Royal Society - Revision history

Riccardo Boscherini: /* Events */

2017-01-27T14:40:41Z

Events

Melissa Jones: /* People */

2014-04-01T03:41:08Z

People

Melissa Jones: /* Conflicts */ various edits

2014-04-01T03:36:31Z

Conflicts: various edits

Melissa Jones: Lib Dem conf fringe event on shale gas

2014-04-01T03:31:25Z

Lib Dem conf fringe event on shale gas

Melissa Jones: /* People */

2014-04-01T03:25:27Z

People

Melissa Jones at 23:40, 31 March 2014

2014-03-31T23:40:32Z

Melissa Jones at 12:29, 31 March 2014

2014-03-31T12:29:44Z

Melissa Jones at 12:28, 31 March 2014

2014-03-31T12:28:38Z

Barcin Uluisik: /* Living Marxism and Sense About Science */ typo

2013-10-17T14:45:57Z

Living Marxism and Sense About Science: typo

Barcin Uluisik at 05:47, 17 October 2013

2013-10-17T05:47:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:40, 27 January 2017
Line 123:		Line 123:

	==Events==		==Events==
		+	{{‪Template:Fracking badge‬}}
	At the September 2012 Liberal Democrats party conference, the Royal Society held a fringe event on shale gas entitled, 'To frack or not to frack? The risks and benefits of shale gas extraction in the UK'. <ref> Emma Woods, [http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2012/09/28/brighton-rock-and-cupcake-campaigning/ Brighton rock and cupcake campaigning], Royal Society science policy blog: In Verba, 28 September 2012, acc 1 April 2014 </ref>		At the September 2012 Liberal Democrats party conference, the Royal Society held a fringe event on shale gas entitled, 'To frack or not to frack? The risks and benefits of shale gas extraction in the UK'. <ref> Emma Woods, [http://blogs.royalsociety.org/in-verba/2012/09/28/brighton-rock-and-cupcake-campaigning/ Brighton rock and cupcake campaigning], Royal Society science policy blog: In Verba, 28 September 2012, acc 1 April 2014 </ref>

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:41, 1 April 2014
Line 119:		Line 119:

	*[[Emma Woods]], Senior Policy Adviser		*[[Emma Woods]], Senior Policy Adviser
		+
		+	*Professor [[Robert Mair]] FREng FRS, Chair of the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering review into the geological and environmental risks of shale gas extraction in the UK <ref> [http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2012/12/14/fracking-to-resume-in-the-uk-experts-respond/ Fracking to resume in the UK – experts respond], Science Media Centre New Zealand, 14 December 2012 </ref>

	==Events==		==Events==

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 Fellows of the Royal Society often have extensive commercial interests of their own, or depend on corporate funding for their own research activities and successes. The Royal Society's former Vice President and Biological Secretary, Sir [[Peter Lachmann]], for instance, has been:
-:a scientific advisor to [[SmithKlineBeecham]];
+:*a scientific advisor to [[SmithKlineBeecham]];
-:a non-executive director for [[Adprotech]] plc, a biotech company  which he helped spin out from [[SmithKlineBeecham]]; and
+:*a non-executive director for [[Adprotech]] plc, a biotech company  which he helped spin out from [[SmithKlineBeecham]]; and
-:a consultant to [[Geron Biomed]], which markets the cloning technology behind Dolly the sheep.
+:*a consultant to [[Geron Biomed]], which markets the cloning technology behind Dolly the sheep.
 The Society's former President (1995-2000), Sir [[Aaron Klug]], joined  the Scientific Advisory Board of [[GeneProt]], which has a commercial relationship with [[Sourcewatch:Novartis|Novartis]], in June 2000, ie while still the Society's President.
-For 300 years a key principle of the Society was not meddling in public controversies. Its journal ''Philosophical Transactions'' carried a notice in every issue stating, 'It is an established rule of the Royal Society... never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject.' But by the 1960s the notice had quietly been dropped, and by the late 1990s the Society's then President, Sir [[Aaron Klug]], was boasting, 'We have contributed early and proactively to public debate about genetically modified plants.'<ref>President's Address, The Royal Society Annual Review 1998-99.</ref>
+For 300 years a key principle of the Society was not meddling in public controversies. Its journal ''Philosophical Transactions'' carried a notice in every issue stating, 'It is an established rule of the Royal Society... never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject.' But by the 1960s the notice had quietly been dropped, and by the late 1990s the Society's then President, Sir [[Aaron Klug]], was boasting, 'We have contributed early and proactively to public debate about genetically modified plants'.<ref>President's Address, The Royal Society Annual Review 1998-99.</ref>
-===Pro-Nuclear===
+===Pro-nuclear===
-Since the time of the Energy White paper in 2003, the Royal Society has been advocating that the nuclear option should be kept open. In a press release concerning the White Paper, the RS argued that the government must "show political courage over nuclear power". That is, it was advocating that the government should build more nuclear plants. The statement said: "The Government must show political courage in its forthcoming energy White Paper by spelling out clearly how nuclear power, renewables and energy efficiency measures could best contribute to a future in which carbon dioxide emissions are drastically reduced." <ref>Royal Society, '[http://web.archive.org/web/20071007012021/http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=1718 Government must show political courage over nuclear power],' Press release 10.02.2003, Web Archive dated 07.10.2007, accessed 29.09.2013.</ref>
+Since the Energy White paper was published in 2003, the Royal Society has been advocating that the nuclear option should be kept open. In a press release about the White Paper, the RS argued that the government must "show political courage over nuclear power"; clearly advocating that the government should build more nuclear plants. The statement said: "The Government must show political courage in its forthcoming energy White Paper by spelling out clearly how nuclear power, renewables and energy efficiency measures could best contribute to a future in which carbon dioxide emissions are drastically reduced." <ref>Royal Society, '[http://web.archive.org/web/20071007012021/http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=1718 Government must show political courage over nuclear power],' Press release 10.02.2003, Web Archive dated 07.10.2007, accessed 29.09.2013.</ref>
-In January 2006, the new president of the Society, [[Lord Rees of Ludlow]], known more commonly as [[Martin Rees]], came out in support of nuclear power. "The society hasn't discussed whether to take any stance on that, [nuclear]" he told the Independent. "My personal view, and it is just personal, is I believe nuclear energy should be part of the energy mix in the UK."<ref>Steve Connor, "[http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article337427.ece Lord Rees of Ludlow: 'I hope that space travel will become cheaper even though it will be riskier']," ''The Independent'' 09.01.2006, Web Archive 16.05.2007, accessed 29.09.3013.</ref>
+In January 2006, the new president of the Society, [[Lord Rees of Ludlow]], known more commonly as [[Martin Rees]], came out in support of nuclear power. "The society hasn't discussed whether to take any stance on that, [nuclear]" he told the ''Independent''. "My personal view, and it is just personal, is I believe nuclear energy should be part of the energy mix in the UK."<ref>Steve Connor, "[http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article337427.ece Lord Rees of Ludlow: 'I hope that space travel will become cheaper even though it will be riskier']," ''The Independent'' 09.01.2006, Web Archive 16.05.2007, accessed 29.09.3013.</ref>
 The RS itself also argued that the energy review should not just focus on nuclear power. Speaking on behalf of the RS, Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society said: "It is important that this review is more than just a 'referendum' on nuclear power. Both the Government and those who participate in the review have a responsibility to ensure that it does not become too narrowly focused on whether or not we build new nuclear power stations ... Breaking our carbon habit, while maintaining a security of supply, could mean investing both in nuclear and renewable energy, as well as improving energy efficiency and managing demand better. We also need to be exploring new clean technologies such as 'clean' coal and carbon capture and storage." <ref>Royal Society, '[http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4097 Energy Review should be more than a nuclear referendum says Royal Society]', 23.01.2006.</ref>
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 Other contributors holding positions within the Society were [[Aaron Klug]] (President), [[Brian Heap]] (Foreign Secretary) and [[Rebecca Bowden]] (Secretary). Others involved in drawing up the report included [[Ed Dart]] of [[Adprotech]] - the biotech company which Lachmann helped found - and also a former R&D Director of [[Sourcewatch:Zeneca Seeds|Zeneca Seeds]], [[Neville Craddock]] of [[Nestle]], [[Phil Dale]] and [[Mike Gale]] plus two other colleagues from the [[John Innes Centre]], [[Derek Burke]], [[Chris Leaver]], [[Alan Malcolm]], and [[Noreen  Murray]].
-A year later the Royal Society was a key contributor to the 'white paper', Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture, issued jointly by seven national academies of science. The paper  emphasized the potential of GM crops to relieve hunger and poverty. The team which represented the Royal Society on this occasion was constituted by [[Aaron Klug]], [[Brian Heap]], [[Mike Gale]] and [[Michael Lipton]], with [[Rebecca Bowden]] once again as Secretary. Gale, Heap and Lipton were also part of the team that produced the pro-GM [[Nuffield Council]] report that included an appendix highly critical of Dr Pusztai.
+A year later the Royal Society was a key contributor to the 'white paper', 'Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture', issued jointly by seven national academies of science. The paper  emphasized the potential of GM crops to relieve hunger and poverty. The team which represented the Royal Society on this occasion was constituted by [[Aaron Klug]], [[Brian Heap]], [[Mike Gale]] and [[Michael Lipton]], with [[Rebecca Bowden]] once again as Secretary. Gale, Heap and Lipton were also part of the team that produced the pro-GM [[Nuffield Council]] report that included an appendix highly critical of Dr Pusztai.
 The Royal Society and its leading Fellows were key players in the attacks on Dr Pusztai from the time he went public with doubts about the safety of GM foods. In February 1999, for instance, 19 Fellows of the Royal Society condemned Pusztai, in all but name, in a letter published in the national press. Among the signatories was [[Peter Lachmann]].<ref>Laurie Flynn and Michael Sean Gillard, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/1999/nov/01/gm.food Pro-GM food scientist 'threatened editor']," ''The Guardian'', 01.11.1999, accessed 17.12.2009.</ref>

@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 *[[Emma Woods]], Senior Policy Adviser
-==Publications==
+==Events==
 ==Publications==
 *[http://www.raeng.org.uk/shale‎ 'Shale gas extraction in the UK: a review of hydraulic fracturing'],  Royal Academy of Engineering and The Royal Society, June 2012

@@ Line 117: / Line 117: @@
 *Professor [[Martyn Poliakoff]] FRS, Foreign Secretary and Vice-President
 *Dr [[Julie Maxton]], Executive Director
 ==Publications==

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 31 March 2014
Line 4:		Line 4:


−	The '''Royal Society''' was founded in 1660 and claims to be the world's oldest scientific organization. Its illustrious past presidents include Isaac Newton and Humphrey Davey.	+	The '''Royal Society''' was founded in 1660 and claims to be the world's oldest scientific organization.
		+
		+	Its illustrious past presidents include Isaac Newton and Humphrey Davey.

	The Royal Society gives as its primary objective the promotion of 'excellence in science'. It says it has three roles: as the UK's national academy of science, as a learned Society and as a funding agency. However, [[Moira Brown]], a professor of neurovirology at Glasgow University, sums up the view of a number of critics when she describes it as 'a self-perpetuating elite'.		The Royal Society gives as its primary objective the promotion of 'excellence in science'. It says it has three roles: as the UK's national academy of science, as a learned Society and as a funding agency. However, [[Moira Brown]], a professor of neurovirology at Glasgow University, sums up the view of a number of critics when she describes it as 'a self-perpetuating elite'.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:28, 31 March 2014
Line 130:		Line 130:
	[[Category:Nuclear Spin]]		[[Category:Nuclear Spin]]
	[[Category:Science Media Centre]]		[[Category:Science Media Centre]]
		+	[[Category:Fracking]]

@@ Line 96: / Line 96: @@
 As well as working with the SIRC and the SMC, the Royal Society has also worked closely with another lobby group, [[Sense About Science]] (SAS) - the directors of both the [[SMC]] and the [[SAS]] are part of the [[Living Marxism]] network.
-Both the Royal Society and [[Sense About Science]] have set up working groups on the issue of the reporting of science and peer review. The [[Sense About Science]] working party is chaired by the Royal Society's former Vice President, Sir [[Brian Heap]]. [[Patrick Bateson]], the Society'sReferences Biological Secretary has been assigned to liaise with the [[SAS]] working party as has Bob Ward, its senior manager for press and public relations. [[Peter Lachmann]] is also on the [[SAS]] working party which meets at the Royal Society.
+Both the Royal Society and [[Sense About Science]] have set up working groups on the issue of the reporting of science and peer review. The [[Sense About Science]] working party is chaired by the Royal Society's former Vice President, Sir [[Brian Heap]]. [[Patrick Bateson]], the Society's Biological Secretary has been assigned to liaise with the [[SAS]] working party as has Bob Ward, its senior manager for press and public relations. [[Peter Lachmann]] is also on the [[SAS]] working party which meets at the Royal Society.
 ===Peer review===

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Template:Foodspin badge}}
 {{Template:NuclearSpin}}
 {{NuclearNavbar}}
 The '''Royal Society''' was founded in 1660 and claims to be the world's oldest scientific organization. Its illustrious past presidents include Isaac Newton and Humphrey Davey.
 The Royal Society gives as its primary objective the promotion of 'excellence in science'. It says it has three roles: as the UK's national academy of science, as a learned Society and as a funding agency. However, [[Moira Brown]], a professor of neurovirology at Glasgow University, sums up the view of a number of critics when she describes it as 'a self-perpetuating elite'.
 ==Who funds it?==
 Set up as a product of royal patronage, the Society's funds have traditionally come from the public purse. More recently it has begun to receive substantial funds from transnational biotechnology corporations, such as [[Rhone Poulenc]] and [[Glaxo Wellcome]], as well as from corporations in the oil, gas and nuclear industries.<ref>See, for example, The Royal Society Annual Review 1998-99, p.26.</ref>
-Curiously, the Society justifies such donations by saying that it will ensure it can 'formulate balanced judgements about the use of science to solve national, social, economic and industrial problems... independent of vested interests'. But the biologist and social scientist Dr Tom Wakeford sees it somewhat differently, 'British citizens are paying taxes to fund an organisation that actively promotes the interests of multinational biotech corporations, under the guise of independent science.'<ref>NGIN, [http://ngin.tripod.com/rsfunding.htm The Royal Society's Massive Conflict of Interest], accessed 29.09.2013.</ref>
+Curiously, the Society justifies such donations by saying that it will ensure it can 'formulate balanced judgements about the use of science to solve national, social, economic and industrial problems... independent of vested interests'. But the biologist and social scientist Dr [[Tom Wakeford]] sees it somewhat differently, 'British citizens are paying taxes to fund an organisation that actively promotes the interests of multinational biotech corporations, under the guise of independent science.'<ref>NGIN, [http://ngin.tripod.com/rsfunding.htm The Royal Society's Massive Conflict of Interest], accessed 29 Sep 2013.</ref>
 Fellows of the Royal Society often have extensive commercial interests of their own, or depend on corporate funding for their own research activities and successes. The Royal Society's former Vice President and Biological Secretary, Sir [[Peter Lachmann]], for instance, has been:
@@ Line 26: / Line 25: @@
 For 300 years a key principle of the Society was not meddling in public controversies. Its journal ''Philosophical Transactions'' carried a notice in every issue stating, 'It is an established rule of the Royal Society... never to give their opinion, as a Body, upon any subject.' But by the 1960s the notice had quietly been dropped, and by the late 1990s the Society's then President, Sir [[Aaron Klug]], was boasting, 'We have contributed early and proactively to public debate about genetically modified plants.'<ref>President's Address, The Royal Society Annual Review 1998-99.</ref>
-==Pro-Nuclear==
+===Pro-Nuclear===
 Since the time of the Energy White paper in 2003, the Royal Society has been advocating that the nuclear option should be kept open. In a press release concerning the White Paper, the RS argued that the government must "show political courage over nuclear power". That is, it was advocating that the government should build more nuclear plants. The statement said: "The Government must show political courage in its forthcoming energy White Paper by spelling out clearly how nuclear power, renewables and energy efficiency measures could best contribute to a future in which carbon dioxide emissions are drastically reduced." <ref>Royal Society, '[http://web.archive.org/web/20071007012021/http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=1718 Government must show political courage over nuclear power],' Press release 10.02.2003, Web Archive dated 07.10.2007, accessed 29.09.2013.</ref>
 In January 2006, the new president of the Society, [[Lord Rees of Ludlow]], known more commonly as [[Martin Rees]], came out in support of nuclear power. "The society hasn't discussed whether to take any stance on that, [nuclear]" he told the Independent. "My personal view, and it is just personal, is I believe nuclear energy should be part of the energy mix in the UK."<ref>Steve Connor, "[http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article337427.ece Lord Rees of Ludlow: 'I hope that space travel will become cheaper even though it will be riskier']," ''The Independent'' 09.01.2006, Web Archive 16.05.2007, accessed 29.09.3013.</ref>
@@ Line 34: / Line 32: @@
 The RS itself also argued that the energy review should not just focus on nuclear power. Speaking on behalf of the RS, Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society said: "It is important that this review is more than just a 'referendum' on nuclear power. Both the Government and those who participate in the review have a responsibility to ensure that it does not become too narrowly focused on whether or not we build new nuclear power stations ... Breaking our carbon habit, while maintaining a security of supply, could mean investing both in nuclear and renewable energy, as well as improving energy efficiency and managing demand better. We also need to be exploring new clean technologies such as 'clean' coal and carbon capture and storage." <ref>Royal Society, '[http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?year=&id=4097 Energy Review should be more than a nuclear referendum says Royal Society]', 23.01.2006.</ref>
-==Pro-GM - attacking Pusztai==
+===Pro-GM - attacking Pusztai===
 In September 1998 the Royal Society issued its first report on GM crops, entitled 'Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use'. Its expert group broadly concluded that the use of GM plants had the potential to offer benefits in agricultural practice, food quality, nutrition and health.
@@ Line 96: / Line 93: @@
 The idea of a directory of approved experts for journalists was eventually taken over by the industry-funded [[Science Media Centre]] (SMC), housed within the [[Royal Institution]] (RI). The Royal Society's Guidance for editors<ref>ABSW, [http://web.archive.org/web/20081005021353/http://www.absw.org.uk/guidance_for_editors.htm Guidance for editors - The Royal Society's recommendations], Web Archive 05.10.2008, accessed 29.09.2013.</ref> was similarly replaced by [http://www.sirc.org/publik/revised_guidelines.shtml Guidelines on science and health communication] prepared by the [[Social Issues Research Centre]] (SIRC) in partnership with the Royal Society and the [[Royal Institution]]. The [[British Medical Journal]] is amongst those who have noted the SIRC's intimate links to the food and drinks industry.
-==Living Marxism and Sense About Science==
+===Living Marxism and Sense About Science===
 As well as working with the SIRC and the SMC, the Royal Society has also worked closely with another lobby group, [[Sense About Science]] (SAS) - the directors of both the [[SMC]] and the [[SAS]] are part of the [[Living Marxism]] network.
-Both the Royal Society and [[Sense About Science]] have set up working groups on the issue of the reporting of science and peer review. The [[Sense About Science]] working party is chaired by the Royal Society's former Vice President, Sir [[Brian Heap]]. [[Patrick Bateson]], the Society's Biological Secretary has been assigned to liaise with the [[SAS]] working party as has Bob Ward, its senior manager for press and public relations. [[Peter Lachmann]] is also on the [[SAS]] working party which meets at the Royal Society.
+Both the Royal Society and [[Sense About Science]] have set up working groups on the issue of the reporting of science and peer review. The [[Sense About Science]] working party is chaired by the Royal Society's former Vice President, Sir [[Brian Heap]]. [[Patrick Bateson]], the Society'sReferences Biological Secretary has been assigned to liaise with the [[SAS]] working party as has Bob Ward, its senior manager for press and public relations. [[Peter Lachmann]] is also on the [[SAS]] working party which meets at the Royal Society.
-==Peer review==
+===Peer review===
 The Royal Society established its own working party on peer review. It was this that prompted ''The Independent'' article about how the Royal Society was battling scientific fraud and inaccurate reporting in the media.<ref>Charles Arthur, "[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-blame-media-and-fraud-for-fall-in-public-trust-609014.html Scientists blame media and fraud for fall in public trust]," ''The Independent'' 31.01.2003, accessed 06.04.2009.</ref> A Fellow of the Royal Society and member of its working party, Prof [[Paul Harvey]], was quoted in ''The Scotsman'' article<ref>GM Watch, [http://web.archive.org/web/20060930145750/http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1287 The truth behind those mad scientist stories (14/8/2003)], Web Archive dated 30.09.2006, accessed 29.09.2013.</ref> on the working party, saying Pusztai had been reported as "right" when in fact he was "wrong". Harvey also referred to Pusztai's "spurious results".<ref>Reynolds, James, "[http://web.archive.org/web/20031103110754/http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/index.cfm?id=888932003 The truth behind those mad scientist stories]", ''The Scotsman'' 14 August 2003, Web Archive dated 03.11.2003, accessed 04.04.2009.</ref> Andy Rowell commented in ''The Guardian'', "already this investigation looks like it will be used to attack those who have published science critical of commercially sensitive areas."<ref>Andy Rowell, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1021444,00.html Safe science is not always good science]", ''The Guardian'' 19.08.2003, accessed 29.09.2013.</ref>
@@ Line 110: / Line 107: @@
 Dr Levidow complained that far from being an open debate on the science, "the event became an exercise in policing the scientific debate. 'Scientific' credentials or criteria were invoked to ignore inconvenient issues and findings, as if they lay outside science." He concluded, "If there is to be an open debate on scientific unknowns and difficult issues in risk research, then it will need to be organized elsewhere."<ref>Les Levidow, "[http://www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/topics/forum/0070.htm Policing the Scientific Debate on GM Crops: the Royal Society meeting of 11th Feb 2003]," GM Science Review, accessed 04.04.2009.</ref>
 ==Resources==
@@ Line 115: / Line 120: @@
 *Andrew Rowell, "[http://www.scribd.com/doc/166990763/The-Star-Chamber-Chapter-6-of-Don-t-Worry-It-s-Safe-to-Eat The "star chamber", Chapter 6 of Don't Worry its Safe to Eat]," London: Earthscan, 2003.
-==References==
+==Notes==
 <references/>