Joe Kaplinsky

Joe Kaplinsky 2007 or 2008

Joe Kaplinsky is a science writer and researcher and is associated with the libertarian anti-environmental LM network. He has written for Living Marxism, Culture Wars and Spiked, contributed to the Institute of Ideas and WORLDbytes, spoken at the Battle of Ideas, Manifesto Club and Manchester Salon and is a shareholder of Spiked Ltd. He has also contributed to books by James Panton and James Woudhuysen.

He is currently a postdoctoral fellow (studying immunogenomics in the lab) at Imperial College London in the Institute of Chemical Biology, and has been supervised by Professor Richard Templer and Dr Oscar Ces. His current project is entitled 'Nanodigestion and analysis of a single cell plasma membrane', uses a proteomic approach, and is working towards microfluidic cell identification and separation techniques. He is also part of the ICL research group called the 'single cell analysis project'. Kaplinsky became involved in writing for the LM network in the mid-1990s. He contributed four articles to Living Marxism between 1995 to 2000. He also wrote for 38 articles for Spiked between 2001 and 2012. He appeared at every Battle of Ideas event between 2006-2010, appearing on six panels often alongside other LM Network associates, but has not appeared since then.

Energy work

LM network resources Core elements: Institute of Ideas | Spiked | List of all pages on the network Key People: Frank Furedi, Michael Fitzpatrick, Claire Fox, Helene Guldberg, James Heartfield, Mick Hume, Phil Mullan, Brendan O'Neill, Keith Teare, James Woudhuysen, Publications: Living Marxism | LM Contents | LM Commentaries | Frank Furedi: List of Publications | Confrontation | The next step Precursors: Revolutionary Communist Tendency | Revolutionary Communist Party Companies: Junius Publications | Informinc (LM) Limited | Cyberia | Easynet | CScape | Academy of Ideas Background: Bibliography | Chronology | Images and logos | Scribd document archive

In 2006 he contributed a chapter defending nuclear power to the book Science vs. Superstition: The case for a new Scientific Enlightenment published in collaboration with conservative think tank Policy Exchange. Policy Exchange received a 'D transparency rating' Who funds you, (where A is the most transparent and E the least).He is also co-author of the book Energise! with James Pollard Woudhuysen, which argues that the world needs to generate more energy and that reducing energy consumption is the barrier towards energy production innovation and human advancement. In a video interview on WORLDbytes Kaplinsky summarises the book, acknowledging that climate change is influenced by human activity, but questioning the pace it will have an influence. He rejects the thesis that warming will be catastrophic and, somewhat contradictorily, concludes that adaptation to climate change will only be possible due to innovation if the pursuit of more energy production is unhindered:

We really make two points about climate. The first point is that climate change is certainly influenced by human emissions of carbon dioxide, from energy, amongst other things, and that is now reasonably understood. But the pace of that climate change is not the catastrophic disaster movie that a lot of greens are going to paint and tell you. It is a fairly well understood process that is going to unfold over the next few decades over the next century. And so we have got time to restructure our energy supply and clean it up over the next fifty years or so, as is necessary...the second point that we make about climate change and global warming is that...it is likely to be much less catastrophic than some greens suspect because human beings are actually quite adaptable to changes in temperature. So even if the world warms up 3 degrees say people will be quite capable of solving all the problems like drought or disease and famine, floods, all the things the greens say will be catastrophes caused by climate, if we have sufficient economic development, if we have sufficient innovation, then people are going to flourish in that warmer world anyway. So in conclusion really, climate change is a problem that we are going to take in our stride as we produce more energy rather than something that we should see as the defining challenge of our times.

Educational background

He graduated from his PhD at Imperial College London (ICL) in 2012. His thesis was entitled Single cell analysis and cell sorting with application to circulating tumour cells. Prior to this, in June 2010, he won a ‘Dragons’ Den’ style competition showcasing student entrepreneurship for the ICL, which had been organised by one of his supervisors, Dr Oscar Ces, and was sponsored by Imperial Innovations. Whilst studying at ICL he has worked as a writer for the ICL’s Reporter magazine on a Master of Research (MRes) conference for the talk 'Martyna Snopek ‘Preparation of NMR sample for the studies of MyoA‐MTIP complex’', and presented a joint paper on 'Microfluidic cell sorting for single cell proteomics'.

Prior to this he undertook a Masters at ICL, focused on Protein and Membrane Chemical Biology, preceded by an MSc in Structural Molecular Biology from Birkbeck University. This may have overlapped with his time as a patent analyst, during which time his author description notes state that he wrote about a wide range of energy technologies, from the handling of nuclear waste, the liquefaction of coal, gas turbine generators and drilling for oil through to the management of power in consumer electronics. Prior to this he studied theoretical Physics at the University of Manchester and stayed on in a research role for a time.

Views

Living Marxism 1995-2000

Patenting Genes 1995

Kaplinsky’s first article for Living Marxism, in 1995, argued strongly against the patenting of genes, specifically related to the need for an invention to occur and the possibility of an alternative to be plausible for IP not to create an absolute monopoly:

The whole idea of patenting genes is of course absurd. Patenting is supposed to be applied to human inventions. In what way is the human gene responsible for cystic fibrosis an invention? Patenting genes makes as much sense as patenting diamonds or the air we breathe. Governments, scientists and ethical committees which have studied the matter on the whole agree that patenting of genes is ethically wrong. Most also accept that it is too restrictive because it creates monopolies. After all, if a company patents one form of painkiller, another company can discover a different type. There is, however, no alternative to studying the gene responsible for a particular illness

Patenting Genes 2003 (in Spiked)

The idea was later revisited from a new angle 8 years later with Spiked in 2003, although the tone had shifted to questioning indigenous rights to IP or using the ‘prior informed consent’ mechanism, whilst defending the need for IP protection in capitalist society:

Many argue that the inequalities of the intellectual property system could be rectified by giving ‘traditional’ or ‘indigenous’ knowledge more protection. But these proposals can result in a romanticisation of rural poverty and the blocking of economic and scientific development - and as such, are potentially more damaging for the developing world than the expansion of intellectual property itself…

And the Intellectual Property Rights Commission notes that there is a conflict of interest between the developed and developing worlds. Since most intellectual property is held by the developed world, it makes little sense for the developing world to implement tighter intellectual property laws. On the other hand, a modern capitalist economy requires protection for intellectual property, so any country that wants to develop needs to find a difficult balance. Under the patent system, a temporary monopoly is granted to private interests in order that we all share in the longer run. Giving indigenous people a veto over the use of biodiversity, meanwhile, fixes knowledge as the property of one particular group, and ties people to their traditional roles

However, his argument had shifted from seeing the corporations and government attempts as seeking to maximise profits to downplaying the significance of patenting genes:

The debate about intellectual property is blurred by hype about the ‘knowledge economy’, which accords intellectual property a more central economic role than it deserves. It is often forgotten that intellectual property is only an idea that can be applied in economic production, rather than economic production itself (businesses that assumed that DNA patents would be goldmines are now realising this)

Spiked 2000-2012

Writing for Spiked, Kaplinsky’s main focus became energy expansion, linking to the topic of his co-authored book Energise and particularly defending nuclear expansion, whilst criticising the environmental movement and 'their' use of the term 'Science' as well as seeking to portray environmentalism to have captured elite political and economic circles.

Environmentalism's elite capture

That energy is talked about without reference to productivity shows how much environmentalism has come to dominate mainstream economics nowadays

Environmental movement anti-humanist

The anti-environmentalist rhetoric is cloaked in a humanist discourse which seeks to represent the environmental movement as fatalistic, as well as implying all climate change models ignore any human agency as a factor for consideration:

The rise of models has coincided with the evaporation of the concept of human agency, of human beings consciously gaining and applying new insights through struggle. While we’re supposed to realise that climate change demands the most profound spiritual and lifestyle revolution for each and every person on the planet, in computer models of the future we are consigned to a fate that is pretty much pre-ordained. Such a view demeans the capabilities of people, distorts policy, and is also simply unrealistic. In the real world, human beings do not wait for things just to happen to them; we react, adapt and innovate around problems as they arise

'Alternative' energy sources

Kaplinsky also argues against the environmental movement by arguing that alternative energy sources are shot down by environmentalists. However, to back up this assertion he uses as examples tar sands, methane hydrates, and coal liquefaction as examples of new technologies shot down by environmentalists, ignoring the huge contribution to climate change expected from the exploitation of these new techniques:

In order to create a crisis, the pessimists have to discount so-called ‘unconventional’ sources of oil, such as tar sands, as too dirty or uneconomic; methane hydrates are apparently too speculative; coal liquefaction would take too long to come on line; and so on. Every alternative is shot down

Climate engineering, risk and an anti-precautionary principle

He also argues in favour of climate engineering and questions ethical considerations against research in this area, linking to the anti-precautionary discourse and risk management strategies of the network. In this instance climate engineering is elevated to the area of research where most funding should be directed in the struggle against climate change by implication:

You might think that the only problem with the idea of climate control is that we don’t know how to make it work. But today, ethical objections are raised against research that attempts to change this

Similarly in a WORLDbytes video, he argues against the precautionary principle to argue in favour of genetic engineering based on an assumption that the new technology will inevitably provide more benefits than costs:

even in … new technologies that were once considered green, like biofuels, when people start talking about genetically engineered bio-fuels, again the whole question of risk and fear comes up, holding up those new technologies

Downplaying risk

Kaplinsky also seeks to downplay the risk of current energy sources when he argues that nature can be equally, if not more, devastating to species than human activity:

Of course oil comes with problems. But a balanced assessment would find that the problems of oil are far outweighed by its benefits.

Furthermore, the long-term consequences for wildlife, even of larger oil spills, are not serious. Ecosystems have to be resilient and be able to bounce back from different disasters. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have survived millions of years of evolution.

The life of seabirds, whether ended by oil, disease, starvation or dashed to pieces in a storm, is brutish and short. According to Dr Paul Kingston of the Centre for Marine Diversity and Biotechnology at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh: ‘On a rocky shore, the animals don’t live very long anyway….Storms kill most of the animals every year so they’re adapted to recolonise very quickly

Energise! 2009

In 2008/2009 Kaplinsky published a book he co-authored with James Woudhuysen entitled 'Energise!: A Future for Energy Innovation (Beautiful Special)' The introduction to the book argues 'if the world could be more thoughtful about energy supply, we could all afford to be thoughtless about our personal use of energy'. The thesis of the book essentially acknowledges climate change is influenced by human activity but, contrary to what may seem logical from such an analysis, argues the answer to this is the expansion of energy usage to spur technological innovation:

When we looked at the whole discussion around energy…The conclusion we came to was that the real problem is the world needs to generate a lot more energy. So…a lot of other people seem to think that the main problem is climate change…and we thought that is really the wrong starting point…like looking at the problem through the wrong end of the telescope. Instead of taking climate change as the starting point what we are taking as the starting point is the need for innovation in energy and the creation of a lot more infrastructure. For example, all the calls nowadays for people to consume less and use less energy, we think, is wrong headed. The answer to that is to produce as much as people need…another thing we wanted to look at is what are the limits and barriers to producing a lot more energy today. So a lot of environmentalists will say that the problems are natural limits, like running out of oil, or putting too much stress on eco-systems and so-on, and what we wanted to explore is what are the real political and economic and social limits to generating a lot more energy so that those can be overcome and so that we can help people move past them

There is also a section of the book devoted criticising environmentalist and 'greens' as anti-humanist and fatalistic. Describing this section in a WORLDbytes] interview Kaplinsky notes:

Misanthrope is just the word that means ‘hates humanity’, ‘hates people’ and we used that really to label a few of the environmentalists who we are critical of. They always see people as the problem, rather than the solution. So they are always seeing people as polluting, as creating waste, as destroying the environment. They are never seeing people as the source of creative solutions…inventions, new sources of energy....There is a real disregard for people’s desires and for the way they want to live their lives. So they seem very happy introducing new regulations, bans on lightbulbs, telling people how to live, which really represents a quite contemptuous approach.

Thirteen of twenty people named and thanked in the aknowledgements section of the book are well connected to the LM network and can be assumed to have assisted in the development process of the book to some degree. The full aknowledgements list was as follows: Ian Abley, Daniel Ben-Ami, Bernhard Blauel, Robert Clowes, Sean Collins, Bill Durodié, Claire Fox, Frank Furedi, Tony Gilland, John Gillott, Alex Gourevich, Mark Harrop, Philip Hammond, Rob Lyons, Kevin McCullagh, Phil Mullan, Peter Sammonds, Paul Seaman, Antti Silvast and Phil Slade.

Career Chronology

• Living Marxism/LM - Writer/Contributor (1995-2000)
• Culture Wars - Writer/Contributor (2003)
• Patent Analyst - (2006(approx) - 2008 (approx))
• Spiked - Writer/Contributor (2000-2012)
• Imperial College London - Teaching Fellow (2012-Present).
• Harvard Catalyst - External Research Fellow in Pathology Institute, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Centre, Depatment: Pathology, in the Centre for Life Sciences (Present).

Education Chronology

• Imperial College London - PhD in Chemical Biology (2008(approx)-2012)
• Imperial College London - Masters in Protein and Membrane Chemical Biology (2007-2008)
• Birkbeck, University of London - MSc in Structural Molecular Biology (Completed by Distance Learning)
• The University of Manchester - BSc/MPhys in Theoretical Physics

Other Affiliations

• Climate Resistance:Challenging Climate Orthodoxy
• WORLDbytes

Other Links with the Network

Battle of Ideas Panel Appearances

2006

• Sunday 29th October 2006 - Joe Kaplinsky appeared with: Oliver Morton (chief news and features editor, Nature), Peter Sammonds (professor of Geophysics, University College London, has contributed articles attacking the global warming hypothesis to Living Marxism, the Institute of Ideas and Spiked), Professor Geoffrey Wadge (professorial research fellow, Environmental Systems Science Centre, University of Reading; volcanologist; chair of the Foreign and Commonwealth Scientific Advisory Committee on Montserrat Volcanic Activity), and Austin Williams (has written for Living Marxism, is director of the Future Cities Project, has led the ManTownHuman, Bookshop Barnies and the defunct Transport Research Group, participated in Audacity and in Institute of Ideas events, spoken at the Manchester Salon, adjudicated for Debating Matters, appeared on WORLDbytes and written for Spiked and Culture Wars), discussing 'Nature's Revenge?' at the Battle of Ideas.

2007

• Sunday 28 October 2007 - Joe Kaplinsky appeared with: Dr Brian Cox (Royal Society research fellow, University of Manchester; television and radio presenter, writer and broadcaster; particle physicist working at CERN, in charge of project to upgrade the ATLAS and CMS detectors at the LHC), and David Perks (principal, East London Science School, writes for Spiked and Culture Wars, has written for and is involved in the Education Forum of the Institute of Ideas), discussing 'Particle Physics is Sexy' at the Battle of Ideas.
• Sunday 28 October 2007 - Joe Kaplinsky appeared with: Professor Chris Rapley CBE (director, Science Museum; outgoing director, British Antarctic Survey), Hans Von Storch (director, Institute for Coastal Research, GKSS Research Centre; professor at Meteorological Institute, University of Hamburg), and Tony Gilland (associate fellow, Institute of Ideas, has written for Spiked), discussing 'The science and politics of climate change', at the Battle of Ideas.

2008

• Sunday 2 November 2008 - Joe Kaplinsky appeared with: Bob Bingham (professor of Physics, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow; Laboratory Fellow, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory), Michael Massey (associate fellow, Energy, Environment and Development Programme, Chatham House; sustainability advisor), Dr Alexanra Penn (life sciences interface research fellow, Science and Engineering of Natural Systems Group, University of Southampton), and Dr Robert Clowes (research fellow, philosophy of cognitive science, IFL, Universita Nova Lisboa; founder member, Brighton Salon; founder, Lisbon Salon; theatre director), discussing 'Nuclear fusion and the future of energy', at the Battle of Ideas.

2009

• Sunday 1st November 2009 - Joe Kaplinsky appeared with: Paul Brown (journalist; fellow, Wolfson College, University of Cambridge, former chief operating officer of the Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR)), Malcolm Grimston (associate fellow, energy, environment and development programme, Chatham House, has worked with the British Nuclear Industry Forum as Energy Issues Adviser ), Dr Alexanra Penn (life sciences interface research fellow, Science and Engineering of Natural Systems Group, University of Southampton), Dr Dominic Standish (lecturer, sociology of management and journalism, University of Iowa (US) and CIMBA (Italy), he has written for Living Marxism/LM and Spiked), discussing 'A New Nuclear Age?' at the Battle of Ideas.

2010

• Sunday 31st October 2010 - Joe Kaplinsky appeared with: Martin Haigh (energy consultant, Shell; lead consultant, Shell's World Energy Model), Martin Wright (founding editor, Green Futures; visiting judge, Ashden Awards for Sustainable Energy), and Alex Hochuli (PhD student in sociology, University of Kent, Canterbury; co-founder, IoI Current Affairs Forum, writes for for Spiked, the Manifesto Club, Debating Matters and Culture Wars), discussing 'The energy challenge: can we keep the lights on?' at the Battle of Ideas.

WORLDbytes videos

2008

• September 5 2008 - ‘Chill out about leaving the lights on’.
• October 4 2008 - ‘Chill out with our scientist on waste’.
• November 13 2008 - ‘Chill out with our scientist on water’.
• December 11 2008 - ‘Chill out about GM foods’.

2009

• 2009 - ‘Energise’.
• February 13 2009 - ‘Chill out about stem cell’.
• April 10 2009 - ‘Chill out desk: Nuclear fusion & Fission’.
• June 4 2009 - ‘Chill out about Animal Experimentation’.
• July 20 2009 - ‘Chill out about Deforestation’.
• September 18 2009 - ‘Chill out about DDT’.
• October 21 2009 - ‘Chill out about Designer babies’.

2011

• May 19 2011 - ‘Don’t shout at the telly – vote for what?’

Publications

1995

• Joseph Kaplinsky, 'Futures: Who owns your genes?', Living Marxism, No. 77 - March 1995, p. 34.

1998

• Joe Kaplinsky, 'Reading between the lines', LM 112, p. 47, July/August 1998.

2000

• Joe Kaplinsky, 'Nuclear reaction', LM 129, p. 20, April 2000.
• Joe Kaplinsky, 'Sir William phone home', p. 52, Last Magazine, Summer 2000.

2001

• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Capitalists against development: The private sector lending arm of the World Bank is keen to stress its support for sustainable development. What's in it for them?’, Spiked, 4 May 2001.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘What is expertise?: Joe Kaplinsky reports on the RSA/Economist summer fringe debate’, Spiked, 13 July 2001.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Better safe than sorry?: Joe Kaplinsky reports on the RSA/Economist summer fringe debate on science and risk’, Spiked, 20 July 2001.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Comprehension tests: Joe Kaplinsky reports on the RSA/Economist summer fringe debate on Science and the Public: who needs to understand whom?’, Spiked, 27 July 2001.

2002

• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Precaution goes to war: The war on terror is being waged in the language of radical environmentalism’, Spiked, 17 July 2002.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Rocking our world?: Asteroids are unlikely to wipe us out - but they could help us to learn the secrets of the universe’, Spiked, 2 August 2002.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Putting nature Before People: The World Summit on Sustainable Development showed how mainstream green ideas have become, White Paper on Security of European Electricity Distribution’, Spiked, 6 September 2002.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Boston’s Big Dig: Americans sure know how to build roads’, Spiked, 12 September 2002.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Paranoia Americana: America's National Security Strategy suggests that its foreign policy is driven by fear’, Spiked, 12 November 2002.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Slick arguments: The Prestige oil spill is not an ecological disaster - and far from the 'worst ever' spill’, Spiked, 21 November 2002.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘No-clear policy: From dithering over nuclear power to promoting the virtues of wind, the UK government's energy policy is running out of steam’, Spiked, 3 December 2002.

2003

• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Experiment: Coversations in Art and Science: Book review’, Culture wars, 1 March 2003.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Nanotechnology: a slippery debate: Scientists are unlikely to turn the world into 'grey goo' - but that hasn't stopped the scaremongers’, Spiked, 7 May 2003.
• Joe Kaplinsky ‘Protecting superstition: Patents on indigenous knowledge are blocking development’, Spiked, 22 May 2003.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘After the US blackout: It's time to think bigger about the electricity grid, not retreat into home generation’, Spiked, 22 August 2003.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Near Earth, but far out: The mysterious government body that turned a distant asteroid into a global threat’, Spiked, 5 September 2003.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Chemical reactions: The heightened concern about chemicals promotes myth-making over rational science’, Spiked, 16 September 2003.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘No-clear policy: From dithering over nuclear power to promoting the virtues of wind, the UK government's energy policy is running out of steam’, Spiked, 3 December 2003.

2004

• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Bring back the weathermen: Controlling the weather is nearly within our grasp. We shouldn't shy away’, Spiked, 12 February 2004.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Inflaming the oil crisis: There seems to be no danger of running out of pessimistic predictions about the end of oil’, Spiked, 3 June 2004.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Inflating the oil crisis: What's behind the hike in prices?’, Spiked, 19 August 2004.

2005

• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Space cadets: If environmentalists had their way, probes would never have touched down on Titan, Saturn's moon’, Spiked, 17 January 2005.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Creationism, pluralism and the compromising of science: The trouble with 'teaching the controversy'’, Spiked, 1 March 2005.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Global warming won’t save nuclear power: The case for nuclear power won't be won by those hiding behind doomsday fears’, Spiked, 7 April 2005.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘No clear policies on nuclear energy: From global warming to 'war for oil', the political debate about energy has become a morally loaded rather than a technical one,’ Spiked, 28 April 2005.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Nuclear lethargy: Why is the government dragging its heels on building new nuclear power stations?’, Spiked, 12 August 2005.

2006

• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Down with catastrophism: James Howard Kunstler's new book, The Long Emergency, depicts humans as parasites who might benefit from a mass die-off. Speak for yourself’, Spiked, 9 January 2006.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Who owns ideas?: How the expansion of intellectual property law puts a brake on new developments’, Spiked, 26 February 2006.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Stop using fear to sell us the nuclear option: Tony Blair, take note: the argument for nuclear power will never be won with scare stories about climate change and a global energy crisis’, Spiked, 18 May 2006.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Hawking, we have a problem: Surely Stephen Hawking could have made a better case for space travel than by arguing that humans face certain disaster on Earth?’, Spiked, 20 June 2006.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘A self-defeating argument for nuclear power: The UK government’s energy review is more interested in changing the public’s behaviour than in putting a positive case for nuclear.’, Spiked, 12 July 2006, http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/1017#.VDJ8l5RdVvo.
• Joe Kaplinsky in James Panton and Oliver Hartwich, ‘A disaster Waiting to happen – Why are we so anti nuclear?’ in ‘Science vs. Superstition: The case for a new Scientific Enlightenment’, University of Buckingham Press, Policy Exchange., December 2006.

2007

• James Woudhuysen & Joe Kaplinsky, ‘A man-made morality tale: How the IPCC’s fairly sober summary of climate science has been spun to tell a story of Fate, Doom and human folly’, Spiked, 5 February 2007.
• Joe Kaplinsky & James Woudhuysen, ‘Nuke the consultation - let’s have a debate!: Greenpeace and the courts have delayed New Labour’s energy white paper. That’s no victory – for you, me or the planet’, Spiked, 20 February 2007.
• James Woudhuysen & Joe Kaplinsky, ‘Let’s fight back against the new Model Army: Like voodoo forecasts, computer models of climate change are being used to stifle political discussion and resign man to his fate’, Spiked, 12 July 2007.
• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘The dangers of lazy science reporting: When policy makers use 'science' as a shortcut to solving society's problems, we need to be sceptical about science stories’, Spiked, 1 October 2007.
• Antti Silvast & Joe Kaplinsky, Project Understand, European Commission, 2007, Leonardo DaVinci Programme.

2008

• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘When a Butterfly Flaps Its Wings, Environmentalists Just Flap’, May 12 2008, Internet Archive capture of Climate Resistance as of 30 July 2014, accessed 18 February 2015.

2009

• Joe Kaplinsky and James Woudhuysen, ‘The world needs abundant, cheap, clean energy: In an extract from their new book, Energise!, James Woudhuysen and Joe Kaplinsky argue that climate change is real, but the answer is to invest boldly in new forms of power supply not moralise about personal consumption, Spiked, 30 January 2009.
• James Woudhuysen & Joe Kaplinsky, ‘We need cheap, abundant energy. Here’s how: More R&D, fewer red herrings’, The register, 9 February 2009.
• James Woudhuysen & Joe Kaplinsky, ‘The myth that New Labour is pro-nuclear: Everyone from big business to greens imagines that British government policy favours nuclear energy. It doesn’t’, Spiked, 30 April 2009.

2010

• Joe Kaplinsky, ‘It’s time the UK had some atomic ambition: Britain might soon face power cuts if it doesn’t invest in new energy generation - and, yes, that means embracing nuclear’, Spiked, 29 March 2010.
• David Bowden, Suzy Dean, Alex Hochuli & Joe Kaplinsky, ‘UK Election Manifesto 2010: To the point’, 2010.

2012

• James Woudhuysen, Joe Kaplinsky & Paul Seaman, ‘How to make energy blackouts a thing of the past: The key to providing for our energy needs is technological development, not sterile rows about energy sources’, Spiked, 4 October 2012.

Resources

Facebook Joe.Kaplinsky1

Profile Joe Kaplinsky Battle of Ideas