate through consensus:

It may turn out to be the case that most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years has been man-made. This may, in turn, imply the need for some action on the part of society. However, there is much to be debated – both in terms of the complexities of what is and is not known scientifically about climate change, and in terms of political discussion about how we wish to respond to this knowledge. Yet increasingly, the IPCC is not a positive mechanism for throwing light on the situation and allowing perspectives to be worked through. Instead, those who wish to conduct such debates – unless on the extremely narrow terms laid down by the IPCC – are being portrayed as beyond the pale. Democratic debate is being stifled rather than encouraged for fear that people will come to the wrong opinions and make the wrong choices[20]


Career Chronology

Affiliations

Educational Background

  • 1985 – 1987 - Harrow Weald Sixth Form College - Further Pure Maths, Economics, Sociology
  • 1987 - 1990 - University of Oxford - BA, Philosophy, Politics and Economics

Other Links with the network

Battle of Ideas Panel Appearances

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2014

Other Panel Appearances

2002

2003

2004

2006

Publications

1992

1993

1994

1996

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

  • Tony Gilland, 'The Culture War Behind the Biotech Battle: How Irrational Fear Could Really Give Us Something to Worry About', American Enterprise, Vol. 15 Issue 2, pp. 28-30, March 2004.

2005

  • Tony Gilland, 'Trade War or Culture War? The GM Debate in Britain and the European Union', in Let Them Eat Precaution, Jon Entine Ed., AEI Press, 7 December 2005.

2006

2007

2008

Resources

Profile, Tony Gilland [72]
Twitter, tonygilland
Linkedin Tony Gilland

References

  1. ↑ See: Tony Gilland, 'Speaker profile', 18 October 2014, accessed 24 March 2015.
  2. ↑ Andy Rowell, 'Society: Environment: The alliance of science: Independent groups share pro-GM common ground', The Guardian, 26 March 2003.
  3. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'CV recommendations', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  4. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'CV Debating Matters: Projects', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  5. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'Author Archive', Spiked, accessed 24 March 2015.
  6. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'Open Dialogue Ltd work summary', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  7. ↑ A list of CRI publications is available here: 'CRI publications list', Centre for the study of Regulated Industries, accessed 25 March 2015.
  8. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'CV: CRI', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  9. ↑ See GMWatch, 'New Sense About Science report makes bogus claims', GMWatch website, accessed 25 March 2015.
  10. ↑ Tony Gilland, 'After Fukushima, we should abandon nuclear power', Debating Matters, August 2011, accessed 25 March 2015.
  11. ↑ Tony Gilland, 'After Fukushima, we should abandon nuclear power', Debating Matters, August 2011, accessed 25 March 2015.
  12. ↑ See Mark Henderson, 'Constant policing of our research makes us look sinister, say scientists', The Times (London), 25 October 2007.
  13. ↑ Tony Gilland, [http://web.archive.org/web/20000309063531/www.informinc.co.uk/LM/discuss/commentary/02-17-99-GMO.html 'Food frights - The panic about GM food is not based on science or fact, but on fear, argues Tony Gilland', LM Commentary 17 February 1999..
  14. ↑ "Seeds of the Future", LM Feb 99.
  15. ↑ Spiked online debate
  16. ↑ Spiked "Let the Sowing Begin"
  17. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'Author Archive', Spiked, accessed 24 March 2015.
  18. ↑ Spiked "GM food: putting fear before facts"
  19. ↑ Tony Gilland, 'A statistician with a mission: Bjørn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, tells Tony Gilland what made him ask the right questions', 30 August 2001, Spiked, accessed 25 March 2015.
  20. ↑ Tony Gilland, 'IPCC: the dangers of enforcing ‘consensus’: While appearing to be the ultimate experts on global warming, the UN's climate panel has actually distorted public discussion of the issue', 15 October 2007, Spiked, accessed 25 March 2015.
  21. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'CV', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  22. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'CV', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  23. ↑ Now a defunct telecommunications network.
  24. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'CV', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  25. ↑ Also see Tony Gilland, 'Author biography', in Rethinking Risk and the Precautionary Principle, Julian Morris Ed., Butterworth-Heinemann, 19 September 2000.
  26. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'CV', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  27. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Author Archive', Spiked, accessed 24 March 2015.
  28. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'Projects', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  29. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'Projects', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  30. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'CV', Linkedin, accessed 24 March 2015.
  31. ↑ Note: The current description of Gilland given on his Battle of Ideas speaker profile states: 'Tony stood down as the director of the Institute of Ideas Debating Matters competition earlier this year to pursue a career in education. He is currently training to teach secondary school Maths in Kent.' However, this wording is used on all of his speaker profiles back to 2007, so it is unclear when this referred to exactly. Given that he did not leave debating matters until March 2014, according to his Linkedin profile, it is assumed he began the PGCE in 2014.
  32. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Speaker profile', 18 October 2014, accessed 24 March 2015.
  33. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'HyperLynx: Pleasance Dome', Culture Wars, 2002, accessed 25 March 2015.
  34. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'Author archive', accessed 24 March 2015.
  35. ↑ See 'videos tagged with Tony Gilland', Worldbytes, accessed 24 March 2015.
  36. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'videos tagged with 'Tony Gilland, Worldbytes, accessed 25 March 2015.
  37. ↑ Tony Gilland [1], 29 October 2005, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  38. ↑ See Tony Gilland, [2], 30 October 2005, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  39. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'Human enhancement: creating superhumans or dicing with our destinies?', 28 October 2006, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  40. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Tomorrow's innovators – will today's science education create the Brunels and Einsteins of tomorrow?', 28 October 2006, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  41. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'What do we want from science?', 29 October 2006, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  42. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Carbon, carbon everywhere?', 29 October 2006, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  43. ↑ See Tony Gilland [3], 26 October 2007, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  44. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'The science and politics of climate change', 28 October 2007, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  45. ↑ See 'My brain made me do it', 28 October 2007, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  46. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'What are the barriers to science in the 21st century?', 28 October 2007, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  47. ↑ See Tony Gilland 'Choking on growth – from Yellow Peril to Green Menace!', 12 July 2008, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  48. ↑ See 'Contemporary attitudes to ageing and dying', 28 October 2008, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  49. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Battle of Ideas 2008 Welcome Address', 1 November 2008, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  50. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Whose data is it anyway? Medical databases, privacy and trust', 2 November 2008, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  51. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Boozy Britain', 2 November 2008, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  52. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Hypochondriac Nation', 2 November 2008, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  53. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Frankenstein's Daughters: from science fiction to science fact?', 31 October 2009, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  54. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Whose Right to Choose? Choice, ethics and regulation in 21st-century reproduction', 31 October 2009, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  55. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Three's a crowd? The battle over population and reproduction', 31 October 2009, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  56. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Evidence-based policy: Are politicians evading responsibility by hiding behind science?', 20 March 2010, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  57. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Public Health: should evidence always dictate policy?', 18 October 2010, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  58. ↑ See 'Rationing and medicine: what price life?', 30 October 2010, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  59. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Can we trust the evidence? The IPCC – a case study', 31 October 2010, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  60. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Fukushima fallout',24 October 2011, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  61. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Censoring science: have scientists become the new inquisitors?', 29 October 2011, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  62. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Fracking and Fukushima: our energy security fears', 30 October 2011, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  63. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'The battle for democracy', 17 November 2011, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  64. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'Gas Galore? Fracking and the future of energy, 20 October 2011, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  65. ↑ See 'Energy Futures: how can we keep the lights on?', 18 October 2014, Battle of Ideas, accessed 22 December 2014.
  66. ↑ See Robert Pepperell, 'Reviewed Works: What Is It to Be Human?; What Is It to Be Human? What Science Can and Cannot Tell Us by Kenan Malik Review' Leonardo, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2003, pp. 239-240.
  67. ↑ See David Clements, 'The future of mobility: Three debates organised by the Transport Research Group', at the Bloomberg Auditorium, London, Culture Wars, February 2003, accessed 25 March 2015.
  68. ↑ See David Clements, 'Designer Babies: Myth or Reality', Culture Wars, March 2014, accessed 25 March 2015.
  69. ↑ See Jon Entine, 'Frankenfoods or Life-Saving Staples? AEI Author Jon Entine to Discuss Upcoming WTO Biotech Verdict', Market Wire, 2 February 2006.
  70. ↑ See Jon Entine, 'Frankenfoods or Life-Saving Staples? AEI Author Jon Entine to Discuss Upcoming WTO Biotech Verdict', PR Newswire Association LLC, AEI, 2 February 2006.
  71. ↑ See Tony Gilland, 'speaker profile', 7 November 2013, Battle of Ideas, accessed 24 March 2015.
  72. ↑ Institute of Ideas website, accessed 29 Dec 2010
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Tony_Gilland&oldid=214154"