1
00:00:01,990 --> 00:00:08,470
The relationship between scientists and politicians has never been an easy one these days.

2
00:00:08,470 --> 00:00:15,610
Scientists advise our government on anything from run of the mill policy to cyber warfare to natural disasters,

3
00:00:15,610 --> 00:00:19,750
to taxation or on the future of our energy needs.

4
00:00:19,750 --> 00:00:26,920
But with only 10 percent of employees having a scientific background, is this advice always understood?

5
00:00:26,920 --> 00:00:32,080
And even when it is, do what? Politicians always adhere to it?

6
00:00:32,080 --> 00:00:35,950
With me to discuss all these issues and more are Catherine Boast,

7
00:00:35,950 --> 00:00:43,750
a fourth year student in physics from St. Peter's College, and Rocherlea, a 30 year fixed student at Lincoln College.

8
00:00:43,750 --> 00:00:46,000
Thank you very much for joining me, Catherine.

9
00:00:46,000 --> 00:00:54,100
About a year ago, you had a very interesting secondment to Parliament, to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, as you write.

10
00:00:54,100 --> 00:00:58,540
Could you explain how you came to do that and what sort of stuff you got up to in parliament?

11
00:00:58,540 --> 00:01:07,570
Yeah, of course. So my research council, my funding body said the people who fund my defo run,

12
00:01:07,570 --> 00:01:14,110
they call them postgraduate research fellowships within Post Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

13
00:01:14,110 --> 00:01:16,660
And they advertise these once a year.

14
00:01:16,660 --> 00:01:28,420
And once a year, they send a graduate student who they are funding to spend three months at a post working on pretty much whatever you need them do.

15
00:01:28,420 --> 00:01:36,820
And the idea is that it introduces dialogue between post and between scientists by talking to the scientists,

16
00:01:36,820 --> 00:01:43,690
then have access to parliament and to the various ways that science can be brought to bear on policy.

17
00:01:43,690 --> 00:01:53,020
The idea is that the politicians get the advantage of these post notes, which are these very condensed reports on current scientific policy.

18
00:01:53,020 --> 00:02:00,700
And the scientists get a kind of greater understanding of the parliamentary procedures, how politicians might use their research.

19
00:02:00,700 --> 00:02:04,690
Yeah, that's pretty much it. I mean, it's a Win-Win situation, really. As a graduate student,

20
00:02:04,690 --> 00:02:10,360
it's an amazing experience to go and spend three months in parliament to up sticks and do

21
00:02:10,360 --> 00:02:14,470
something completely different because it is completely different to scientific research.

22
00:02:14,470 --> 00:02:16,570
Because what was your report on that? You were writing?

23
00:02:16,570 --> 00:02:22,930
So mine was on digital forensics and crime, which is not something I knew anything about in advance.

24
00:02:22,930 --> 00:02:27,250
I don't think I even knew what forensics really meant before I started.

25
00:02:27,250 --> 00:02:32,140
It was the first thing I Googled. It's very steep learning curve.

26
00:02:32,140 --> 00:02:40,960
But also, if you don't know about a topic in advance, you're not likely to have very many preconceived ideas, very many biases.

27
00:02:40,960 --> 00:02:46,990
Which makes for much easier writing when you know that your final report has to be totally unbiased.

28
00:02:46,990 --> 00:02:52,000
That's one of the really important things about post and about these post notes.

29
00:02:52,000 --> 00:02:58,660
So the post notes are the main way that Post communicates with parliamentarians.

30
00:02:58,660 --> 00:03:05,920
They have to be totally unbiased and is not just unbiased in the sense of presenting both sides of the argument.

31
00:03:05,920 --> 00:03:15,460
It's unbiased in the sense that it has to take in and present a fair representation of the consensus.

32
00:03:15,460 --> 00:03:25,180
So it's 90 percent of people think that current policy on digital forensics is a total disaster and 10 percent think it's great is no good.

33
00:03:25,180 --> 00:03:30,160
Just spending half the note saying it's great and half the note saying it's terrible.

34
00:03:30,160 --> 00:03:34,390
It's important to to present balance in these things.

35
00:03:34,390 --> 00:03:41,710
I think there's a copy of your report here on the table in front of us. Could you give us a sense of what sort of documents these post notes are?

36
00:03:41,710 --> 00:03:43,390
So they're four pages long.

37
00:03:43,390 --> 00:03:53,590
They are meticulously researched and referenced and they're very policy heavy, a very policy focus, because that's what MPs need.

38
00:03:53,590 --> 00:04:03,040
It's no good just telling them how to hack a computer. They want to know how that's going to affect the decisions that they're going to have to make.

39
00:04:03,040 --> 00:04:15,130
So it includes a bit of the the background science of what digital forensics is and information on how it works so that politicians

40
00:04:15,130 --> 00:04:20,950
really have a genuine understanding of what's going on and what people are talking about when they say digital forensics.

41
00:04:20,950 --> 00:04:26,560
Well, even though it also is about science and politics from digital forensics, what about the tone so much?

42
00:04:26,560 --> 00:04:29,260
How did you describe digital forensics to the politician?

43
00:04:29,260 --> 00:04:38,200
Redus Digital forensic science is the process of obtaining, analysing and using digital evidence in investigations or criminal proceedings.

44
00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:42,850
So essentially how you get information from digital devices.

45
00:04:42,850 --> 00:04:51,790
So whether that's getting the GPS positions of a mobile phone for the last week or whether it's recovering

46
00:04:51,790 --> 00:04:59,950
information from a laptop or decrypting an encrypted hard drive or downloading data from the cloud,

47
00:04:59,950 --> 00:05:06,640
it's sort of it's all of these things. It encompasses any kind of digital evidence and how to get hold of it.

48
00:05:06,640 --> 00:05:09,820
Essentially the current state of the field.

49
00:05:09,820 --> 00:05:15,370
And it's just news and ongoing investigations were summarised by you and your colleagues in this full page report.

50
00:05:15,370 --> 00:05:16,930
Yeah. Yeah.

51
00:05:16,930 --> 00:05:25,460
What would you consider to be the main difficulties that you faced and I guess scientists in general face in communicating with parliament?

52
00:05:25,460 --> 00:05:34,400
Well, first up, most parliamentarians are not scientists, so you have to assume a fairly low baseline knowledge for these things.

53
00:05:34,400 --> 00:05:36,470
And when you're trying to explain something complicated,

54
00:05:36,470 --> 00:05:46,700
like encryption to someone who has only ever used a computer from the outside and never tried to code or encrypt or anything,

55
00:05:46,700 --> 00:05:50,450
there's a lot of work that you have to do to make sure that you're communicating

56
00:05:50,450 --> 00:05:54,530
everything they need to know in a way that they're going to be able to understand.

57
00:05:54,530 --> 00:05:59,720
But it's also hard to know whether politicians understand science for what it is,

58
00:05:59,720 --> 00:06:07,460
whether they really appreciate the fact that the science is, to all intents and purposes, fact.

59
00:06:07,460 --> 00:06:11,570
It's not opinion. It's not just another lobby group.

60
00:06:11,570 --> 00:06:16,640
It's the best thing is it's our best attempt at getting things right.

61
00:06:16,640 --> 00:06:26,210
And I do wonder I do worry that MBAs have scientists talking in one ear and presenting the,

62
00:06:26,210 --> 00:06:32,900
quote unquote, scientific viewpoint and then lobby groups speaking in the other ear,

63
00:06:32,900 --> 00:06:43,880
presenting perhaps a somewhat biased view in favour of whatever that lobbying group is in favour of and whether politicians really understand.

64
00:06:43,880 --> 00:06:50,330
No, except that the science should trump the lobbying, that these are very different kinds of voices.

65
00:06:50,330 --> 00:06:57,580
Exactly. And that they're not they're not equivalent. That science isn't just another another lobbying group.

66
00:06:57,580 --> 00:06:59,230
Rob, perhaps you'd like to come in here,

67
00:06:59,230 --> 00:07:06,650
this issue of the scientific consensus against the views of various lobby groups is something that you feel comes up quite a lot.

68
00:07:06,650 --> 00:07:15,080
Yeah, I think that, you know, it's hard to know exactly what goes into making a policy decision and when science is involved, you know,

69
00:07:15,080 --> 00:07:18,800
there are a number of cases where the decisions that government make aren't

70
00:07:18,800 --> 00:07:24,740
necessarily or don't seem from the outside necessarily based in scientific fact,

71
00:07:24,740 --> 00:07:30,950
a particular example you've written in your notes is about nuclear power in Germany.

72
00:07:30,950 --> 00:07:39,110
It's not a very big decision was made that seems very sudden given to the scientific adviser at the time.

73
00:07:39,110 --> 00:07:45,860
The situation in Germany was such that the German government very pro nuclear and pro nuclear power.

74
00:07:45,860 --> 00:07:55,430
And then right after Fukushima, their policy did a flip and they basically started going down the road of getting rid of their nuclear power plants.

75
00:07:55,430 --> 00:08:00,740
And that was a very solid decision. And I suppose the question to be asked is whether that was really a decision

76
00:08:00,740 --> 00:08:05,000
which was based on scientific evidence or whether that was a political decision.

77
00:08:05,000 --> 00:08:08,810
Given that there were elections coming up that year, you know, it might not be as black and white as that.

78
00:08:08,810 --> 00:08:16,490
There are also issues where if you're a particular government, you want to stay in government and you want to to do a whole host of wonderful things.

79
00:08:16,490 --> 00:08:24,650
Maybe doing something which the public don't like or perceived by a lot of groups to be a bad decision is not the way to go.

80
00:08:24,650 --> 00:08:28,430
Do you want to stay in government and maybe help poverty in a particular country?

81
00:08:28,430 --> 00:08:30,980
If you want to know if you're for example,

82
00:08:30,980 --> 00:08:38,990
if you're a Labour government in the U.K. and you're in power and you think that the worst thing that could possibly happen is not climate change,

83
00:08:38,990 --> 00:08:44,510
but actually the conservatives getting into power because they'll cut welfare,

84
00:08:44,510 --> 00:08:48,530
then you're going to make a decision based on that and you're going to weigh up those two options.

85
00:08:48,530 --> 00:08:50,960
So it's not always clear, particularly to scientists,

86
00:08:50,960 --> 00:08:57,320
why certain decisions are made and whether they are based on fact or whether there is other things at play.

87
00:08:57,320 --> 00:09:08,210
But there's a very complicated relationship between political practicality, political expediency with a sort of cruelty and scientific advice.

88
00:09:08,210 --> 00:09:13,130
Absolutely. I mean, particularly with the Germany case. I mean, Angela Merkel has a PhD in quantum chemistry.

89
00:09:13,130 --> 00:09:19,350
And, you know, she's she's very scientifically literate and she will have understood the decisions that she was making.

90
00:09:19,350 --> 00:09:24,180
And it's hard to know whether the decision that was made in Germany was actually made.

91
00:09:24,180 --> 00:09:30,670
It would be unreasonable to assume that it was made from a lack of understanding of science, but there might may have been more play.

92
00:09:30,670 --> 00:09:35,980
Thanks, Rob, I think we'll perhaps come back to this issue later in the podcast, but Catherine,

93
00:09:35,980 --> 00:09:44,650
you wrote about the decision regarding the sugar tax in the United Kingdom being an issue in which there was side advice on one hand,

94
00:09:44,650 --> 00:09:48,740
and then the political decisions followed a curious path.

95
00:09:48,740 --> 00:09:52,670
It was a very so this unfolded while I was at post.

96
00:09:52,670 --> 00:09:57,430
So it was very interesting to be there and be in the middle of it and sort of see it unfolding.

97
00:09:57,430 --> 00:10:05,410
So Public Health England were commissioned to produce a report on reducing sugar in diets.

98
00:10:05,410 --> 00:10:10,180
So public health England is supposed to be autonomous from government.

99
00:10:10,180 --> 00:10:19,180
It's sort of part of the Department of Health. But at the same time, it didn't ought to be influenced by government.

100
00:10:19,180 --> 00:10:24,070
And they produced this report. They found that price increases, for example,

101
00:10:24,070 --> 00:10:35,080
by taxation on sugar sweetened drinks and other high sugar products does have an influence on whether people buy these and consume these things.

102
00:10:35,080 --> 00:10:43,840
The idea being then that if they don't buy them, they're not going to drink them. So it will help the impending obesity crisis and diabetes and all.

103
00:10:43,840 --> 00:10:54,910
Exactly, exactly. Initially, the government said that they were not going to impose issued a tax and in fact,

104
00:10:54,910 --> 00:10:58,900
they refused to publish this report produced by Public Health England.

105
00:10:58,900 --> 00:11:03,700
And that was a very controversial move because Public Health England is a

106
00:11:03,700 --> 00:11:08,770
public body doing research with public money in the interests of open access.

107
00:11:08,770 --> 00:11:17,140
They should have had to have published the report, but the government suppressed it, or at least that's how it seemed.

108
00:11:17,140 --> 00:11:24,770
In fact, the report was then leaked and after the report had been leaked, the government.

109
00:11:24,770 --> 00:11:34,400
Change tack and decided there were, in fact, going to impose a tax on sugary drinks and then subsequently they did publish this report.

110
00:11:34,400 --> 00:11:38,240
So we know that it says what the league said it had said.

111
00:11:38,240 --> 00:11:49,550
So it was an interesting case of government suppressing science, which obviously never should happen, and then ignoring it.

112
00:11:49,550 --> 00:11:55,070
But once it became apparent that that's what was going on, backtracking and going with the science.

113
00:11:55,070 --> 00:12:02,360
So overall, they have gone with the science, but it took a somewhat shady and tortuous route to get there.

114
00:12:02,360 --> 00:12:07,430
Securitas being diplomatic. Exactly. Do you think this kind of thing happens a lot?

115
00:12:07,430 --> 00:12:18,050
I genuinely don't know. I would like to hope it doesn't. But unless these reports are leaked, unless the press gets wind of these reports existing,

116
00:12:18,050 --> 00:12:21,440
there's not going to be any pressure on government to do anything about it.

117
00:12:21,440 --> 00:12:27,260
So it was only because this was quite a high profile story that national press picked up on.

118
00:12:27,260 --> 00:12:33,770
It had celebrity backers like Jamie Oliver jumping up and down and saying that we need to do something about this.

119
00:12:33,770 --> 00:12:41,510
We can't know how many of these reports disappear. Well, actually, the I don't know, was it because of this sugar tax?

120
00:12:41,510 --> 00:12:47,120
But recently, the research bodies in the U.K. at least, have been moving much more towards open access.

121
00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:50,030
So the research that comes out from not only public bodies,

122
00:12:50,030 --> 00:12:56,010
but universities and everyone across the U.K., if it's funded by one of the main research councils like,

123
00:12:56,010 --> 00:13:03,380
you know, HDFC or one of the Science Technology Facilities Council, I went to one of these has to now be published open access within two years.

124
00:13:03,380 --> 00:13:09,320
And so the research directly from the researchers is being is being much more what is being made much more widely available,

125
00:13:09,320 --> 00:13:12,890
which hopefully might prevent some of this happening in the future? Well, I think it was the other way around.

126
00:13:12,890 --> 00:13:21,290
I think that it was because of this emphasis on open access, on everything being published, if it's been produced with public money.

127
00:13:21,290 --> 00:13:27,660
There was so much pressure for this report to be published, which is why it was leaked and why it came out.

128
00:13:27,660 --> 00:13:35,040
Taking a slightly different view on this huge conundrum, of course, science and politics interacting in so many different ways.

129
00:13:35,040 --> 00:13:41,640
Scientists also advise on natural disasters, on emergency situations, the experts say.

130
00:13:41,640 --> 00:13:48,810
But I thought I might just comment briefly that the president of Maryland, College Professor David Clarey, was until a few years ago,

131
00:13:48,810 --> 00:13:55,200
the scientific adviser to the front office and was one of the team involved in the advice

132
00:13:55,200 --> 00:14:01,380
around the Fukushima meltdown about whether you can national should be pulled out of Tokyo.

133
00:14:01,380 --> 00:14:08,760
The scientific advice was that because of the conditions, it was not necessary to evacuate Tokyo, and that proved to be the correct advice.

134
00:14:08,760 --> 00:14:17,130
But, Catherine, you found a scenario in which a group of scientists advising on a natural disaster got a bit of trouble.

135
00:14:17,130 --> 00:14:23,790
Yes, the it was the earthquake in Italy in L'Aquila in 2009.

136
00:14:23,790 --> 00:14:33,600
But there were some initial tremors and a panel of scientists was consulted as to whether people needed to take particular precautions or evacuate.

137
00:14:33,600 --> 00:14:41,220
And based on the evidence they had from these initial tremors, they felt that no real action needed to be taken.

138
00:14:41,220 --> 00:14:46,250
And so that was the advice they gave, obviously, with a pinch of salt, its predictions.

139
00:14:46,250 --> 00:14:54,140
But that advice was taken to heart, no one did anything, and then a significant earthquake followed.

140
00:14:54,140 --> 00:14:59,990
People died in this earthquake and the scientists were held to be accountable for their deaths.

141
00:14:59,990 --> 00:15:07,550
In fact, some of the scientists were convicted of manslaughter and imprisoned,

142
00:15:07,550 --> 00:15:13,400
sent to jail for six years as a result of having given evidence as a result of having.

143
00:15:13,400 --> 00:15:22,040
Presented their best attempt based on the science that they had in front of them since, of course, as you found, but spent time in.

144
00:15:22,040 --> 00:15:25,550
Yes. Yes. And so did the convictions were overturned.

145
00:15:25,550 --> 00:15:32,120
But it's terrible for a scientist to have ever ended up in a position where they could be convicted based on.

146
00:15:32,120 --> 00:15:40,680
Their advice based on science. It sounds very RenaissanceRe, very, very Galili and almost.

147
00:15:40,680 --> 00:15:50,850
Rob, do you feel that there's not a good appreciation of what scientific evidence is this country's been saying it's the best guess, not irrefutable?

148
00:15:50,850 --> 00:15:51,960
Yeah, I think you need to be.

149
00:15:51,960 --> 00:16:00,750
You know, if you're going to if we are going to portray science as being our best guess, we ought to be very clear that science is not infallible.

150
00:16:00,750 --> 00:16:05,460
Science is a collection of findings of scientists across the world.

151
00:16:05,460 --> 00:16:15,690
And I think you will always find a scientist who will back your particular lobby groups findings or at your particular lobby groups opinion.

152
00:16:15,690 --> 00:16:20,250
But what people need to look at is the whole picture and what's the consensus of the scientific community?

153
00:16:20,250 --> 00:16:28,470
So what are the majority of scientists saying? And that is our best guess at what is fact and that is our best guess at what is the right thing to do.

154
00:16:28,470 --> 00:16:34,320
So when it when a scientific when the scientific community advises on particular things like climate change or nuclear energy,

155
00:16:34,320 --> 00:16:37,950
if you look at the literature that the scientists who produced, what are the majority of them saying?

156
00:16:37,950 --> 00:16:43,530
And that is really what what we should be passing on, I believe, at least.

157
00:16:43,530 --> 00:16:47,700
Let's go into two of the themes that have come up this hour on a little more detail,

158
00:16:47,700 --> 00:16:56,040
so we'll discuss the variety of different ways, including post about how scientists and government communicate.

159
00:16:56,040 --> 00:17:01,050
But maybe first, let's talk about the nuclear power issue in Germany in a bit more detail.

160
00:17:01,050 --> 00:17:06,840
Rob, could you give us a short history reminder of the events surrounding this particular case?

161
00:17:06,840 --> 00:17:13,140
So Germany has has always been a strong proponent, together with France, of nuclear energy.

162
00:17:13,140 --> 00:17:20,940
And indeed, in 2010, Germany announced plans to increase their stake in nuclear power to build more nuclear power plants

163
00:17:20,940 --> 00:17:29,490
and to try to move away from fossil fuels to meet its commitment to reducing fossil fuel emissions.

164
00:17:29,490 --> 00:17:36,630
But then Fukushima happened, and lobby groups that have previously been very strong came back to strength against nuclear power.

165
00:17:36,630 --> 00:17:41,430
And indeed, a large portion of the German population suddenly flipped in what they what they wanted.

166
00:17:41,430 --> 00:17:46,900
They also wanted to move away from nuclear power because they were terrified of some like Fukushima happening in Europe.

167
00:17:46,900 --> 00:17:53,620
And with that, Germany flipped its decision to increase its stake in nuclear and instead decided to phase out

168
00:17:53,620 --> 00:18:00,970
all of its nuclear power plants by I think it was 20 20 to this since been extended to 2036.

169
00:18:00,970 --> 00:18:07,540
But the idea is that they would get rid of all their nuclear power plants and instead try and increase their stakeholder in renewables,

170
00:18:07,540 --> 00:18:11,380
which seems like a wonderful decision until you realise that actually at the time,

171
00:18:11,380 --> 00:18:18,430
renewable technology wasn't implemented anywhere near as much as as nuclear.

172
00:18:18,430 --> 00:18:26,200
And so what's ended up happening is that in the years since this switch from nuclear to renewables,

173
00:18:26,200 --> 00:18:33,160
what's happened is that nuclear power has dropped by about 10 to 12 percent. Fossil fuels has also dropped by about 10 percent.

174
00:18:33,160 --> 00:18:36,930
And the stake in renewables has gone up from 10 percent to 30 percent.

175
00:18:36,930 --> 00:18:44,340
So since this decision was made, Germany have actually managed to reduce their stake in nuclear and increase their stake in renewables,

176
00:18:44,340 --> 00:18:48,090
and they've also reduced their their fossil fuel emissions.

177
00:18:48,090 --> 00:18:54,680
But one could argue that had they kept their nuclear power, they could have reduced their fossil fuel emissions even further.

178
00:18:54,680 --> 00:18:59,990
And because renewable energy such as wind and solar is very fluctuating, so unreliable,

179
00:18:59,990 --> 00:19:08,180
they certainly in the current plan would have to keep a certain percentage of fossil fuel emissions to offset that unreliability.

180
00:19:08,180 --> 00:19:14,490
Yeah, I mean, when they decided to get rid of because this was what you have to remember is that the population is constantly increasing and

181
00:19:14,490 --> 00:19:21,110
and people's lives are becoming ever more energy consuming people because we've got more energy than they were 10 years ago.

182
00:19:21,110 --> 00:19:26,810
And you have to somehow account for that in your predictions of where energy production is going to come from next year.

183
00:19:26,810 --> 00:19:30,950
And so Germany had originally planned to deal with this by building more nuclear.

184
00:19:30,950 --> 00:19:35,660
But now that they've decided to get rid of nuclear, they've actually planned to build more coal power plants.

185
00:19:35,660 --> 00:19:40,160
And because things like renewables, like wind and solar are intermittent sources,

186
00:19:40,160 --> 00:19:46,430
you always need to have a backup for when when it's not sunny or when when it's not particularly windy.

187
00:19:46,430 --> 00:19:52,190
And the argument that a lot of scientists would make would be that actually if you have nuclear as your backup,

188
00:19:52,190 --> 00:19:57,560
what that means is that you you reduce your fossil fuel emissions even further rather than by

189
00:19:57,560 --> 00:20:03,070
having extra coal power plants for when the when the when the renewables aren't producing.

190
00:20:03,070 --> 00:20:08,630
But of course, with nuclear power, there is this public perception of the risk of enormous catastrophe.

191
00:20:08,630 --> 00:20:13,760
But use that have been looking into the data about addressing nuclear vs. other types of power.

192
00:20:13,760 --> 00:20:16,970
And you came up with an event that I'm very ashamed that I'm not of.

193
00:20:16,970 --> 00:20:24,620
I don't think I've heard of it over about the biggest renewable energy natural disaster that no one seems to know about.

194
00:20:24,620 --> 00:20:25,400
Yeah, I mean,

195
00:20:25,400 --> 00:20:33,260
the thing with nuclear is that nuclear is it's always been an extremely polarising topic because nuclear is a technology that is born out of war.

196
00:20:33,260 --> 00:20:38,240
It's born out of, you know, the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

197
00:20:38,240 --> 00:20:48,770
And so people have always had a fear associated with this. And in some ways, it's actually a it's a fear which which is is valid but is overstated.

198
00:20:48,770 --> 00:20:52,400
And some particular what you're referring to is that, you know,

199
00:20:52,400 --> 00:21:01,610
people look at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island or Fukushima as being some of the worst disasters from energy production to date.

200
00:21:01,610 --> 00:21:06,030
But if you look at the actual death toll from all of the nuclear accidents that have occurred,

201
00:21:06,030 --> 00:21:13,790
those those three main ones at least, and the death toll for all of those lives somewhere in the region of a few,

202
00:21:13,790 --> 00:21:16,250
a few thousand, maybe a few tens of thousands,

203
00:21:16,250 --> 00:21:24,140
whereas the worst disaster from an energy producing point of view was actually the collapsing of the bank down,

204
00:21:24,140 --> 00:21:28,820
probably pronouncing that wrong, but the bank done disaster.

205
00:21:28,820 --> 00:21:34,820
This is a hydraulic dam in China which remains to this date the worst technical disaster in history.

206
00:21:34,820 --> 00:21:41,150
It killed about one hundred seventy one thousand people and it rendered another 11 million homeless.

207
00:21:41,150 --> 00:21:45,740
And but it's not anywhere near as well known as Fukushima or Chernobyl.

208
00:21:45,740 --> 00:21:54,770
And I suppose the reason for that is that, you know, people talk about the long term effects of radiation exposure and indeed the people who went into

209
00:21:54,770 --> 00:22:00,140
Chernobyl to try and clean it out after the meltdown or the same for the government to Fukushima.

210
00:22:00,140 --> 00:22:05,120
Certainly there would be long term effects for people who were close to the disaster.

211
00:22:05,120 --> 00:22:10,380
But the long term effects of the area surrounding are entirely different.

212
00:22:10,380 --> 00:22:14,150
The long term effects that you would, you would guess are nowhere near what people are predicting.

213
00:22:14,150 --> 00:22:21,680
It's the total death toll is orders of magnitude less than from this damn disaster.

214
00:22:21,680 --> 00:22:29,300
And the amount of radiation that one would get from just living next to a nuclear power station is also less than people might expect.

215
00:22:29,300 --> 00:22:37,220
Yeah, I mean, the interesting thing is that if you particularly technology like coal, coal is a really dirty technology.

216
00:22:37,220 --> 00:22:41,570
And what people don't realise is that you actually get a higher dose of radiation if you live within

217
00:22:41,570 --> 00:22:46,310
50 miles of a coal power plant than you do from living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant.

218
00:22:46,310 --> 00:22:57,410
Because the regulations on nuclear power are so strict that they emit radiation they can't miss is anything above a completely infinitesimal amount.

219
00:22:57,410 --> 00:23:04,610
Whereas burning coal actually burn certain compounds which release radiation does a really pragmatic,

220
00:23:04,610 --> 00:23:11,240
you can call it, or a cynical way of looking at the whole thing, which is deaths per kilowatt hour.

221
00:23:11,240 --> 00:23:15,530
So this is a wonderful I say wonderful.

222
00:23:15,530 --> 00:23:26,690
This was a piece of research that was done in the last decade where they looked at what is the actual cost, the cost to the lives of producing energy.

223
00:23:26,690 --> 00:23:32,090
So if you look at all of the different methods of producing energy and you look at for every single

224
00:23:32,090 --> 00:23:36,650
kilowatt hour of energy that's generated or in this case every trillion kilowatt hours that are generated,

225
00:23:36,650 --> 00:23:38,480
how many people die as a result of that,

226
00:23:38,480 --> 00:23:43,280
whether that be coal mining deaths, whether that be a nuclear power plant, explosions like Fukushima, Chernobyl,

227
00:23:43,280 --> 00:23:49,060
whether that be people falling off the side of a wind turbine when they're constructing it, everything taken into account.

228
00:23:49,060 --> 00:23:55,780
About 90 people will die from nuclear accidents for every one trillion kilowatt hours of energy produced,

229
00:23:55,780 --> 00:24:01,940
but for the same amount of energy produced by coal power, 100000 people die.

230
00:24:01,940 --> 00:24:09,050
That's five orders of magnitude. It's it's massive and actually it turns out that if you stack all the different ways of producing energy together,

231
00:24:09,050 --> 00:24:14,030
nuclear has the lowest amount of debt per trillion kilowatt hours produced.

232
00:24:14,030 --> 00:24:19,010
So if you were to look at it from a scientific point of view, nuclear is the safest energy that we know today.

233
00:24:19,010 --> 00:24:22,070
Safer than solar, safer than wind, safer than hydro electric.

234
00:24:22,070 --> 00:24:26,030
There is, of course, the nuclear waste issue, which we're not quite sure what to do with it.

235
00:24:26,030 --> 00:24:32,570
So, yeah, nuclear waste is definitely something which gets overlooked by a lot of pro nuclear proponents.

236
00:24:32,570 --> 00:24:38,930
And to be certain, nuclear waste is not to be not to be sniffed, that it's very radioactive.

237
00:24:38,930 --> 00:24:42,920
And in some cases, particularly for a lot of the reactors that were built in the 70s and 80s,

238
00:24:42,920 --> 00:24:47,450
that nuclear waste be ran for tens of thousands of years.

239
00:24:47,450 --> 00:24:51,590
But what people forget is that there are new generations of reactors coming online,

240
00:24:51,590 --> 00:24:57,610
in particular fourth generation reactors which have the potential to reprocess some of that food fuel.

241
00:24:57,610 --> 00:25:05,320
Moreover, the more modern reactors don't produce anywhere near as much nuclear waste and the great waste that

242
00:25:05,320 --> 00:25:10,450
they do produce actually deteriorates much quicker than the waste produced by the earlier reactors.

243
00:25:10,450 --> 00:25:18,790
If I might paraphrase what you're suggesting, there is a whole wealth of scientific evidence out there, a lot of it in favour of nuclear,

244
00:25:18,790 --> 00:25:29,230
even regarding the nuclear waste issue, which should certainly be much more in the public eye, in the eye of our lawmakers than it currently is.

245
00:25:29,230 --> 00:25:32,320
Absolutely. I think you as well take that would a pinch of salt that, you know,

246
00:25:32,320 --> 00:25:36,790
there is thousands of tons of nuclear waste around the world stored, waiting to be treated.

247
00:25:36,790 --> 00:25:44,710
And that will be a problem that we'll have to face. But I suppose it comes down to looking at the current situation that we have on our planet,

248
00:25:44,710 --> 00:25:51,250
which is, you know, a warming climate and an increase in fossil fuel emissions a year on year.

249
00:25:51,250 --> 00:25:59,910
And how do you how do you solve that? And one one option is to go down the nuclear route because the nuclear route cuts out fossil fuel emissions.

250
00:25:59,910 --> 00:26:04,700
And puts the problem underground for the moment until we have a chance to deal with it.

251
00:26:04,700 --> 00:26:13,100
Let's now go to the second strand that I promised 10 minutes ago, but we've heard a little from Katherine about how it works,

252
00:26:13,100 --> 00:26:20,720
but that's just one of the ways in which scientists and politicians in the U.K. at least interact.

253
00:26:20,720 --> 00:26:24,380
Yes, that's true. I mean, it's the most pertinent to me because I spent time there.

254
00:26:24,380 --> 00:26:32,800
But there are a lot of different ways that scientists can get in touch with employees and that employees can take note of science.

255
00:26:32,800 --> 00:26:38,150
A lot of the government science policy or all of the government science policy is scrutinised,

256
00:26:38,150 --> 00:26:43,640
of course, and it's scrutinised by the Science and Technology Select Committee.

257
00:26:43,640 --> 00:26:49,460
So that's a group of a group of MPs who have particular interest in science,

258
00:26:49,460 --> 00:26:56,270
either because their constituency contains a lot of scientists or has a big focus on

259
00:26:56,270 --> 00:27:00,950
research or because they have a particular interest in science being a scientist,

260
00:27:00,950 --> 00:27:11,870
for example. And they will scrutinise the government's plans, decisions, actions on anything scientific related, and they put out calls for evidence.

261
00:27:11,870 --> 00:27:21,380
So particularly the recent hot topic has, of course, been Brexit and the effect that that will have on science and technology in the UK.

262
00:27:21,380 --> 00:27:26,890
And the committee put out a call for evidence for anyone.

263
00:27:26,890 --> 00:27:33,550
Anyone with any thoughts, feelings, opinions, experiences about Brexit and science,

264
00:27:33,550 --> 00:27:41,830
how Brexit was going to affect them as a scientist, affect their research and to effectively write them a letter and tell them that.

265
00:27:41,830 --> 00:27:46,600
And then they compile reports on the topics that they've been discussing,

266
00:27:46,600 --> 00:27:52,450
which will will criticise government as appropriate and will present evidence

267
00:27:52,450 --> 00:27:58,300
about science and technology directly to government from their own benches.

268
00:27:58,300 --> 00:28:04,600
There's also something called the Royal Society Pound Scheme, which sounds like a jolly good idea from what I hear.

269
00:28:04,600 --> 00:28:15,790
So it sounds like a lovely scheme. The idea of that is that what we really need is for employees to talk to scientists and for

270
00:28:15,790 --> 00:28:24,700
scientists to have more understanding of what employees do and how scientists can help employees.

271
00:28:24,700 --> 00:28:33,010
So the scheme simply pairs up a scientist with an MP and the scientist will spend some time in parliament talking to the MP,

272
00:28:33,010 --> 00:28:34,390
explaining their research,

273
00:28:34,390 --> 00:28:44,510
understanding the workings of parliament, and how as a scientist they can have an impact, how they can make their voice heard.

274
00:28:44,510 --> 00:28:49,390
And in turn, an MP meets a scientist, as I was saying, MVP's.

275
00:28:49,390 --> 00:28:58,120
Most employees are not scientists, most people in Westminster are not scientists, employees generally don't meet scientists.

276
00:28:58,120 --> 00:29:05,920
So this scheme makes a deliberate attempt to overcome those barriers. It gives a human face to science.

277
00:29:05,920 --> 00:29:15,850
It's very easy for science to be seen as this. Strange, bizarre system that people on the outside don't really understand,

278
00:29:15,850 --> 00:29:22,870
and it's populated by experts who wear white coats and don't talk to anyone, and that's not what science is.

279
00:29:22,870 --> 00:29:33,640
But that's a common misconception. And by directing an MP to a specific scientist who who is a human, who has may have a family,

280
00:29:33,640 --> 00:29:38,170
who has a house, who has interests, who goes running off to work,

281
00:29:38,170 --> 00:29:50,590
who likes tofu, I mean, it gives her an immediacy and a reality to science that perhaps people outside of science don't see a really good point,

282
00:29:50,590 --> 00:29:55,810
actually, that most people don't realise that scientists are actually real people and that it's not just a

283
00:29:55,810 --> 00:30:00,700
massive computer crunching the numbers like it's it's I think it's a really good idea as a scheme.

284
00:30:00,700 --> 00:30:07,650
And I'd hope that most employees would sign up and kind of try and get an insight into what's driving a knowledge economy.

285
00:30:07,650 --> 00:30:16,690
The UK is aiming to be, you know. So moving towards the end of all time, we've skirted around the issue of global warming,

286
00:30:16,690 --> 00:30:24,160
a vast area of our modern life in which scientific opinion is often coming in direct conflict with various political agendas,

287
00:30:24,160 --> 00:30:26,320
maybe it is better that we've left for another time.

288
00:30:26,320 --> 00:30:31,810
But there's a particular event that, Rob, you mentioned regarding the American Senate and global warming,

289
00:30:31,810 --> 00:30:36,760
which I found the bizarre, confusing and entertaining all at once.

290
00:30:36,760 --> 00:30:41,260
Yeah, it was a particularly odd thing to happen.

291
00:30:41,260 --> 00:30:45,940
I mean, America has been one of the country's most fighting against,

292
00:30:45,940 --> 00:30:53,230
or at least certainly the politicians in America have been most loath to take up this idea of global warming, at least in previous decades.

293
00:30:53,230 --> 00:30:58,480
One in the Senate, it was in 2015, was that they had a vote on climate change.

294
00:30:58,480 --> 00:31:06,970
Forget to vote on climate change in the same day. And a lot of members of the Senate were extremely opposed to climate change,

295
00:31:06,970 --> 00:31:12,770
actually voted in favour of the bill, stated as climate change is real and not a hoax.

296
00:31:12,770 --> 00:31:17,770
So firstly, that's an incredible way to to the reef any actually to to to phrase that.

297
00:31:17,770 --> 00:31:27,100
But real and not a hoax as previously thought. And but on the same day, within 15 minutes of that vote, they voted on a second a second proposal,

298
00:31:27,100 --> 00:31:36,590
which was that climate change is real and manmade or at least caused primarily by man, and to that they voted against.

299
00:31:36,590 --> 00:31:45,700
And so within the same day, they voted that both climate change is real and not real and that it was not a hoax, but not caused by humankind.

300
00:31:45,700 --> 00:31:50,020
When I when I heard the first vote, I was, you know, thankfully there accepting it.

301
00:31:50,020 --> 00:31:50,800
And the second vote,

302
00:31:50,800 --> 00:31:57,280
I stopped writing about climate change altogether because the Senate told me it wasn't real or at least not not caused by by human humankind.

303
00:31:57,280 --> 00:32:06,610
And so it's just a really bizarre thing. It's a it's it's an issue that I don't feel is the right kind of issue to be voted on by nonscientists.

304
00:32:06,610 --> 00:32:11,020
But it's yeah, it's just a bizarre situation.

305
00:32:11,020 --> 00:32:19,300
And finally, Catherine, if I'm a disgruntled constituent and there's some scientific issue in my constituency that is affecting me greatly,

306
00:32:19,300 --> 00:32:26,200
there's something to me as well, isn't it? Yes. So your first port of call would, of course, be your MP.

307
00:32:26,200 --> 00:32:35,140
If your MP is not a scientist, your MP can get in touch with the parliamentary library service and the parliamentary library services.

308
00:32:35,140 --> 00:32:39,610
I mean, to be honest that their main role is to put together debate packs.

309
00:32:39,610 --> 00:32:45,310
So if there's an upcoming debate, they will produce a lot of material.

310
00:32:45,310 --> 00:32:53,650
Do the research for MP essentially. But if you have a particular burning scientific question that your MP doesn't know the answer to,

311
00:32:53,650 --> 00:32:57,610
they can pass that question onto the library service and the library service

312
00:32:57,610 --> 00:33:03,550
will provide an answer to whatever your your scientific question might be,

313
00:33:03,550 --> 00:33:10,460
whether it's something genuinely interesting and concerning or whether it's something.

314
00:33:10,460 --> 00:33:15,530
For example, whether the badger cull is having an effect on hedgehog populations,

315
00:33:15,530 --> 00:33:21,830
there is a devoted library researcher who will look that up for you and provide

316
00:33:21,830 --> 00:33:26,000
you with that answer that you need need being the operative word there,

317
00:33:26,000 --> 00:33:32,000
because it would be a waste of public resources. Otherwise wouldn't say just imagine a scenario where you've got people like ringy

318
00:33:32,000 --> 00:33:36,110
and prank calling the library service to ask ridiculous scientific question.

319
00:33:36,110 --> 00:33:41,030
Well, if you go through your MP, then they have to provide an answer.

320
00:33:41,030 --> 00:33:49,880
But it is a really good service where if dark matter are sent to Miami having a really existential moment in the library services.

321
00:33:49,880 --> 00:33:53,120
Well, thank you very much, both of you.

322
00:33:53,120 --> 00:33:54,950
It's been a very enjoyable afternoon.

323
00:33:54,950 --> 00:34:00,440
We've covered a huge range of different angles on this one topic and yet also perhaps barely begun to scratch the surface.

324
00:34:00,440 --> 00:34:06,926
Thank you very much for listening. Join us next week on In Our Spare Time.