1.Seeing red over green
2.Science Media Centre Accused of Pro-Nuclear Bias
3.Collateral Damage of Ideas

NOTE: All of the following items relate to the activities of Frank Furedi's LM sect (formerly 'Living Marxism') whose members specialise in infiltrating organisations, and aligning themselves with individuals, who help them promote their extreme libertarian pro-GMOs, pro-cloning, pro-nukes, and generally anti-environtal agenda. More on the LMers here http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_watch.html

The former Sunday Times editor, Dominic Lawson, who's referred to in item 1, is a well known climate sceptic and was the author of the recent article, 'Feed the world? Tear down trade barriers and let GM crops flourish across the globe'.
---
---
1.Seeing red over green
John Vidal and David Adam
The Guardian (Eco Soundings), May 21 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/21/ecosoundings

When you see the words "progress" or "reason" in a book title, you can bet it has been written by an extreme libertarian arguing for the right to pollute, or an ageing Living Marxism cell member - or both. So it is with The Enemies of Progress: The Dangers of Sustainability, a book by Austin Williams that argues, very roughly, that planning is bad, all development is good, and sod the lot of you. Judge for yourself how batty it is with this endorsement from former Sunday Telegraph editor Dominic Lawson: "A much-needed diagnosis of the bleak anti-human pathology described as environmentalism."
---
---
2.Science Media Centre Accused of Pro-Nuclear Bias
Andy Rowell
SpinWatch, 22 January 2008
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4589/29/

Just over two years ago, I gave a talk on climate skeptics and included in passing the fact that the organization, the Science Media Centre, networked with known skeptics, including those from the LM crowd.

In the audience at the Royal Society of Chemistry event was science writer, Vivienne Parry, who is on the board of the SMC. Parry asked me to justify my comments and said, in an email "if you have any material which you think demonstrates bias, political/corporate pressure or whatever in relation to the SMC - send it to me, and we will discuss it at the next SMC board meeting."

I sent the SMC a dossier of material* on various aspects including the issue of bias, especially in relation to its work on climate and genetic engineering. My concerns were dismissed by the SMC's board. In an email Alan Winter Chairman of the SMC board wrote "Whilst we note your concerns, we are reassured by the overwhelmingly positive feedback we have had about the Director [Fiona Fox] and her team from the hundreds of leading scientists, press officers and journalists who make regular use of the Centre."

Sadly for the SMC the ugly head of bias has surfaced again, but this time on nuclear power. Earlier this month, the British government gave the go ahead to a new generation of nuclear power plants. In response the SMC issued a press release, entitled "Major energy and engineering institutions support new nuclear build". This was picked up by the Nuclear Industry Association which ran the same headline on its website.

However both the SMC release and the NIA follow up prompted a group of academics to write a contradictory statement entitled: "No consensus on new nuclear: Energy experts urge greater attention to the facts". It stated: "Despite pronouncements by several scientific bodies, there is no scientific consensus in favour of nuclear power."

One of the scientists involved wrote to the SMC's director Fiona Fox. The email has been leaked to SpinWatch. It reads: "It probably won't come as an enormous surprise to learn that the release you issued in support of nuclear power has caused considerable consternation within UKERC and in the wider academic community, particularly given the further embellishment provided through the quote in the version that runs on the NIA website. Many of us (members of several of the bodies on your statement) disagree with the statement. I am intrigued to learn why SMC felt it appropriate to participate in such an obviously partisan activity, and who instigated it."

He was not the only one outraged by the SMC's pro-nuclear statement. One of the organisations on the list of the SMC release was the UK Energy Research Centre. It has now taken the unprecedented step of issuing a press release stating:

"The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) regrets that its name became associated with a recent statement that can be interpreted as signalling UKERC's advocacy of nuclear power. We must underline that we are not pro- or anti- nuclear power or any other technology."

Maybe the SMC's board should look at the issue of bias once again...

[*dossier at http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4203/29/
If you look at what Rowell submitted to the SMC's board, it contains the following: "of the 120 odd press releases the SMC has issued - and which are on its website - only about four have been on climate. This compares to over 40 on issues to do with genetics and roughly another dozen each on animals in research and GM crops."
http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/4203/29/ ]
---
---
3.Collateral Damage of Ideas
http://www.lobbywatch.org/lm_watching.html

2007 was the year in which the UK's premier social science funding body - the ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council) - was 'pleased to headline-sponsor the Battle of Ideas'. This is an annual weekend long series of debates organised by the Institute of Ideas.

The ESRC is not the first prestigious funding body to fall hook, line and sinker for the idea that the LMers are merely out to encourage open and lively debate. In the past the NERC (Natural Environment Research Council) sponsored Spiked to organise online debates for it on a whole series of environmental issues. The net result was that the NERC got debates deftly slanted to the LMers' anti-environmentalist agenda. Staggeringly, when challenged about this tie-up, the NERC responded, 'NERC is satisfied that there is no evidence suggesting that, on environmental matters, spiked have any particular agenda'!

The ESRC's headline-sponsorship meant the IoI was able to gain not only public monies and credibility with other potential sponsors, but could put the ESRC's logo all over its activities. What did the ESRC get in return? The war crimes apologist Thomas Deichmann - editor of LM's sister publication Novo - sitting on a panel at the ESRC- funded, highly prestigious, EGN 'Genomics and Society' conference which the IoI with Tony Gilland as the Chair was allowed to run, and invite speakers for - a mini 'battle of ideas' panel 'debate' heavily skewed in favour of its own agenda.

Dr. Alex Plows, one of the social scientists at the EGN event told us, 'This was our conference and it was colonised! A highly complex and sensitive ethical debate was framed into a polarising, 'you're either for science and progress, or you're a pro-lifer'. Another familiar LM trope reproduced yet again was that regulation is 'unethical' becuase it holds back 'science and progress'. This is simply ridiculous. Not so much a 'battle of ideas' as the 'collateral damage of ideas'!'

Dr. Plows also said, 'I am also absolutely furious that Deichmann was given a platform at the EGN conference by Gilland. The association compromises the integrity of UK social science.'

The Institute of Ideas/Battle of Ideas debate was supposed to be about striking the right balance between 'regulating new science to reassure the public it is safe, ethical and beneficial' and 'encouraging research and endeavour'. But the record of Deichmann and the LMers' in acting as apologists for the atrocities of the Serb and Hutu militias should be enough to make anyone think twice about having the IoI help shape the debate on critical ethical issues.