tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78438423672063151322024-03-05T04:07:08.359-08:00Heisenberg's HamsterSimon Makinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13995760193033631621noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7843842367206315132.post-10161237922020923202012-07-27T06:21:00.000-07:002012-07-27T13:19:21.372-07:00Turing's legacy: AI in the UK today<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Since Alan Turing first posed the question “Can
machines think?” in his seminal 1951 paper, “Computing machinery and
intelligence” the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been a growing and
fruitful one. While some might argue we are still as far away as ever from
reproducing anything approaching human intelligence, the capabilities of
artificial systems have expanded to encompass some impressive achievements. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">The defeat of world chess champion, Garry Kasporov,
by IBM’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Deep Blue</i> in 1997, was a
significant moment, but perhaps not as surprising as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Watson’s</i> victory on the US quiz show, Jeopardy!, last year. The
processing of spoken language proved to be a particularly hard nut for AI to crack,
but <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Watson’s</i> victory signals that a
widening range of abilities traditionally thought of as uniquely human are
beginning to yield to the arsenal of techniques AI researchers have at their
disposal. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">In the wake of Turing’s</span> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">centenary
last month, it seems fitting to survey how far the field the London-born
mathematician pioneered has come in the UK since he was tragically lost to us
over half a century ago. This article therefore attempts to identify some of the most significant recent trends in AI research in the UK, as well as describing some projects that have either
generated significant media interest, had significant social impact, or offer
great promise for the future.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Computational creativity</span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">One of the most visible recent successes has come from
attempts to develop software which exhibits behaviour which would be judged <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">creative</i> in a human. A growing community of researchers have been
active in this area for some time, culminating in the first <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">computational creativity </i>conference in
Lisbon in 2010.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">An important player has been <a href="http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/%7Esgc/" target="_blank">Simon Colton</a> at
Imperial College London, with his <a href="http://www.thepaintingfool.com/" target="_blank"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">PaintingFool</i></a> software artist. In a <a href="http://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/aimagazine/issue/view/187/showToc" target="_blank">2009 editorial</a> Colton and others described the fragmentation of AI research from the ambition of early projects
aimed at “artefact generation” into subfields, such as machine learning,
planning, etc., in a “problem-solving paradigm”. They went on to claim that
computational creativity researchers are “actively engaged in putting the
pieces back together again”. The aim is
to combine various AI methods with techniques in areas like computer graphics,
to automatically generate “artefacts of higher cultural value”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">He has argued that for software to
be judged creative, it needs to demonstrate three key aspects of human
creativity - skill, appreciation, and imagination. Skill is not difficult to
demonstrate for software which can abstract regions of colour in images, shift
colour palettes, and simulate natural media such as paint brushes, but the
others would seem at first glance to be beyond the capabilities of current
systems.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Nevertheless, an attempt to demonstrate <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">appreciative</i> behaviour, by using machine
vision techniques to detect human emotion and paint appropriate portraits,
won the 2007 British Computer Society's <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Machine
Intelligence</i> prize. More recently, the group’s use of generative AI
techniques, such as evolutionary search, along with 3D modelling tools, have led to works of art deemed sufficiently
imaginative to have been exhibited in two exhibitions in Paris last year. The
pieces were neither abstract nor based on photographs, challenging the idea
that mere algorithms cannot produce original, figurative art. The pictures were
also featured in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Horizon</i>
documentary, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01fmbvb" target="_blank">The Hunt for AI,</a> </i>broadcast
this April.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">But it is the combination of many different
computing and AI techniques, and their “layering” into a teaching interface
through which the system learns, which demonstrates the bold claim of “putting
the pieces back together again”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Enactive cognition</span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">A potential criticism of computational creativity is
that it lacks what some might claim is the crucial purpose of artistic
endeavour. Art is often thought of as a form of communication and any current artificial
system lacks the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">intentionality</i>
necessary to motivate communication between what philosophy calls <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">autonomous agents</i>. There is a radical
view in cognitive science, which claims that consciousness is a unique property
of evolved, biological life. This is the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">life-mind
continuity </i>thesis of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Enactive
Cognition </i>movement<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">.</i> Life (and the
potential for death) gives rise to self-generated, self-perpetuating action, and
thus <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">intention, </i>which is precisely<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>what an <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">engineered</i> system lacks.</span> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">First <a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_796074975">articulated by Varela, </a></span><a href="http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=9001" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Thompson and Rosch</span></a><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> in 1991,
enactive cognition, in its broadest sense, is an attempt to reframe the
questions we ask when we investigate cognition and consciousness. Rather than
focussing on individual components of mind such as neural activity or
functional anatomy, a much broader focus is encouraged - on whole organisms and
their interactions with the environment and each other. Notions entrenched in
mainstream cognitive science, such as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">computation</i>
and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">representation</i>, are rejected as inappropriate
models of biological cognition which will ultimately thwart attempts to
understand consciousness. Professor Mark Bishop, chair of cognitive computing
at Goldsmiths, put it this way: “By reifying the interaction of my brain, in my
body, in our world, enactivist theory offers an alternate handle on how we
think, how we see, how we feel, that may help us escape the 'Cartesian divide'
that has plagued Cognitive Science since Turing.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Enactivists also see perception and action as
inseparable aspects of the more fundamental activity of “sense-making”,
involving the purposeful regulation of dynamic coupling with the environment
via <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sensorimotor loops</i>. The
“sensorimotor contingencies” theory of psychologist <a href="http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/" target="_blank">Kevin O’Regan</a>, where perceiving is something we <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">do</i> rather
than sensations we <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">have</i>, fits neatly
within this framework. Such <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">embodied </i>approaches
to perception are gaining ground in psychology and attracting media attention,
as evidenced by numerous features in <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524841.800-senses-special-the-feeling-of-colour.html" target="_blank"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">NewScientist</i></a>.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://homepages.feis.herts.ac.uk/%7Ecomqcln/" target="_blank">Chrystopher Nehaniv</a>’s group at the University
of Hertfordshire have also made progress using an enactive approach to
robotics. <span style="text-transform: uppercase;">A</span> focus on social
interaction has led to robots which <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5600" target="_blank">play peek-a-boo</a> and can learn
simple language rules from interacting with humans.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Currently however, enactivism is primarily a
critique of the classical paradigm and lacks a coherent research agenda of its
own. As a first step towards remedying this, the <a href="http://www.reading.ac.uk/cinn/enactivism/" target="_blank"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Foundations of Enactive Cognitive Science</i></a> meeting held in Windsor,
UK, this February, brought together researchers from philosophy, psychology, AI
and robotics, in an attempt to start building a framework for future research.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Bio-machine hybrids</span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">The enactivist claim that biological cognition and
computation are fundamentally different things raises interesting questions
about another recent trend – that of bio-machine hybrids, or “animats”. A group
of systems engineers and neuroscientists at the University of Reading, led by
Kevin Warwick, have developed a<a href="http://publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/view/11" target="_blank"> robot controlled by cultures of organic neurons</a>
that is capable of navigating obstacles. Cortical cells removed
from a rat foetus were cultured in nutrients on a multi-electrode array (MEA), until
they regrew a dense mesh of interconnections. The MEA was then fed signals from
an ultrasound sensor on a wheeled robot via a Bluetooth link. The team were
able to identify patterns of action potentials in the culture’s responses to
input, which could be used to steer the robot around obstacles.</span><br />
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0eZytv6Qk" target="_blank">Footage of the “rat-brained robot” in action</a>,
produced by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">New Scientist</i>, currently
has 1,705,230 hits on YouTube. Its performance is far from perfect of course,
and to what extent such an artificially grown, stripped-down “brain” makes a
good model for processes in a real brain is an open question. But the team hopes
to gain insights into the development and function of neuronal networks which
could contribute to our understanding of the mechanisms governing cognitive
phenomena such as memory and learning. There is also the hope that by
interfering with such a system once trained, new insights may be gained into
the causes and effects of disorders like Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s,
potentially leading to new treatments.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">The question alluded to above is whether such
hybrids are constrained by the same limits to computation identified for
“standard” computational devices such as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_machine" target="_blank">Turing Machines</a> (a
mathematical abstraction which led to the development of computers). A related question
arises from consideration of the emerging technology of neuronal prostheses.
Given these technologies could be seen as extreme ends of a spectrum of systems
with the potential to converge, it seems timely to ask whether, and at what
point, their capacity in terms of notions such as autonomy, intentionality, and
even consciousness, would also converge. Questions such as these where the
focus of the 5th AISB Symposium on Computing and Philosophy: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Computing, Philosophy and the Question of
Bio-Machine Hybrids</i>, held at the University of Birmingham, UK, </span><span style="font-size: x-small;">as part of the</span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><a href="http://events.cs.bham.ac.uk/turing12/" target="_blank">AISB/IACAP World Congress 2012</a><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span></span><span style="font-size: x-small;">in honour of Alan Turing, earlier this month.</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">AI and the NHS</span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">A project which has had significant social impact in
the UK is a system developed between the University of Reading, Goldsmiths and
@UK plc, which makes it possible to analyse an organisation’s e-purchasing
decisions using AI to identify equivalent items and alternative suppliers and
so highlight potential savings. Using this <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">SpendInsight</i>
system the UK <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14971984" target="_blank">National Audit Office (NAO) identified potential savings for the UKNHS of £500m per annum</a> on only 25% of spend. Ronald Duncan, Technical Director at @UK plc, said:
“The use of AI means the system can automatically analyse billions of pounds of
spend data in less than 48 hours. This is a significant increase in speed
compared to manual processes that would take years to analyse smaller data
sets.” He added: “This is the key to realising the savings.”</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">An extension to the system also allows the <a href="http://www.uk-plc.net/news/newsItem.asp?lngID=585&lngCategory=1" target="_blank">‘carbon footprint’ of spending patterns to be analysed</a> and the results of a survey of civil
servants suggests that linking this to a cost analysis would go a long way
towards overcoming the institutional inertia that is currently costing the UK billions
each year. In other words, strong environmental policies could, in
this instance, save the UK billions in a time of financial crisis, through the
application of AI technology.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<h2 class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Quantum linguistics </span></h2>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Finally, <a href="http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/bob.coecke/" target="_blank">Bob Coecke</a>, a physicist at the University
of Oxford, has devised a novel way of <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4394" target="_blank">simultaneously analysing the syntax and semanticsof language</a>. The technique is being referred to as “quantum linguistics” due to
its origins in the work Coecke and his colleague, Samson Abramsky, pioneered, which
applies ideas from category theory to problems in quantum mechanics. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Traditional mathematical models of language, known
as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">formal semantic models</i>, reduce sentences
to logical structures where grammatical rules are applied to word meanings in
order to evaluate truth or falsity and so draw inferences. Meaning tends to be
reduced to Boolean logic by such models, which therefore don’t capture nuances
such as the different distances between the meanings of “pony” and “horse”
compared to “horse” and “cat”. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Distributional</i>
models quantify the meaning of words by statistically analysing the contexts
they occur in and using this to represent the word as a vector in a single,
high-dimensional space. In this way, the horse-pony-cat distance might be quantified,
in any number of dimensions, by context words like “ride”, “hooves” or
“whiskers”. While these models have the advantage of being flexible and
empirical, they are not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">compositional</i>
and so cannot be applied to sentences. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">Coecke, together with Mehrnoosh Sadrzadeh and
Stephen Clark, devised a way of using the graphical maps he had used to model
quantum information flow, to represent the flow of information between words in
a sentence. Talking about this transition from quantum mechanics to
linguistics, Professor Coecke said: "By visualizing the flows of
information in quantum protocols we were able to use the same method to expose
flows of word meaning in sentences. It is as if meaning of words is
`teleported' within sentences."</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">This map, representing
the grammatical structure of a sentence, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">acts</i>
on the vector meanings of the words, to produce a vector space representation
of the sentence as a whole. In other words, this represents an
approach to language analysis which is both <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">distributional</i>,
so that meaning is derived empirically, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">compositional</i>,
so that it is sensitive to syntax and applicable to sentences. As such, it
holds great promise for a future leap forward in the automatic processing of
natural language. It has been verified on a number of hand-crafted tests as
“proof-of-concept“, and work has begun using real-world language samples.</span>Simon Makinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13995760193033631621noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7843842367206315132.post-3908400600824556642012-04-15T06:45:00.008-07:002012-06-09T13:06:28.582-07:00What’s all this fuss about bird flu research?<div style="text-align: justify;">
In February the World Health Organisation (WHO) <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/events/meetings/2012/h5n1_research_issues/en/index.html%20">held a meeting in Geneva</a> to discuss the fate of two papers describing the mutation of H5N1 avian influenza viruses into forms more easily transmitted between mammals. Both studies induced mutations that enabled the virus to transmit more effectively between ferrets because transmission in ferrets is believed to closely mimic human transmission. One study, led by Yoshihiro Kawaoka of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, was submitted to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i>, the other, led by Ron Fouchier of Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam, went to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Science</i>. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This followed the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/no-way-of-stopping-leak-of-deadly-new-flu-says-terror-chief-6660997.html%20">flurry of media attention</a> caused by the US <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7384/full/482153a.html">National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity’s (NSABB) recommendation</a> in December that the two manuscripts, “should not be published except with the deletion of experimental details and the crucial data”, due to concerns about how the research could be misused. This is known as redaction. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The researchers involved <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481443a.html%20">called a 60-day pause on further experiments</a> so the scientific community could, “clearly explain the benefits of this important research and the measures taken to minimize its possible risks”, and to allow time for international debate to take place.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Following the WHO meeting, its chair, Dr Keiji Fukuda, <a href="http://www.who.int/mediacentre/multimedia/h5n1pressbriefings/en/index.html">announced they had unanimously agreed on full publication</a>. Regarding redaction, he said there was agreement there were issues around how to do it, which would be impossible to resolve quickly. They also decided to extend the pause on research while they work on “increasing public awareness of issues surrounding this research” and “discuss what are the best biosafety conditions for future research to be conducted under”. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7j4pyF6U3a847jhDHHWaxeGIcDhJB0XRC0SoS-6PwQQXRcG07rTCxBUlvkUTqelwGU17_ygDOFN4rVWjIsfZJ5_XdD11oQOLEzNBUh5D7CaXfNGRGfjd18BF6HjiackMPNtJZ6-PRrAw/s1600/2012-04-03+11.16.37.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7j4pyF6U3a847jhDHHWaxeGIcDhJB0XRC0SoS-6PwQQXRcG07rTCxBUlvkUTqelwGU17_ygDOFN4rVWjIsfZJ5_XdD11oQOLEzNBUh5D7CaXfNGRGfjd18BF6HjiackMPNtJZ6-PRrAw/s320/2012-04-03+11.16.37.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Yoshihiro Kawaoka revealed his mutations at last week's meeting</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
On 30<sup>th</sup> March <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/03/breaking-news-nsabb-reverses-pos.html%20">the NSABB voted unanimously in favour</a> of full publication of the Kawaoka paper and 12:6 in favour for the Fouchier paper after reviewing revised manuscripts.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The public debate began in earnest at <a href="http://royalsociety.org/events/2012/viruses/">a meeting held at The Royal Society last week</a>. Kawoaka and Fouchier both spoke about their work, although Fouchier was prevented from revealing details due to Dutch export control laws. The journal editors, members of the NSABB, other flu researchers, bioethicists, public health experts and journalists also spoke and took part in lively discussion. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So why all the Fuss?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The H5N1 threat</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Renowned virologist, Prof Robert Webster, currently at St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, was first to take the podium. Speaking on epizoonosis (the transmission of disease between species), he left little doubt as to the seriousness of H5N1 evolving into a strain capable of causing a human pandemic.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Influenza is an RNA virus with 3 distinct species: A, B and C. The most virulent is A which includes sub-types responsible for the 1918 “Spanish” flu, which wiped out more than 40 million people, the less severe “swine” flu of 2009 (both H1N1), and “bird” flu (H5N1) . The H and N refer to two proteins on the virus surface thought to play important roles in its functioning. Hemagglutinin (HA) is involved in binding the virus to target cells and so is important in determining both how easily the virus spreads (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">transmissibility</i>) and which species it infects (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">host range</i>). Neuraminidase (NA) is involved in the release of copies from infected cells and so might be related to the virulence, or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">pathogenicity</i>, of the virus. These proteins are also <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">antigens</i>, for which antibodies can be generated, so they tend to be targeted by antivirals and vaccines.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Influenza A evolves very rapidly. There is no proof-reading mechanism during replication, so almost every copy is a slight mutation. These constant changes accumulate, causing <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">antigenic drift</i>. The virus genome consists of eight separate strands of RNA (coding for 11 viral proteins), so when two different viruses enter a cell, because the genome is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">segmented</i> they can <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reassort</i> (swap segments), causing abrupt changes known as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">antigenic shift</i>. It’s this process which is thought to enable new strains to jump species. In Webster’s words: “This is an extremely variable virus.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
H5N1 is endemic in the wild bird population of the world in low pathogenic forms, but when it gets into another species, such as chickens (it first showed up in a Hong Kong poultry market in 1997) it can evolve rapidly into a highly pathogenic form which kills all the birds within a matter of days. This form has infected humans on occasion, but doesn’t transmit well between us, and so hasn’t yet caused a pandemic; but of the 598 infections recorded so far, 59% have died. This may be an overestimate, because<a href="http://www.nature.com/news/death-rate-row-blurs-mutant-flu-debate-1.10022"> there may have been many milder, unrecorded, infections</a>. But even if the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">case fatality rate</i> is ten times less than this, that’s still more deadly than our best estimate of the 1918 pandemic in which it’s thought 2% of those infected, died.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
One of Webster’s main concerns is the question of whether the highly pathogenic form is being perpetuated in the wild bird population. Vaccination hasn’t been an effective control strategy in the past, but culling has. So although it might still be feasible to stamp out H5N1, there is no longer sufficient political will due to how widespread infection has become, and in any case, if it’s being perpetuated in wild birds this is no longer even an option.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">The aims of the research</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Our current understanding of the biology of influenza is a “black hole” with little really known about what determines transmissibility. When Kawoaka, spoke, he clearly stated the aims of his research:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
“To evaluate the pandemic potential of H5N1 viruses. Can they become transmissible between mammals in respiratory droplets? What changes are necessary?” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Knowing what changes allow the virus to spread between mammals would mean we could monitor for those changes in nature. A single mutation can mean the difference between a low pathogenic and high pathogenic avian virus, but these studies seem to suggest multiple mutations are required to increase mammalian transmissibility. Of <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/mutations-behind-flu-spread-revealed-1.10394">the four mutations in Kawoaka’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">reassortant</i> virus</a>, only one has been seen in the wild, but it seems to be common in strains that have infected humans. Fouchier said all of the mutations in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">wild-type</i> H5N1 virus created in his lab have appeared in nature, and some of them have been seen in combination. This kind of information could serve as an early warning, allowing us to either stamp out a dangerous strain, or else get a head start on vaccine production and drug stockpiling. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But not everybody agrees about the necessity of such work. Dr Thomas Inglesby, Director of the Center for Biosecurity of the University at Pittsburgh Medical Center, and an expert in pandemic flu planning and biosecurity, argued the surveillance we have in place isn’t capable of exploiting the knowledge such research produces. Many of the countries experiencing H5N1 infections submit very few specimens so only a small fraction of infections are sequenced. He said: “Out of the millions of H5N1 infections in birds, people and other animals, only 2934 HA sequences have been submitted in the last eight years to the influenza research database.” He added: “Even when countries do submit specimens, the resulting sequence data may not be analysed or published for months or years.” He isn’t suggesting research on H5N1 shouldn’t be done, only that it should focus on strains that evolve naturally. He said “novel, engineered strains” are what concern him and given the lack of immediate practical use of this research, the risks, to his mind, outweigh the benefits. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This issue of working with natural versus engineered strains relates to the distinction between observational and experimental methods. One of the organisers, Prof Simon Wain-Hobson, talked about “passenger mutations”, claiming: “If you don’t do experiments, you don’t have any way of finding out which [mutations] are important, which ones might be explaining why the virus might be getting transmitted more efficiently.” Experiments allow scientists to infer causation with a confidence that’s difficult to gain from observing things that have already happened.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Professor Malik Peiris, a virologist at the University of Hong Kong and director of the Centre of Influenza Research, defended the work in terms of risk-assessing animal viruses for their pandemic threat. He said: “We certainly need more surveillance, but at the same time we need a better understanding of the science to risk-assess this surveillance data. We need a better understanding of the biology of transmission.” Surveillance without understanding won’t get us very far. Regarding surveillance, he said: “It’s not ideal, but there is sufficient to make a start”. He also suggested: “If these signatures were available, that would be a strong impetus to improve and an incentive for people to increase their surveillance.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Another problem is there are many possible evolutionary paths to transmissibility. These experiments have by no means identified all the mutations that could lead to enhanced transmissibility. Pullitzer-prize-winning journalist, Laurie Garrett, expressed concern about setting up systems based on false security. She said: “We’re going to set ourselves up for having all capacity focussed on a very narrow set of genetic possibilities and nature once again laughs at us.” But Fouchier claims they’re not interested in specific mutations as such. He said: “Clear patterns are emerging about biological traits that allow transmission. So surveillance won’t be targeted to specific mutations, but to those biological traits.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Doug Holtzmann from the B&M Gates foundation, which part-funded Kawoaka, made a related point with relevance to vaccine development. He said although it would be “myopic” to think a specific experimental mutation is “the issue of concern” the critical question is: “Are we talking about 50, 5000 or 5 billion strains that could have the potential to cause a human pandemic? I think the fundamental experiments being explored here are meant to begin to test that hypothesis.” If it is 50 or 500 strains, he said “high yield seed strains” could be set up in readiness to “shave off a very critical three months in terms of the vaccine production process”. This is critical because <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/lab-flu-may-not-aid-vaccines-1.9995">it can take 6-8 months to produce a new vaccine</a>. The 2009 pandemic demonstrated that because flu spreads so rapidly, we’re currently ill-equipped to deal with an unanticipated strain. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">What are the Risks?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
There are concerns about accidental release. Ingelsby said: “If a transmissible, virulent H5N1 strain got into a human population with little or no immunity it could be catastrophic, and, as uncommon as accidents are, they do happen.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRgc8pgc2OoGdO2BeF2rjAYCWEDhrI_C_WgdKxDM-iVhfGnu_oCvEMjNoC4Cy2hByRoz3n3jWbs3WQ0-WHz42OqJYwlDpbSGTGADIRhm_ocA71sKKUnCIVeYNJ4wS7_ah5Tn0A_6dwlqI/s1600/2012-04-03+12.06.17.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRgc8pgc2OoGdO2BeF2rjAYCWEDhrI_C_WgdKxDM-iVhfGnu_oCvEMjNoC4Cy2hByRoz3n3jWbs3WQ0-WHz42OqJYwlDpbSGTGADIRhm_ocA71sKKUnCIVeYNJ4wS7_ah5Tn0A_6dwlqI/s320/2012-04-03+12.06.17.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ron Fouchier, speaking at the Royal Society meeting last week</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The experiments were conducted in labs rated as Bio-Safety Level 3 enhanced (BSL3). Kawoaka described the safety precautions involved in considerable detail. His lab is a stand-alone unit with 4 layers between the virus and the outside world, decontamination procedures, air filtering and internal and external monitoring. Researchers wear sealed suits and require FBI clearance. Fouchier said if an accident occurred in his lab “the public won’t be exposed, but the individuals in the laboratory will be”.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Some scientists have <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/fears-grow-over-lab-bred-flu-1.9692">called for H5N1 experiments to be conducted in BSL4 labs</a>, but others say this will limit the number of researchers who can work with H5N1 as these facilities are scarce. Webster said: “Please do not tie our hands by raising the biosafety level to BSL4.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Some are worried the information in the papers could be used for bioterrorism. The chances of this seem low, for a number of reasons. The independent biosecurity assessment commissioned by <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature </i>when they reviewed the paper stated: “There is no doubt this information could be used immediately by an exceptionally competent laboratory to provide the foundation for a programme to develop a pandemic strain of this virus.” Note the phrase: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">exceptionally competent laborator</i>y. Philip Campbell, editor of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i>, emphasised: “None of this work could be done in a garage; you really do need sophisticated people and sophisticated techniques to do this work.” When you also consider there is no known way to target flu to specific populations, vaccines and anti-virals already exist, and more lethal, less haphazard pathogens already exist, this all adds up to the conclusion that there are easier, more effective ways to conduct bioterrorism.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The philosopher and bioethicist, Prof John Harris of the University of Manchester, said: “We cannot prevent bioterrorism at the cost of virus research because bioterrorism is not the only [or] even the most likely cause of bioterror.” Nature is the more likely source of threat. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But Inglesby cautioned: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
“There’s no way to calculate the chances that this work will be replicated in the future as the result of the action of a malevolent scientist, a terrorist group, or a country. History is full of examples of how often we’ve misjudged the intentions and capabilities of others and how often science and technology has been used in ways that weren’t initially intended.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Well, there's no accounting for "crazies".<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">So what are the options?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Well, we could simply not do this kind of work, but as many speakers stressed at the meeting, this would leave us “blind” and at the mercy of nature.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The other option is to publish the work in “redacted” form, leaving out the crucial methods, thus making it difficult to replicate. There are a number of problems with this. It would hamper science as genuine researchers need the information to work effectively. Setting up a system for disseminating the full details to those who “need to know” and are judged “safe” would be tricky. What would the criteria be for deciding who gets this information? Who decides this? How do we ensure the information remains with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">only</i> those people? Speaking about this, Campbell said: “Once you’ve sent a paper that’s restricted, to say, ten people in the academic community, you’ve lost any hope, in my opinion, of maintaining restricted dissemination.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Redaction could also lead to dangerous territory politically. If scientists in poor countries on the front line of the fight against H5N1 felt excluded, they might attempt the work themselves. It’s likely that would happen in labs below BSL3. This could mean that in attempting to deal with what Harris referred to as the “dangerous to know” problem, we end up creating a “dangerous to do” problem. But Prof Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, is worried publication could lead to a proliferation of similar work around the world, possibly in places with less developed biosafety “cultures”.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Many scientists are concerned about the effect censorship might have in discouraging bright scientists from working in the area. The biosafety assessment carried out for <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nature</i> concluded: “The majority of life scientists fear the emergence of diseases for which we have no counter measures, and pushing the best scientists towards blander areas in which they can more easily publish must increase our vulnerability to such entities.” Not everyone is convinced by this argument. Garrett pointed out that while biodefense is “the most regulated research you can imagine” it is also well funded, so although regulation far exceeds proposals for increased scrutiny of H5N1 research, scientists have not been driven away from the area. She said: “There’s been no trouble attracting people to the field, of all ages, because there’s money there.” Paul Keim, chair of the NSABB, said if funding bodies think certain work is important, but should be regulated, they have to put more money into those areas. He said the only reason <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any</i> research is done on anthrax, given the “really onerous regulation”, is because a lot more money went into it. He added: “The same thing will happen here.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Probably the most important criticism of redaction is that it probably wouldn’t achieve much. These studies didn’t invent any new methods, so anyone with the expertise and resources to replicate it could likely do so without the methods sections of the published papers. This might not always be the case, but as cyber security “guru” Bruce Schneier made clear in his presentation, the fact the work is carried out on computers, copies of the papers circulated by email during review, etc., means a determined, skilled “adversary”, would not be stopped by censorship. He said: “Any data that’s available on a computer can be hacked. Not most. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Any</i>.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
So redaction is no longer being considered. Keim explained the factors which influenced the NSABBs decision to change their recommendation. He said: “The revised papers had more clarity on risks and benefits.” It seems Fouchier’s original paper was unclear about the lethality of the mutated virus. Although ferrets that had the virus physically implanted in their trachea died, those infected by aerosol transmission didn’t. The virus was also sensitive to the antiviral Tamiflu. In fact, both viruses were non-lethal through aerosol transmission, didn't transmit as efficiently as the 2009 pandemic strain, and could be treated with existing drugs. So no killer superbugs were created here. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Another factor was the realisation that restricted dissemination was impractical, particularly in light of national export controls, so the choice became between publishing in full, or not at all. They were also influenced by the US government’s publication, days earlier, of <a href="http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Foba.od.nih.gov%2Fbiosecurity%2F..%2Foba%2Fbiosecurity%2FPDF%2FUnited_States_Government_Policy_for_Oversight_of_DURC_FINAL_version_032812.pdf">a new policy for regulation of what it calls Dual-Use Research of Concern (DURC)</a>, which identifies the types of experiments that warrant concern and requires assessment from the point of funding decisions onwards, rather than waiting to catch problems at the publication stage.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But this kind of work will continue, so it’s reasonable to ask whether there are any “red lines” which we shouldn’t be willing to cross. Researchers will want to know <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">why</i> these viruses weren’t deadly. Should experiments aiming to increase the virulence of transmissible strains be conducted? What about engineering vaccine or antiviral resistance? Inglesby said: “Are there <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">any</i> red lines? Let’s decide on that before proceeding.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">And where do we go from here?</span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Looking beyond the fate of these two papers, this is a truly global issue. That’s what pandemic means. We’re all at risk so we all need to cooperate to manage that risk. Garret gave an insightful analysis of the global politics of public health. She pointed out H5N1 is already a public health crisis in countries like Bangladesh, where millions of chickens have been culled, often without government compensation, because that’s often their primary source of protein. She said: </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
“It <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i> a perceived threat to humanity and that is why we ask of the poor people of the planet that they take the very serious measures that they take, imperilling their own economic survival, in order to control it for the rest of humanity.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: 36pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Indonesia declared “viral sovereignty” due to perceptions of conspiracy between rich nations and global organisations to “create false epidemics that would force poor countries to buy the pharmaceutical products of the wealthy world”. Egypt is currently struggling with H5N1. What would happen if the Arab world perceived a significantly different response to human infections cropping up in neighbouring Israel? How much extra risk will developing BSL3 labs in Pakistan create? Garret said: “Surveillance <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">is</i> politics, and if you’re not embracing the politics then you’re not going to have a solution to anything.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Researchers need access to samples from the poor countries where H5N1 is endemic. Those nations should have access to knowledge gained from research and any resulting vaccines and drugs. Not just because Indonesia provided Fouchier’s lab with their virus, but, to quote John Harris, “because they have a need”. Gordon Duff, of Sheffield University, who co-chaired the UKs Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) during the 2009 pandemic, said: “It’s a global matter – it’s about sharing resources, clinical isolates, animal isolates, results of research and products deriving from it to the benefit of all countries.” The <a href="http://www.who.int/csr/resources/publications/influenza/WHO_CDS_CSR_EDC_99_1/en/">WHO pandemic preparedness plan</a> is based on this notion of “reciprocity”, and a number of speakers stressed the importance of sharing, cooperation, equity and trust.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We need to build more genuinely safe labs on the front line and train more scientists there in virology and biosafety. Ross Upshur of the University of Toronto said: “If global science wants to take this on, we need to make sure that we have highly trained, capable, qualified, virologists and virological labs, all around the world.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This whole controversy has highlighted the need for this kind of research to be properly monitored and regulated. An international, independent, regulatory body needs to be constituted to do this. Upshur said: “An adequate assessment of potential social risks requires prospective review by an international body with a range of expertise, including, in this case, influenza biology and biosecurity.” How this authority should be constituted, structured and held accountable, and who should be involved, are questions still to be answered, but the scientific community needs to engage with this now if it wants to avoid excessive external regulation and government legislation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; text-align: right;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJVstIMw1LiN-8YDTVIlcCp5bhfOSSy9H3mYRTLfgX0FOhJ7afncKDMeOh-wN_08on2rM3wFP_8OVdPJqhV7ULcOXZUoBlQ-ThwYTjiL-ZSH8LReVUth4BYx_EVBqwF82Fi9EsvNTDeg0/s1600/2012-04-03+17.32.15.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiJVstIMw1LiN-8YDTVIlcCp5bhfOSSy9H3mYRTLfgX0FOhJ7afncKDMeOh-wN_08on2rM3wFP_8OVdPJqhV7ULcOXZUoBlQ-ThwYTjiL-ZSH8LReVUth4BYx_EVBqwF82Fi9EsvNTDeg0/s320/2012-04-03+17.32.15.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Paul Berg of Stanford University, via videoconference link</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Finally, Nobel Prize-winner Paul Berg, via videoconference link from Stanford University, spoke about the importance of building public trust “about what one knows, what one doesn’t know, and what needs to be learned”. He said: “It is important that the public should understand the nature and magnitude of the health and/or security risks and they certainly deserve to know that all means are being taken to mitigate those concerns.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
This is all going to take time, but at least the conversation has begun.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
If you want to know more <a href="http://www.voiceprompt.co.uk/royalsociety/030412/#">video coverage of the meeting is now online</a>, or you can read more <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/post-mortem-on-mutant-flu-1.10402">here</a> and <a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/04/free-to-speak-kawaoka-reveals-fl.html#more">here</a>.</div>Simon Makinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13995760193033631621noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7843842367206315132.post-5531971102036907202011-11-15T08:30:00.000-08:002011-11-21T03:19:56.666-08:00What's all this fuss about Libel Reform?<div class="MsoNormal">I went to the Houses of Parliament last Wednesday (9th Nov). I’d never been before (it’s worth the trip, but be aware it takes the best part of half an hour to clear security), and I don’t even live in London, so what prompted my sudden incursion into the halls of British democracy? I went to attend a <a href="http://www.libelreform.org/news/511-come-to-parliament-on-wednesday-9th-november">public meeting</a> <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:22"></ins></span>on libel law reform, organised by the Libel Reform Campaign, a coalition of Index on Censorship, English PEN and Sense About Science. I’ve been following the campaign since its launch in 2009, and as of now, 57,292 people have signed their petition. So what’s all the fuss about?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">You may have spotted the word Libel in the news once or twice over the past couple of years. You’ve probably heard the name <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8598472.stm">Simon Singh</a>. He’s a science writer who was sued by the British Chiropractors Association (BCA) for a piece published in <i>The Guardian</i> calling some of the treatments handed out by chiropractors “bogus”. Or maybe you know that <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:24"></ins></span>Ben Goldacre had to withhold a <a href="http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/">chapter of his book</a>, <i>Bad Science</i> until a libel case against him was dropped? <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:25"></ins></span>He had dared to criticise vitamin-pill entrepreneur, Matthias Rath for campaigning against anti-retroviral drugs in South Africa and claiming that the real answer to the AIDS epidemic there was multivitamin pills.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Those cases are old news by now, but as Simon Singh said on the day, “We’re old stories, but there are people still being threatened.” <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/09/citizens-advice-victim-libel-threats">Citizen’s Advice</a> has been unable to fully publish a report<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:26"></ins></span> on certain practices of high street stores <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:26"></ins></span>which are <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:26"></ins></span>contrary to consumer protection regulations, despite spending a year’s research and campaign contingency budget libel-proofing it. <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15697636"><i>Nature</i></a> is in the courts right now for a 2008 news article which was critical of a journal editor. And so on.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8oPmkXKA56aKbiAihKGkoIQHsmUe5tCXdRahRcUPRIk67keQboOu7pFEvRBxVfsLd-ub2vOsc65KD4lDQMGiYSchBGthAx_vKHiUA8dn_4TAfjom6bT0vb45YGz2crR6dgyHkYV8ZLI8/s1600/2011-11-09+19.25.20.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8oPmkXKA56aKbiAihKGkoIQHsmUe5tCXdRahRcUPRIk67keQboOu7pFEvRBxVfsLd-ub2vOsc65KD4lDQMGiYSchBGthAx_vKHiUA8dn_4TAfjom6bT0vb45YGz2crR6dgyHkYV8ZLI8/s320/2011-11-09+19.25.20.jpg" width="320" /></a>The meeting was chaired by Dr Evan Harris, the campaign’s policy advisor, sponsored by Julian Huppert, LibDem MP for Cambridge, and speakers included Singh, Justice Minister Lord McNally, Johnathon<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:29"></ins></span>Heawood, director of English PEN, John Kampfner, chief exec of Index on Censorship,<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:29"></ins></span>Tracey Brown, director of Sense About Science (SAS), Dr Peter Wilmshurst, and representatives of Citizens Advice, mumsnet, <i>Nature</i>, Global Witness, <i>Which?</i>, Facebook, the Publishers Association, Liberty and AOL. MPs present who responded were Andy Slaughter (Labour) and Tom Brake (LibDem). Turnout on the day was fantastic; not that I know how many people usually turn up to such things, but there were no seats left by the time I got there. We were rammed in like sardines.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><b><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">What’s the problem?</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>Libel law in this country is hopelessly out of date. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There’s no specific protection for scientists writing in peer-reviewed academic publications, for instance. The law has also failed to keep up with the internet, which potentially makes each and every one of us a published commentator. Have you ever worried about how legal your <a href="http://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/twitter-facebook-law-libel-social-networks-defamation/">Facebook or twitter posts</a> are? Maybe you should start. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/man-faces-libel-allegations-over-amazon-book-review-6259431.html">Vaughan Jones</a> is currently in court defending himself against a libel claim over a negative book review he wrote on Amazon. No, I’m <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> kidding.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Lisa Fitzgerald, senior counsel from AOL, talked about the legal quagmire of determining who is responsible for what content (ISP’s, websites, forum hosts, third-party content providers, users, etc.), commenting that, “The current law discourages active involvement in your website and encourages a take-down culture.” Richard Allan, director of European policy for Facebook, cautioned that “If the law is not got right, spaces like ours and mumsnet simply get smaller”.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">And as for bloggers, all I can say is I’m being <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">very</i> careful what I write here…</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>The current law stifles free speech, and is often counter to the public interest.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The law is so complex that cases can take years, and hundreds of thousands in costs, to resolve. Large organisations with deep pockets can exploit this to use libel threats to force retractions of material they don’t like, effectively censoring information which might be in the public interest. <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:34"></ins></span>David Marshall of <i>Which?</i> magazine said that, “Exploiting the uncertainty and inequality […] in the current regime is well worth it in the name of reputation management.” He was referring to the practice of <a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/11/libel-law-reform-case">using libel law as a PR tool</a>, which is possible <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:37"></ins></span>mainly because claimants currently don’t have to prove damages to launch a claim; all they have to demonstrate is publication. This makes <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:37"></ins></span>it very easy to issue libel threats.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">British cardiologist, Dr Peter Wilmshurst, was pursued through the UK courts by an American medical supplies company, NMT, for the best part of four years. He made comments at a conference suggesting that the failure of a clinical trial he was involved in may have been due to the failure of one of NMT’s devices. He claimed the argument was a matter for scientific debate, not for the courts, but the case against him wasn’t repelled by UK libel law. It only ended when NMT <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/21/us-company-suing-doctor-libel%20%20">went into liquidation</a> earlier this year. Speaking at the meeting he said, </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-14T00:29"></ins></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">“The action against me prevented others with concerns about the safety of devices made by NMT from voicing their concerns, including making known life threatening problems with NMT’s devices. […] Patients have suffered because of [the <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:39"></ins></span>law] being used to silence doctors with legitimate concerns about medical safety.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Last March, the Ministry of Justice Working Group on Libel reported that debates in the public interest are being “chilled”. Judges in the BCA vs. Singh case came to similar conclusions.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>There’s an imbalance in favour of rich and powerful claimants. </b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The huge cost of libel cases gives an unfair advantage to rich and powerful individuals and organisations. <a href="http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/analysis/2108919/libel-survivor-faced-libel-claim">Hardeep Singh</a>’s lawyer stood up and told a tale of being taken down a "dark passage in the Royal Courts of Justice" by a claimant’s lawyer and told, “Our pockets are a lot deeper than yours. Give up.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Awards are typically not that large (typically in the tens of thousands), but costs can run to several <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">hundred</i> thousand. So if, as an individual, you’re threatened with libel and you decide to defend yourself, if you lose, you’re ruined; if you win, you usually don’t recover <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">all</i><b> </b>your costs, so you’re lucky to break even. Much better to settle and pay damages you know won’t break you. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">As an analogy, there’s a concept used by serious poker players called “Expected Value”, which is just the net result of making the same decision in the same situation over and over again. If calling a £5 bet will win you £40 twenty percent of the time, but lose you £5 the rest of the time, the EV is +£4 (40 x .2 = +8 + (-5 x .8 = -4) = +4), so you have positive EV, so you call. You’ll usually lose, but in the long run, you gain. That’s a very common situation in poker, but typical libel defendant situations reverse that logic, because costs can run so high as to deter people even if they think they have a good chance of winning. If costs can run to several hundred thousand, but damages (and presumably the settlement figure) are just a few tens of thousands, then even if you think you have an 80 to 90% chance of winning… </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Well, I’ll let you do the maths, but it doesn’t add up to going to court. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Not that anybody <i>wants</i> more cases ending up in court. One solution to the cost issue is procedural reform, and the development of alternative dispute resolution systems to deal with claims before you get to the hugely expensive court system. But even so, surely a system where damages, not costs, constitute the bulk of the ultimate bill stand a better chance of deterring genuinely malicious defamation, whilst encouraging people to speak up if they’re speaking the truth?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b>It’s internationally embarrassing.</b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Some concerns have been raised about cases of “libel tourism”. Dr Wilmshurst was sued (in the UK) by a US company, for comments made at a US conference, and posted on a US website by an American journalist.<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:55"></ins></span>The journalist and website were <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not</i> sued.<span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-13T23:55"></ins></span>Hardeep Singh was sued by an Indian "Holy man", who neither reads, writes, nor speaks English, and who had apparently never even been here. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Last year President Obama signed into law the <a href="http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41417.pdf">SPEECH Act</a>, designed to protect Americans from libel tourism.<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></b><br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> What’s the other side of the story?</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">In the early days of the campaign the clamour of voices calling for reform drew some criticism from the legal community. Two academic lawyers, Professor Alastair Mullis (UEA) and Dr Andrew Scott (LSE), published a <a href="http://www.collyerbristow.com/FileServer.aspx?oID=1461&lID=0">rejoinder</a>, which explained why some of the changes being called for might be very bad ideas. Reversing the burden of proof, for example, so the person claiming libel has to prove that what they were accused of was false, wouldn’t be such a good idea. If somebody accuses you of something, the onus should be on them to produce the evidence.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Gavin Phillipson was the law professor on the government's working group on libel and has been a moderating voice helping to rebalance the debate and debunk some of the wilder claims reported in the media. He welcomes debate on the issue and advocates some reform, but he <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/29/london-libel-capital-freedom-of-speech">isn’t impressed</a> by allegations that English libel law is an international joke. There has been talk of restricting UK jurisdiction to cases where the publication in question has a sufficient proportion of its circulation here, but if the law is reformed along the lines being proposed, this becomes a moot point anyway.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Episodes of media hysteria like the MMR scandal (should) have taught us that just because an issue is grabbing headlines, that doesn’t mean it’s valid. But it’s hard to watch scientists, doctors, NGOs, consumer affairs magazines, internet companies, MPs, journalists, bloggers, publishers, mums, journals, and just plain citizens, stand up and say this is a problem without thinking that it may, in fact, be a problem. I know that isn’t very scientific, but if there are statistics showing that these are isolated, anomalous cases, and that actually the current law is doing the best possible job of balancing the right to reputation with the right to free speech, why isn’t anybody working harder to make those facts public? Where is the anti-reform campaign? The stats I did hear came from Victoria Lustigman from the Publisher’s Association, regarding a survey of their members they conducted earlier this year:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">“A hundred percent of respondents said they had modified content or language ahead of publication due to threats of libel actions, forty three percent had actually withdrawn publications, a third had refused work from authors for fear of libel suits, a third had avoided publication of particular subjects…”<b><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> </span></b><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><b><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> What’s the answer?</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Well, the campaign has its own <a href="http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/Libel/What_should_a_defamation_bill_contain.pdf">fairly detailed ideas</a> on this, but in brief:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The law needs to be modernised to take account of modern global communication tech and culture. A new procedure for the internet is being developed, designed to provide not only rapid recourse for those defamed online, but also better protection for online publishers. Anonymous postings must be taken down upon complaint, unless authors identify themselves or public interest is at stake. Also, at the moment every fresh download of an article creates a fresh action, even if it's years later, because of something called the multiple publication rule. This is clearly problematic in the internet age and needs to go. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There needs to be more protection for certain forums, such as peer-reviewed academic literature and the proceedings of NGOs, who are often working to expose corruption in government<span class="msoDel"><del cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-14T00:23"></del>s</span> and big business. This would just be a case of extending the existing law of qualified privilege, which currently protects situations such as reports of parliamentary proceedings.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The cost <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-14T00:24"></ins></span>of libel cases needs to be reduced, while retaining the existing Conditional Fee Agreement (<a href="http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/choosingandusing/payingforservices/nowinnofee.law">CFA</a>) system, to make access to justice more equal. This need not involve changes to the letter of the law, so much as procedural change<span class="msoDel"><del cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-14T00:24"></del></span> which avoids the courts altogether.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The reforms need to include controls over the ability of non-persons, such as corporations, to sue for libel. The proposal is that companies must prove substantial financial harm before they can even file a claim. They should only be allowed to pursue the financial reward<span class="msoDel"><del cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-14T00:25"></del>s</span> which libel entails if a defamatory statement is false, and:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">a) Has caused, or will cause, financial harm.</div><div class="MsoNormal">b) Was either reckless or malicious.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Otherwise corporate claimants should be limited to being able to set the record straight. That sounds reasonable to me. A company isn’t an individual whose life can be wrecked by being called nasty names, it’s a financial entity. Corporations have enough power as it is, without the power to silence their critics through sheer financial clout. In the draft bill we have a) but not, so far, b).</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There needs to be a public interest defence. If you think you know something but can’t prove it, but if you’re right you might save lives but might also upset somebody, or even cost them business, what should you do? Surely we need to encourage people to speak up in these situations? Get the issue into the open where we can all work on finding the truth. <span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-14T00:27"></ins></span>Currently there is something along these lines known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_v_Times_Newspapers_Ltd">Reynolds defence</a>, but it’s only really useful if you’re a journalist on a national newspaper. Tracy Brown, director of SAS, expressed strong views on this issue:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="msoIns"></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span class="msoIns"><ins cite="mailto:makink" datetime="2011-11-14T00:28"></ins></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">“Libel law is very complicated, but the problem is quite simple. If we want to have a robust public discussion about matters of public interest, then we must have a public interest defence. It’s as simple as that.”</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">There is currently some protection if you’re criticising public authorities, but at a time when many of our public services are being sold off to private companies, wouldn’t it be a good idea to extend this to any organisation performing a public function?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> <b>So where are we?</b></span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">All three main parties made a manifesto commitment during last year’s general election to reform the law. Fantastic. Everyone’s on board.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The government published a <a href="http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/365.htm%20">Draft Defamation Bill</a> in March this year.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The Joint Committee on the Draft Defamation Bill published a <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/joint-select/draft-defamation-bill1/news/publication-report/">report</a> last month, which welcomed many of the proposed reforms, but argued that the bill doesn’t go far enough, particularly on the issue of cost.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Speaking at the meeting on Wednesday, Lord McNally said that the government would be responding early next year.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"> And where do we go from here?</span></b></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Reform seems imminent, but a number of speakers at the meeting warned that now is not the time to start celebrating or relaxing. The proposals still need fine tuning, particularly in the area of online publishing, and a draft bill is not law. There is still every chance this issue could get sidelined if the campaign takes its eyes off the prize. Many of the people who spoke talked about the need for one last push and stressed the importance of making sure it gets into the Queen’s speech next Spring. I might even watch it if that happens.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Sign the <a href="http://libelreform.org/sign">petition</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.writetothem.com/">Lobby your MP</a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Spread the word. Post the petition to your Facebook page. Twitter #libelreform.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Watch this space!</div>Simon Makinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13995760193033631621noreply@blogger.com3