Practical Ethics

Behavioural Internet Advertising

A recent article in The Economist reports the development of a new behavioural approach to targeted internet advertising being developed by companies such as Phorm, NebuAd and FrontPorch (see http://www.economist.com/science/tq/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11482452 ). The current market leader is Phorm who have recently signed up the three biggest internet service providers (ISPs) in the UK, BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk to use their technology. The ISPs can use the technology supplied by behavioural advertising companies to record information about the web pages that a user visits. This information is used to build up a profile of the user that is then used to select targeted advertising. So, if a user visits a number of sites for online booksellers and webpages concerning literature this information is added to his or her profile. Subsequently, the user will receive a high proportion of advertising that is targeted at people who have a greater than average interest in literature.

Cloned Animal Meat

The Food Standards Agency in the United Kingdom has released the results of a study it commissioned on public sentiment about cloned animal meat, reports James Meikle in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/jun/06/foodtech.food. It seems that the majority of the British public are resolutely opposed to the commercial use of cloned animal meat. The study reported a range of concerns about the possible harms of farming and consuming cloned animals, as well as a lack of appreciation of any benefits other than additional profits to farmers, biotech companies and food retailers. The views reported in the study are roughly in accord with a recent opinion of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies (EGE), presented to the European Commission, which suggested that cloning animals for food is unethical. See http://ec.europa.eu/european_group_ethics/activities/docs/opinion23_en.pdf.

False Hope? Greenpeace on Carbon Capture and Storage

     Earlier this month Greenpeace released a report entitled ‘False Hope’ attacking carbon capture and storage (CCS) on the grounds that it ‘wont save the climate’ and that it therefore presents us with a false hope. (See: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/false-hope ). Greenpeace argue that we should abandon attempts to develop CCS technology and that we should devote our efforts to reducing energy demand and developing solar, wind and wave power instead. It seems very odd that an organisation that devotes itself to saving the planet should spend its time trying to attack an emerging form of technology that is being developed to help reduce carbon emissions especially at a time when, as Greenpeace are quick to stress, the carbon we emit is causing environmental damage to the planet – damage that may be irreversible.

Kissing Cousins

Robin McKie, the science editor for The Observer on Sunday is predicting a major row later this month when scientists and health experts in the United Kingdom hold two key meetings to debate the issue of cousin marriage and its impact on health in Britain. (See http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/may/11/genetics.medicalresearch?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront). This is not the first time that the issue of cousin marriage has hit the headlines in the United Kingdom. In February this year The Guardian reported that government minister Phil Woolas spoke out about the health risks involved when cousins have children together. His comments were seconded by Ann Cryer, the Labour MP for Keighley, who has been a long term critic of cousin marriage and had earlier called for the tradition of first cousin marriages to be stopped. Marriage between first cousins raises the probability of a severe genetic illness from a base rate of about 2 percent to approximately 4 percent. Second cousin marriages raised the probability of a severe genetic illness to about 3 percent.

The Lewis wind farm and the need to compromise environmental values

After steering the Lewis wind farm proposal though a six year development process, the Scottish Government has decided not to consent to the proposal. The Scottish Energy Minster is reported as saying that the proposal by Lewis Windpower to build a 181 turbine wind farm on the Western Isles of Scotland would have a ‘serious impact’ on the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area, which is the home to a number of rare and endangered species of birds (http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/04/21/afx4911829.html). These include Golden Eagles, Merlins, Dunlins and Greenshanks.

Policy, Uncertainty and Global Warming

The Australian today contains a link on its front page to an article entitled ‘Academic cool on warming’(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23509775-2702,00.html) together with a link to a recent speech by the retired Vice-Chancellor of the University of Canberra Don Aitken entitled ‘A Cool Look at Global Warming’

(http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/aitkin.pdf). Aitken urges agnosticism regarding the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global warming. Aitken is no expert on climate science, his expertise lies in the fields of political science and history. However, his best points are political rather than scientific points, so this is not a reason to dismiss what he has to say out of hand. Aitken’s main contention is that the consensus view on the extent of the danger of climate change that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) advocates is a political creation rather than a genuine consensus of scientists; and he is convincing in arguing that the IPCC consensus is most unlike scientific consensuses that have emerged over time and that it appears to be manufactured, at least in part, by political pressures. So it is wrong to call the IPCC case for anthropogenic global warming a received view in the same way that the Theory of Evolution or the Universal Law of Gravity is a received view. He also makes the good point that the evidential basis that underpins the IPCC consensus is dangerously over-reliant on predictions generated by models of the global climate. But reality is much more complicated than our simple models allow. We don’t understand the many ways in which causal factors that are relevant to creating the earth’s climate interact, and it is dangerous to presume that we do understand such matters.

A National Health Database

      The Australian Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has announced plans for a national health database. According to a report in The Australian today, the current version of these plans includes enabling patients to look up mortality rates for surgeons as well as rates of hospital-acquired infections and readmission rates. This development is seen by many as a response to a series of recent medical scandals in Australia, most notably the ‘Dr Death’ scandal at Bundaberg Base Hospital in Queensland. Predictably the Australian Medical Association is opposing these changes. Their reaction has been slammed by the Australian nurses union who have accused medical staff of ‘closing ranks over rogue surgeons’, according to Samantha Maiden, writing in The Australian.

    The current Australian Government proposal is far reaching but it is far from groundbreaking. It follows in the footsteps of similar proposals that have been implemented in the United Kingdom, over the past ten years, as well as some American precedents. Comparative cardiac surgeon’s performance data has been published on the internet by the United Kingdom Healthcare Commission since 2006. Visitors to http://heartsurgery.healthcarecommission.org.uk/ can discover survival rates for coronary artery bypass grafts, aortic valve replacement surgery, and for all forms of heart surgery, for individual surgeons working at surgical units across the United Kingdom.

Bagging the bag

Last month Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that the British Government intended to compel supermarkets to charge customers for plastic bags. The Australian Government has threatened to take the attack on plastic bags even further. Late last year the new Australian Labor Government pledged to phase out plastic bag usage altogether. However, they have been unclear on how this might be achieved. Media reports that the Australian Government will introduce a levy of up to $1- per plastic bag have been rejected by the Australian Federal Environment minister Peter Garrett. Nevertheless the Australian Government remains committed to phasing out plastic bags.

      It might seem that, as the visible face of pollution, the plastic bag would win few friends, but late last week The Times reported that scientists and environmentalists, including an expert advisor to Greenpeace, have stood up to defend the plastic bag. It seems that a large part of the case against the plastic bag is based on faulty science. A widely-cited 2002 report to the Australian Government by Nolan-ITU in association with the RMIT Centre for Design and Eunomia Research and Consulting Ltd attributed the death of over 100,000 marine animals per year to plastic bags.

Come Mr Branson Mon, Tally me Biofuel

A Virgin Atlantic flight between Heathrow airport London and Schiphol airport in the Netherlands made history yesterday, becoming the first commercial flight to be partly powered by biofuel. While three of the 747s tanks contained conventional fuel the fourth contained 20% biofuel. The biofuel was a mix of babassu oil and coconut oil. The Guardian reports that the mixture contained oil from 150,000 coconuts. Sir Richard Branson, head of Virgin Atlantic, described the flight as a ‘historic occasion’ and ‘... a biofuel breakthrough for the whole airline industry’. However environmentalists do not seem to share Branson’s enthusiasm for coconut and babassu oil based flight. According to the BBC News the flight has been branded a publicity stunt, a gimmick, and ‘high-altitude greenwash’. Critics include Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the World Development Movement.

A Knee-Jerk Reaction?

An article was published in Science on Friday (8 February 2008) reporting the results of a study on the generation of energy via an ‘energy harvester’ mounted on the human knee. The authors of the article begin by noting that humans are a rich source of energy. Indeed it seems that the average person stores the same amount of energy in fat as a 1000kg battery. There have been previous attempt to harvest this energy, including a device that generates energy from the compression of the sole of the shoe and a device that generates energy by harnessing the vertical oscillations of a spring-loaded back pack. However, it seems that none of these are as effective as the new knee-mounted device, which generates an average 5 watts of electricity per knee-mounted device. This is ten times more effective than the shoe-worn alternative and more effective than the spring-loaded backpack, which weighs 38kg. Each knee-mounted device weighs 1.6kg. However, the devices studied are prototypes and researchers working on the project are hopeful of making energy harvesters which are smaller and lighter.