David King

This article is part of the Nuclear Spin project of Spinwatch.

David King

History

Sir David King is the Director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at the University of Oxford, and a senior scientific adviser to the financial services giant UBS. He was the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser and Head of the Office of Science and Technology from October 2000 to December 2007. Born in South Africa in 1939, and after an early career at the University of Witwatersrand, Imperial College and the University of East Anglia, he became the Brunner Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Liverpool in 1974.

In 1988, he was appointed 1920 Professor of Physical Chemistry at the University of Cambridge and subsequently became Master of Downing College (1995-2000), and Head of the University Chemistry Department (1993-2000). He retains his position at Cambridge as 1920 Professor of Chemistry.

From sceptic to proponent of nuclear power

King became a trusted adviser to Tony Blair and was one of the key people who persuaded Blair for the need of a nuclear revival. His enthusiasm for nuclear led Guardian columnist George Monbiot to write that he feared that "the government's chief scientist is mutating into its chief spin doctor".

Media reports suggest that King's conversion to nuclear power was made only as the evidence on climate change accumulated. For example, the Guardian reported in October 2005 that "The government's chief scientific adviser has sent his clearest signal that Britain will need to revive its nuclear power industry in the face of a looming energy crisis and the threat of global warming ... Prof King, one of Tony Blair's most trusted advisers, said the public debate on nuclear power needed to focus on the environmental benefits. "It's important we do take the public with us on the environmental debate. That is why I'm trying to sell it - it's precisely because of the emissions."

The media report how King previously opposed nuclear power but warmed to it as the science of climate change has solidified.

Yet King had been calling for new nuclear power consistently now since 2002. Even before that he was an advocate of nuclear power.

Links to the nuclear industry

From 2001 onwards King spoke consistently in favour of nuclear fusion and fission. In 2001, he was the Chairman of a meeting of Fusion Fast Track Experts that recommended that 'The ITER (an experimental fusion reactor) project is the essential step towards energy production on a fast track'. The subsequent report was known as the King report. King hopes that nuclear fusion will be used in the next 35 years in the UK.

Giving evidence before the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee in November 2005, King stated that when the Government published its Energy White Paper in 2003:

I was arguing that we needed every tool in the bag to tackle climate change, including nuclear.

He added:

There are new fission power stations available that are efficient, are relatively much safer and produce less waste per unit of energy produced. The pebble-bed I believe is the most attractive of the three and a half to four generation nuclear fission power stations under development I think it is a marvellous project. (The pebble-bed reactor is being developed in South Africa by the South African utility Eskom, the South African Industrial Development Corporation and BNFL.

He has also not been shy of speaking at nuclear conventions:

Sir David spoke at the inaugural conference of the World Nuclear University in September 2003. The aim of the University is the "safe and increasing use of nuclear power as the one proven technology able to produce clean energy on a large global scale". Other speakers included James Lovelock; John Ritch, the Director General, World Nuclear Association and Hugh Collum, the Chairman of BNFL.

During his speech King said: "From a young scientist's point of view, the message to get across is that nuclear energy continues to offer exciting and new challenges, with a strong potential to provide a path forward for our future energy problems and for the sustainability of our global low-carbon economies. It is an industry with a vibrant future - that "the message to get across, and let me also say a critically important future."

In May 2005 he was the Guest of Honour and Keynote Speaker at the British Nuclear Energy Society Annual Dinner. [3] A year later, in May 2006, King was due to speak at the Inaugural Nuclear Industry Forum of the right-wing think tank the Adam Smith Institute. The supporting association for the event is the Nuclear Industry Association.

40 per cent nuclear

In March 2006, The Financial Times reported how King believes that 40 per cent of Britain's electricity should come from nuclear generation - that is twice its current contribution.

Pro-GM lobbying

King has taken every opportunity to promote genetically modified (GM) crops. Notoriously, during an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme in 2007, King cited as a clear example of a GM success a so-called 'push-pull' project designed to manage pests and boost crop yields in Kenya. The project was successful. As King said, it boosted yield by 40-50 per cent. However, the project used sustainable agriculture techniques involving companion planting and did not involve GM. King's misleading claim was described by a spokesperson for the government's Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills as an "honest mistake".

He used his valedictory speech at the Royal Society to focus on the case for genetically modified food. But the editor of The Lancet, Dr Richard Horton, said Sir David took his faith in science into "the realms of totalitarian paranoia" and accused him of "letting off blasts of hot and sometimes rancid air". In his online blog, Horton said:

If he lost the debate on GM, it was because his arguments failed to convince people. King seems biased and even antidemocratic. It seems he would prefer the media not to exist at all. That is a troubling position for the Government's chief scientist to adopt.

King also claimed to a Commons Select Committee that Britain's failure to embrace GM crops had cost the economy up to £4 billion but when subsequently pressed, it emerged that this was mere speculation on King's part, leading Dr Brian John of GM Free Cymru to accuse King of plucking the figure "from the air".

Commenting on King's departure from his post as chief scientific officer, the Daily Mail said:

Critics of Sir David suggest he has become "demob happy" following his decision to stand down. Since the announcement, he has taken a more outspoken line on controversial issues such as GM...

Another, and perhaps the most extreme, example of King employing pro-GM hyperbole was his fronting of BBC Radio 4's Street Science programme on GM crops, broadcast on 3 December 2008, in which he made a series of claims about GM crops which were subsequently shown to be completely false – see transcript here and Peter Melchett's critical commentary, "Who can we trust on GM crops?", published in The Guardian on 9 December 2008.

In January 2010 King made another false claim, leading to a Farmers Weekly report that began:

Many human lives have been lost due to the reluctance of some countries to accept genetically modified crops, former government chief scientific adviser, Sir David King has claimed.

Addressing the annual City Food Lecture in London's Guildhall this week, Sir David cited the example of flood-resistant rice which had taken over five years to develop using conventional breeding techniques, when it could have been done in two using biotechnology.

But Peter Melchett of the Soil Association pointed out back in December 2008, after King's first round of misleading statements about the rice in Street Science, that the non-appearance of a GM version of the flood-resistant rice was nothing to do with countries' "reluctance" to accept GMOs and everything to do with the fact that the scientists tried, but failed, to produce a GM version. In the end the scientists used marker assisted selection (MAS), normal breeding informed by knowledge of the genome and supported by environmentalists and organic organisations.

Resources on King and GM

• Philip Clarke, Lack of GMOs costs lives, claims leading scientist, Farmers Weekly, 20 January 2010. Includes comment by GMWatch.