Memo: Turning pipeline leaks into something positive!

PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL

ATTN: All executives, PR

Alright everyone, it’s time for some major spin control.  We managed to plug that pipeline up, but now we seem to be losing the public relations fight what with the freaking amount of bitumen that spilled out. Seriously, the bad press is everywhere, and we are, quite frankly, getting crucified out there. So what can we do about this?  How can we turn this PR nightmare into a PR fairytale?   

Well, we think that we’ve got an idea that can’t lose.  Let me explain.  Basically, when we thought about the idea of a PR fairytale, we thought about castles.  And when we thought about castles--stick with me here--as vanguards of the capitalist world, of course we didn’t think about real historic castles. No, we thought about pink stucco ones, like the kind you might associate with movie studios and animated versions of Cinderella.  And then (like magic, we did this all at once, I swear) we said to ourselves, “THEME PARK!”  And then we wondered, how much energy is in this leaked tar sand product anyway?  

Well, it turns out (with some very speedy back of the envelope calculations) that the amount of energy we can get from it might be good enough to explore the running of our own magic kingdom!  Well, at least if we can count on a few more leaks along the way. But how cool would that be?  Anyway, here’s the gist.  We just pull that energy from our happy accident(s), redirect it, and then run this baby! It’ll be like the leaks happened on purpose! Awesome!  

But we digress.  Let’s not bore you with talk of energy and leaks, let’s talk THEME PARK!  

Now this is just preliminary brainstorming, but we’re thinking a great name would be “Slick City!”  Nice, right?  Maybe even add to that a catchy tagline - something like The Family Friendly Pipeline Spill!  We can even have animal characters wandering around the park, with maybe some kind of funky gel-like oil in their fur and feathers so it looks all cool and shiny.  And yes, there will be a Fossil Fuel Palace, made out of glistening anthracite! I can even envision a theatre area where an oiled-down animal mascot version of the musical Grease is performed. 

Is it just me, or are people going to pay some serious coin to see that?  

And the rides: how about one called “Shutting down the science!”  You'd have these carts that go around a track, and the riders have these light guns that shoot at things for points.  For instance, they can shoot at all the nasty scientists who want to report on their work, or shoot at research centers that might be making inconvenient discoveries. Ha ha, just kidding - I’m just throwing ideas out there, but you get the picture right?

We also need a giant slide of somesort. What if we design the slide so that it followed the same curve as the hockey stick graph? And what if we call it the Carbonator or something cool like that?  

And the big ticket item? Obviously, this will be an epic rollercoaster.  Perhaps one made to look like a big old pipeline.  We could even make it from real pipeline parts!  Don’t we get discounts for those kinds of things?  As well, this ride is going to be amazing:  it’s going to be the future of log rides.  Instead of logs, the folks could sit in oil barrels, and instead of traveling through water, maybe those barrels would even go faster in a petroleum based fluid.  Extra bonus if we get to light it on fire!   

This is totally a goldmine of an opportunity. It’s like the ideas are just flowing and the theme park is creating itself!  FRIED FOOD!  Whoa. That one came out of nowhere! Seriously folks, we’ve hit oil here and it’s a gusher.

 ]]> http://boingboing.net/2012/08/20/how-to-turn-a-pr-nightmare-int.html/feed 32 http://boingboing.net/2012/05/01/the-six-degrees-of-bacon.html http://boingboing.net/2012/05/01/the-six-degrees-of-bacon.html#comments Tue, 01 May 2012 13:13:23 +0000 David Ng http://boingboing.net/?p=157461 David Ng is a geneticist, writer, and creator of The Candy Hierarchy. Read more by him at McSweeneys and right here.

Lately, I’ve been writing about the philosophy of science and thereby finding myself pondering the plight of Bacon. Not the food, but rather Sir Francis Bacon, the renowned writer and gentlemen of the 16th and 17th centuries—famous for being a member of Parliament, friend to the British Monarchy, and (most important to me) often referred to as the “Father of the Scientific Method.”

Such thinking then naturally led to Kevin Bacon, who in turn, reminded me of the “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.” Inevitably, I landed at entertaining the specifics of the “Six Degrees of Sir Francis Bacon.”

This refers to the phrase, “The Six Degrees of Separation,” which submits that you are less than six “friend of a friend” steps away from everyone else on the planet. In other words, it suggests that mankind is more connected than you would think. This calculation has never been formally proven, and there is evidence to suggest that social media has brought it down to four degrees, but it is nevertheless obvious that it probably only works well if the people involved happen to be alive.  

Which is to say that the six degrees of Sir Francis Bacon, a man who died in 1626, are all dead.  

With this in mind, we need to return to the “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon.” This originally concerned itself with connections in the entertainment industry, but the phrase nowadays is symbolic of humanity’s interconnectedness. Put another way, Kevin Bacon is the unofficial figurehead of this game.  

But figureheads are usually transient. Mr. Bacon is no longer the sprightly young man that danced into our hearts in Footloose. Nor is he, despite having played an invisible character in Hollow Man, capable of hiding from the debilitating march of time. As he ages, the concept and the mathematics of the “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” will ultimately no longer be practical or relevant.  Consequently, there will need to be a proper discussion about a “six degrees” successor.   

And why not start that discussion now? How would one decide on such a successor?  Of course, this would come with a few rules. Whoever is chosen should at the very least be younger than Kevin Bacon. Perhaps Mr. Kevin Bacon should even have a role in this process. These being speculations born of procrastination, I’d like to put forth the following scenarios and then maybe see if the procrastinating community at large has any thoughts on the matter.  

1. The British Monarchy model.

This is where the weight of responsibility is passed on to the first born. Furthermore, since we’re being thematic, this option should totally include a throne and also a crown that can be worn on special occasions.  Maybe a fancy sword as well. A sword would be awesome: consider “The six degrees of the sword of Bacon.”

2. The Democratic Model

Why not do this with an open election? This would certainly be entertaining to watch, and would no doubt fuel some interesting discussion.  Although the mind boggles at how the nominees will be decided upon, and how exactly they would present themselves (more so, since the principle of the Six Degrees, hypothetically is meant to be immune from the nuisance of ideology).  

3. The “So You Think You Can Dance” model

 The obligatory “reality TV” option. As Mr. Bacon is no stranger to the entertainment industry, this is perhaps the most logical model to find a successor. A dance-off would be particularly magical. Think of the fun, the spectacle, the press! And think of the Kevin Bacon-themed So You Think You Can Dance stationary. Each time a successor is chosen, the theme of the next reality show could be tweaked according to the accomplishments of the new figurehead. Imagine different contests each time around, ranging from cooking to planning a wedding, to a full on Hunger Games-styled deathmatch.  

4. The Kevin Bacon as Eternal Deity Model

Maybe Kevin Bacon would rather keep all the glory to himself, and keep it forever.  If so, there is another option out there. Both Jesus of Nazareth and Kim Jong-il of North Korea used it. Basically, it’s where Kevin Bacon declares himself the reference point, and instead of looking for a successor, the actual number of degrees changes with time. In other words, in a few years, we can call it “The seven degrees of Kevin Bacon,” and then “The eight degrees…” and so on and so on. 

Alternatively, it could be like the Dalai Lama: every time you pass on, there is a reincarnated version of you being born elsewhere. I'm not sure how this would work, exactly—how would we identify this reincarnated Kevin Bacon?—but it seems reasonable. Plus, the thought of an organized religion with the word “bacon” in it ia appealing.  

Let me end by saying that if this all sounds a little too complicated, then let's simplify things and just pick me. I would absolutely be down with it, especially if I can score a throne, crown and a sword out of the deal.  

Bacon illustrations: David Ng, from Takemori39 and Renee Comet. Thumnbnail art: Anonymous.]]> http://boingboing.net/2012/05/01/the-six-degrees-of-bacon.html/feed 16 http://boingboing.net/2011/10/31/candyhierarchy.html http://boingboing.net/2011/10/31/candyhierarchy.html#comments Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:17:33 +0000 David Ng http://boingboing.net/?p=126943 @import url(http://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Rokkitt:700); #footnotes { width:80%;padding:20px 20px 0px 20px; position:relative; Margin:20px auto; max-width:700px; border-top:1px solid silver; } #footnotes p { font-size:14px; font-style:italic; } #chart { border:4px double orange; width:80%;padding:0px 20px 0px 20px; position:relative; Margin:10px auto; text-align:center; max-width:700px; } #chart a{ text-decoration:none; color:brown; } #chart .h1 { font-family:Rokkitt, "Hoefler Text", Georgia, serif; font-weight:800; font-size:20px; margin:1em auto 0px auto;text-transform:uppercase; } #chart p { font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", Georgia, serif; margin:0px auto 1em auto; max-width:640px; line-height:1.3em; } sup, sub { vertical-align: baseline; position: relative; top: -0.4em; }

Once again with Halloween upon us, it’s time to revisit candy culture, or more specifically, a system that aims to rank it. Like before, the mechanism to do this would be according to, well, let’s just call it "joy induction."

This hierarchy actually began in 2006 as the work of a friend and colleague, Ben Cohen. Ben is an environmental historian over at Lafayette College, but in a previous life, he and I use to blog together. This partnership happened because of our backgrounds publishing science humor, and so in some respects, this "Candy Hierarchy" is just another creative juncture. However, since publishing the 2010 version at Boing Boing, we received such amazing feedback from the community, I thought it would be great to continue this tradition and allow even more kickass "peer review" into guide the rankings.

As always, I’m aware that: (1) some people will still be deeply offended by the rankings; (2) because the new rankings tried very hard to incorporate the feedback, you now know that we were serious about the potential for readers to shift the hierarchy year to year; and (3) above it all, we can all hopefully agree that the process of peer review is just kickass anyway. Anyway, do play in the comments, but without further ado, read on...

Discussion: Presented within is the newly reformulated Ng and Cohen Candy Hierarchy, which aims to rank Halloween candy recieved during trick or treating. This version is seen as an improvement of the 2010 edition, which culled massive peer review in the form of several hundred comments (pdf version of peer review available here).

Like before, we placed a high value on this process, as past attempts (see previous versions 2006 | 2007 | 2008) had produced noteworthy relevations, including establishment of reference samples, hereafter termed index candies, as well as the discovery of the importance of caramel in defining the upper tiers.

In its previous form, we were hopeful that some of the new potential advances in the hierarchy would be due to evaluating context setting. In our last report, we had suggested that "rarely in practice do eaters eat just one piece of candy. Anecdotal evidence indicates that, in general, eaters throw multiple pieces of Halloween candy down their gullets. (When so much is being eaten, research shows the Pelican-gullet-eating-fish imagery is apt.) It thus matters which are eaten earlier and which later. Some tests, for example, indicate that you can only consume so many premier grade chocolate based candies before you need the zip or zing of a Spree or a Smarty to 'cleanse the pallet'."

Indeed, from our data, we found that context was key. Perhaps most significant were frameworks that revolved around the geography of palates. Specifically, it was noted that there was a strong North American bias, which often led to heated disagreement. In light of this, we strongly suggest a parallel attempt at defining a Sweets Hierarchy to further explore global preferences.

Other noteworthy findings include:

(1) That despite various lobbying efforts, clear consensus within the peer review process was wholly absent. No agreement on any specific candy was represented higher than 5% of the total comments (although status of fresh versus stale versus fruit flavored Tootsie Rolls was especially hotly debated). Indeed, consensus was only noted in the following: that last year’s hierarchy, in a word, sucked. In fact, the word “travesty” and similar synonyms were uttered more than a few times (Koerth-Baker, 2010).

(2) That with current data, Candy Corn is impossible to rank. It is liken to the “String Theory” of candy: largely theoretical nature and difficult to pin down. In the hopes of moving forward on this strange phenomenon, we are currently exploring a grant proposal that would give us time on the LHC.

(3) That this study was a great portal to science culture in general. This was demonstrated by an example of scientific plagiarism (link), as well as the prevalence of scientist bias, because despite repeated commentary on the contrary, we stubbornly stand by our evaluation of Whoppers.

We also would like to suggest that a paradigm shift in this hierarchy is looming. Buoyed by an incident involving a Ouija board and what appeared to be the spirit of Thomas Kuhn (the board spelled, “S N I C K E R S F T W B U T P E E R R E V I E W N O T T E C H N I C A L L Y E X P E R T”), we were led to consider what exactly should pass as reasonable “peer review.” Here, it is our opinion that this may, in fact, be the views and opinions of children.

Consequently, we look forward to continued assessment of this 2011 Candy Hierarchy, fully aware and deeply respectful of the fact that this exciting field is still in its infancy.

The hierarchy is also available in PDF format

NORTH AMERICAN: Is it an animal, mineral or vegetable?

SOMALIAN: Yes sir, I believe it is all three, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: Hmm... Can I get it online?

SOMALIAN: I’m sorry, sir. I do not understand your meaning, sir. On where, sir?

NORTH AMERICAN: Online... You know, like at eBay or Amazon?

SOMALIAN: I do not think so, sir. You do not need to go all the way to the Amazon, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: Then is it close by?

SOMALIAN: Yes, sir. I think it’s close by, sir. Definitely don’t have to go to the Amazon, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: Is it in my pocket?

SOMALIAN: I don’t know about that, sir. It is very much a possibility, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: It’s not these Viagra pills is it?

SOMALIAN: I don’t think so, sir. In truth, I do not know what Viagra is, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: It’s a kind of medicine. Are you thinking of a medicine?

SOMALIAN: Not this time, sir. Maybe next time, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: Can I get it at a mall?

SOMALIAN: Mall? Do you mean Mali, the country, sir? Of course, you can get it at Mali, sir. But that is on the other side of Africa and therefore very far away.

NORTH AMERICAN: Then, you really should build another mall.

SOMALIAN: Yes, sir. Of course, sir. I will try to speak to my friends in Mali at a later date. But for now, can I give you a clue, sir? Here it is, sir. The thing I am thinking of will make me feel good.

NORTH AMERICAN: Really?... Well then... Maybe it was something you saw on Oprah?

SOMALIAN: I’m sorry, sir. Again, I do not know what you are talking about, sir. What is this Oprah you speak of, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: Oprah? Oh, she’s great. She’s always talking about good feelings. How to feel good about yourself, why you should make others feel good, who is out there spreading good feelings, etc – wonderful stuff. Although to be honest, what I personally love are her “Favourite Things” episodes. Anyway, it’s a pity she retired her show – where I come from, we kind of eat that stuff up.

SOMALIAN: She does sound wonderful, sir. And yes! Yes! You can eat it! You can definitely eat it, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: Great! I must be getting closer... So you can eat it... Is it Atkins-approved? SOMALIAN: I’m not entirely sure, sir. I’m sorry sir but I do not understand, sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: I mean is it carbohydrate free? You know, to do away with the love handles...

SOMALIAN: Ummm.... Sorry sir, but love handles? I do not understand this term.

NORTH AMERICAN: Nevermind... You’re obviously one of those high metabolism folks who don’t need to worry about love handles.

SOMALIAN: If you say so sir.

NORTH AMERICAN: Anyway, let’s see... If you can eat it, then we can probably presume that you saw it on the Food Network, right?

SOMALIAN: Yes! Yes! You got it, sir. The answer was food! Although what is this “network of food” you speak of. It sounds magical, sir!

NORTH AMERICAN: Well, I don’t know if it’s magical...

SOMALIAN: If you say so sir. But no matter, you have guessed right – The answer was food: I crave food.

NORTH AMERICAN: Awesome! And in less than twenty questions!

SOMALIAN: Yes sir, right you are sir. But tell me... Do you have any food?

NORTH AMERICAN: No, sorry - not on me, unfortunately. But let me buy you lunch! Must be a food court around here somewhere. Where was that Mali place again?

* * *

UNICEF reports that “Two million children are at risk of starvation in Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Somalia. The worst drought in 60 years is compounded by rising food prices and a refugee crisis, creating a true children’s emergency in the Horn of Africa.” To make a donation, please click on this link.]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/08/08/20.html/feed 43 http://boingboing.net/2011/03/23/time-lapse-video-of-1.html http://boingboing.net/2011/03/23/time-lapse-video-of-1.html#comments Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:30:54 +0000 David Ng Just noticed this powerful advertisement from the Topsy Foundation. It was one of the winners at TED's "Ad's Worth Spreading" contest, which is generally worth checking out. This particular video does a great job (with a lovely twist at the end) at showing the effectiveness of HIV antiretroviral drugs (ARVs). There's also a followup video you can view that checks in on the woman (Selinah) as well as chatting with the folks behind the video. Although I realize that the ARVs have been made possible by the work done in the pharmaceutical industry, and that there is a chance that Topsy's programs are facilitated by kind donations from the same industry, it's still a pity that there isn't a more sustainable system for the provision of such drugs to developing countries. Pity that these sorts of medicines are usually priced way too high for individuals like Selinah, which is why so many go untreated and so many die. Pity also that laws like Bill C-393 (which aim to explore different ways to create that sustainable market and lower that price) are being deliberately stalled in government so as to guarantee not being passed. That kind of unfortunate reality deserves a megafacepalm. ]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/03/23/time-lapse-video-of-1.html/feed 32 http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/killing-bill-c-393-e.html http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/killing-bill-c-393-e.html#comments Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:52:03 +0000 David Ng For the interest of discussion, I've made the above visual aid for members of Canada's Senate, since this is the week that they have a chance to pass a Bill that "aims to make it easier for Canada to export affordable, life-saving, generic medicines to developing countries." I wrote about this Bill C-393 earlier, stating how the right choice (passing the bill and not killing the bill) is obvious. But then it occurred to me that if the decision was so obvious, then why is there so much "push back" from the pharmaceutical industry (as well as the Harper government). It turns out the reason appears to be about Bill C-393 representing a trend that "could potentially" lead to a loss of control over the status quo. This being the status quo that provides the pharmaceutical industry with an inordinate amount of lobbying power to set prices; a business model that values huge profits above innovation; and something that they are so focused on protecting that even the smallest of losses must be avoided no matter the consequences. Which is simply reprehensible - because with this Bill, the consequences are not just about patent control: it's about the livelihood of millions of people, where the decision to "kill" or "not kill" the Bill could literally be a matter of life or death. Please send an email to the Harper government by using this Avaaz link.]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/killing-bill-c-393-e.html/feed 67 http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-pharmaceuti.html http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-pharmaceuti.html#comments Mon, 21 Mar 2011 06:10:00 +0000 David Ng One of the principle claims for allowing pharmaceutical companies to continue their hold on current patent practices, is that research and development (or R&D) is very expensive. It just keeps coming up, and seems to be all the rage when arguing against things like the passing of Bill C-393 (which you can learn more about in this recent Boingboing post). Although the fact that there are high costs is obviously true, a recent paper published in Biosocieties would suggest that the oft cited statistics, the ones always used to support this assertion for lobbying or public relations purposes, may in fact be over inflated.

Here, the authors, Donald W. Light and Rebecca Warburton look closely at where these numbers come from:

"The most widely cited figures (by government officials and the industry's trade association for its global news network) for the cost to discover and bring a new drug (defined as a 'new chemical entity' or 'new molecular entity'; not a reformulation or recombination of existing drugs) to market are US$802 million in 2000. This has been updated by 64 per cent to $1.32 billion in 2006."

From this paper, we basically learn that the primary source of these figures come from one particular study published in 2003 and done by Joseph DiMasi, Ronald Hansen, and Henry Grabowski at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development in Boston, Massachusetts. In general, there are issues of bias in how such figures were calculated, and the Light and Warburton paper systematically looks at a number of variables that would suggest that the $802 million number, as well as subsequent numbers which extrapolate from this figure, are a gross over-estimate.

The paper is definitely worth a read, having a number of points that would suggest strong mistrust for these industry figures. Examples include:

1. High potential for bias in the data that was used in the 2003 study: this includes issues related to exclusivity of access to the data (i.e. we have numbers, but it's not clear what the numbers represent exactly since only the Tuft authors know), or to the sample set itself. i.e. the pharmaceutical industry appeared to have primary control over whether they would participate as well as what data was provided to the Tufts Center.

2. The figures do not include a number of special and substantial tax provisions for R&D work. i.e. Just because such tax measures help in our R&D costs, industry feels that it should not be included in these final figures.

3. About 50% of this $802 million figure is actually due to "profits foregone." In other words, as Light and Warburton succinctly describe, this equates to a 'You owe us for all our R&D costs, plus what we would have made had we not undertaken the project in the first place.' Although this is obviously a factor for businesses to take into account, the authors ask whether this is really an appropriate way to calculate figures used to lobby for government protected pricing? Nevermind the fact, that one could argue that R&D costs are a necessity when innovation is key element for an industry.

4. That trial costs as well as time estimates are inflated. For trial costs, a number of different discrepancies occur. For example, how much exactly does it cost for human test subjects during clinical trials:

The DiMasi team refers rather opaquely to a complicated set of steps taken to arrive at the mean cost per trial and per subject. The resulting figure of $23 572 per subject is six times the average cost per subject of $3861 reported by the National Institutes of Health for 1993, at the costly (later) end of the DiMasi period (1983 to 1994)

Related to this, is the estimate of how long does the R&D process take, since longer time spans obviously equate to higher costs. Again, these estimates appear to be greatly exaggerated:

The $802 million estimate is based on 52 months for preclinical research, 72 months for trials and 18 months for regulatory review, a total of 142 months or 11.8 years (DiMasi et al, 2003a, pp. 164-166). Maximizing the length of time not only dramatizes how long and hard companies work to discover and develop a new medicine, but also maximizes the multiplication of profits foregone. Long development times are a major reason given for needing high prices. These figures, however, do not square with the lengths for trials actually reported by companies to the US FDA in the Federal Register. Trial length declined from almost 8 years for trials started in 1985 to less than 3 years for trials started in 1995 (Keyhani et al, 2006). Regulatory review times dropped from 2! years to less than a year. Thus, for medicines that started testing in 1995, total trial and review time was down to less than 4 years in the United States and even less in Europe.

Anyway, it's causing quite a stir, and the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development have already issued a terse press release in rebuttal. In any event, it's good reason to be more informed in such matters, because it has implications in the wider scheme of things - such as how your health dollars are spent, and also how to make policy more effective when dealing with global health issues.

LINK: Demythologizing the high costs of pharmaceutical research, BioSocieties (2011) 6, p34-50 (Note that there is full text access to this article for the month of March 2011, or you can find the article by typing "Demythologizing the high costs" into a search engine). ]]> http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/does-the-pharmaceuti.html/feed 29 http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/will-the-harper-gove.html http://boingboing.net/2011/03/21/will-the-harper-gove.html#comments Sun, 20 Mar 2011 18:21:11 +0000 David Ng (FOR BILL C-393 STALLING UPDATES SEE BOTTOM OF POST: LAST UPDATE ON FRI, MARCH 25th) A few weeks ago, I was lecturing during a global issues course (ASIC200), when it became immediately clear that on some occasions, a solitary single facepalm is simply not enough. In fact, there seemed to be many things and events in this world that would merit many many simultaneous facepalms, or as we've been calling it in class, a MEGAFACEPALM! Anyway, when I looked it up on the internet, there didn't seem to be any pictures of large groups of people doing the facepalm, and so I thought, why not make our own? And so after a few clicks on my camera, and a handy "Make your own motivational poster" website, here is how it turned out: Of course, then the big question was for what occasion should we bestow this honour - this first unaltered photographic MEGAFACEPALM image? Well, I had a chat with the class the other day, and it seemed that the issue of Bill C-393 seemed like a worthy cause. Now, if you're late to the game and need a primer on this Bill C-393, then read this boingboing post and then come back here for the MEGAFACEPALM lowdown.

Hereby: I would like to declare that this MEGAFACEPALM will be awarded to the Harper government should: 1. Their members of Senate kill Bill C-393 by voting not to pass it. and/or 2. They indirectly kill the Bill C-393 by "ignoring/postponing" the Bill: especially if it has anything to do with some false nonsense about election calls. Yes, we know that maybe there will be an election call, but that is neither here nor there since this Bill should not be subject to such sneaky political maneuvering. All to say that, Prime Minister Harper: the outcome is in your hands... p.s - I realize that technically, we shouldn't call it a MEGAFACEPALM, since the name would infer the presence of a million (=mega) people doing it - but oh well, I figured this was a still good start. Besides, you can also consider this a challenge for others to create even bigger MEGAFACEPALM pictures.

We now have reliable information that the Conservative Government is unwilling to let Bill C-393, which would fix Canada's Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR), proceed further in the Senate. We are working to uncover further details.

This position shows contempt for Parliament -- if nothing else, the Senate must study the bills that come to it with majority support in the House of Commons, not simply stall them. (Bill C-393 passed in the House of Commons recently with a vote of 172 MPs in favour and 111 against, with support drawn from all parties.)

Given this latest news, we must therefore redouble our efforts, which had an amazing impact in the House of Commons. This is the final hurdle and one that, as predicted, will take time. But it is doable. The Senate must fulfill their obligation to allow this to come to a timely vote so that Bill C-393 does not die on the Order Paper (again).
From the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Bill C-393 was up for further debate in the Senate this afternoon, after word was received this morning that the Conservative leadership is still refusing to let the bill proceed to a second reading vote.

Conservative Senator Nancy Ruth rose to speak first. She reminded the chamber that this bill enjoys widespread support, including 26 MPs from her own party in the House of Commons. She noted that the virtually identical Bill S-232 had previously been studied at length with no less than 6 days of hearings from witnesses. She highlighted how Bill C-393 could, at no cost to taxpayers, make Canada's aid help more people, describing it as a concrete example of "aid effectiveness" and "value for money". She noted in particular how this bill would complement the Harper government's initiative on maternal and child health. She urged Senators to pass the bill without delay, as it makes good business sense and good public health sense.

Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire then rose to speak in support, referring to the devastation of AIDS he himself has witnessed in countries such as Rwanda. He noted again that only one use of CAMR has been seen to date and it is unlikely to be used again in its current form -- he wondered how anyone could claim this is a success, and remarked of the brand-name pharmaceutical companies' claim to this effect, "what planet are they on?". He noted the critical importance of access to paediatric formulations of fixed-dose combinations and that Apotex had committed to producing these. He ended with an eloquent plea to the Conservative government: "Are their children less human than ours? Do they not deserve the same humanity?"

Finally, Liberal Senate leader James Cowan rose to plead with the Conservative government that it allow the bill to move forward without delay. He underscored that, while it was not the obligation of the Senate to pass bills from the House of Commons, it is the chamber's obligation to consider them in a timely fashion. He noted specifically that Senators had received hundreds and hundreds of emails and telephone calls, and he could think of not a single one expressing any opposition to the bill. He urged Senators to consider this overwhelming public support, and to move this bill on to the Banking Committee so that it could quickly study it and return it to the Senate so that it might be addressed before a possible election.

However, Conservative Senator Stephen Greene then moved to adjourn further debate, consistent with the expected approach of the Conservative leadership. The motion was carried, on a recorded division. The bill will therefore appear again on the Order Paper tomorrow, Wed March 23. At this time, indications are that the Conservative leadership in the Senate will continue to stall the bill.
~Richard Elliot, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

After a speech by Cons. Senator Stephen Greene opposing Bill C-393 (full of the same old mistruths that we've heard ad nauseum, directly contrary to what his legislative assistant told me earlier today), and a moving speech by Lib. Senator Mobina Jaffer in support of the bill, Cons. Senator Carignan stood up to say that Cons. Senator Larry Smith, who was absent from the chamber, wished to speak to the bill and therefore he was moving to further adjourn debate. (Smith was present earlier in the chamber.)

Liberal Senators demanded a recorded vote and bells are now ringing for vote to happen at 8:05 p.m. Supporters are now urgently calling Conservative senators thought or known to be supportive of Bill C-393 to urge them to join in voting against this adjournment.

If any of you know a Conservative Senator whom you know or think is supportive, please email and phone them and urge them to vote down the adjournment.
~Richard Elliot, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

From: Fowlow, Patti-Lou
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:17 AM
To: - SEN C
Subject:

Dear Conservative Senate Staff & Senators,

Senator Larry Smith had the opportunity to meet with pharmaceutical industry leaders in the Montreal area, all are against bill C-393 as it is extremely damaging to our ability to motivate companies to patent new drugs in Canada. Many jobs in Canada's research and development sector, stand to be lost as a result of this bill. I have attached the documents prepared by Mr. Tony Clement.

Sincerely,
Nichole A. Beck

+++++++++

Vote Rationale C-393 CAMR
Under the current CAMR system, the process includes the following important steps:
• The product must be identified as safe and effective for human consumption
• The target country/population must be clearly defined and the request must come from the target government itself
• A tracking system must be in place to monitor the drugs flow from Canada to the target country/population to ensure consumption by intended group
• That under CAMR, only THAT drug identified for export can be sent to the intended country/population
Stephen Lewis and his friends have said that these checks are the 'problem' and need to be removed. In fact, these steps are vital. If they are removed, the following consequences can result:
• Instead of one shipment of a particular drug, an advocate can be granted permission to break patents of multiple drugs and ship them to multiple locations, potentially for commercial purposes.
• Drugs that are not certified by Health Canada as being safe and effective could be shipped to unsuspecting populations, to their detriment.
• Drugs shipped under CAMR could be redirected to the black market with proceeds going to non-humanitarian causes such as weapons.
• If drugs are shipped without the consent of the home government, the drugs could run against their domestic laws and traditions.
• If C-393 is passed, Canada's CAMR will be out of step with our international trade obligations. And if current patents are threatened, the patent holders will leave Canada seeking shelter in countries which value patent protection. The loss to Canadian R & D will be significant.
Most importantly, Canadian Generics are some of the most expensive in the world. With C-393 or not, NGOs in the developing world will direct their precious resources to cheaper drugs coming from places like India and Asia. Testimony was clear - This is an irrelevant measure to address the problem of a lack of drugs in Africa.
Committee was clear that the solution to this problem is multifaceted and to that end, the Government of Canada has:

1. Launched the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative
2. Made several contributions to organizations such as Health Partners International Canada (Jake Epp's group) who in turn have sent millions of doses of free drugs from Canadian pharmaceutical companies to the developing world
3. Supported the Global Fund, the Global Polio Eradication Initiative and the Clinton Foundation, to name a few. Please contact Minister Oda's office for more details. In all, close to $2.1 billion in International Aid flows to the developing world each year from Canada.
The bottom line is that C-393 lessens Canadian Patent Protection and vital health, safety, and verification of non-commercial purpose checks. Worst of all, it won't solve the problem. As such, Government members should oppose C-393.

Tony Clement

Dear Senators:

Yesterday was another missed opportunity for the Senate to move forward on Bill C-393 and finally fulfill Parliament's pledge to the developing world to help increase access to affordable medicines via Canada's Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR). For a third day in a row, this bill has been stalled, deliberately and unnecessarily, and another 5000 people died of AIDS alone in low- and middle-income countries.

It was also a day where recycled falsehoods cast an unfortunate pall over your deliberations. Senator Stephen Greene's comments repeated yet again the same discredited claims by big pharma that have been shown again and again to be inaccurate and overblown. Please take a moment to look at the text of Bill C-393, and you will quickly and easily verify the falsity of the objections being repeated like a mantra. Specifically:

· Bill C-393 does NOT remove the requirement that Health Canada approve drugs exported under CAMR. (See section 21.04(3) of the Patent Act.)

· Bill C-393 does NOT remove or weaken the existing safeguards against the diversion of medicines. The bill leaves unchanged all requirements for differentiating the generic product exported under CAMR from the brand-name product and for special markings, packaging and labelling, as well as a tracking system to monitor the flow of drugs to recipient countries. (See sections 21.06 and 21.07.)

· Bill C-393 does NOT change the list of countries eligible to receive medicines under CAMR -- which was already agreed upon by all countries, including Canada, at the WTO in 2003 and was already approved unanimously by Parliament in 2004. (It combines them into a single, simplified list; it does not change eligibility.)

· Bill C-393 does NOT allow for medicines to be used in an eligible developing country contrary to its domestic law. Those countries' laws regarding the registration of a drug as meeting necessary standards are unaffected by this bill.

· Bill C-393 does NOT run counter to Canada's WTO obligations. With the exception of big pharma's paid lawyer, every legal expert who has testified before Parliamentary committees has affirmed that Bill C-393 is consistent with WTO requirements, as did an international expert consultation convened by the UN Development Programme to study the bill.

· Bill C-393 does NOT threaten jobs or investments in R&D in Canada. This unbelievable claim is made by big pharma based on no evidence and has been debunked by economist experts in submissions to parliamentary committees. CAMR does not allow exports to the high-income countries where brand-name companies make the vast majority of their profits, which are what determine their R&D decisions. Furthermore, it requires generics to pay royalties to brand-name companies on any sales to eligible countries.

Finally, consider the nonsensical argument that CAMR should not be fixed because generic drug prices are too high in Canada. The price of a good in the Canadian market is entirely irrelevant -- what is relevant are the prices that Canadian generic manufacturers are able to offer to developing countries. What generic manufacturer would think it could land any contract with any developing country, whose purchasing power is much less than Canada's, by offering a price comparable to what it charges in Canada? Why would any developing country buy generics from a Canadian manufacturer unless they were of good quality and sold at a competitive price? Recall that in the one use of CAMR to date, the Canadian manufacturer landed the bid to supply Rwanda with a Health Canada-approved product at the same price as two Indian generic manufacturers (19.5 cents per tablet, a dramatic reduction from the price of the brand-name options.)

Why would Canadian parliamentarians block a bill that makes it easier for Canadian companies to compete globally in supplying urgently needed medicines?

The worst is that while you were sitting through yet another recitation of these falsehoods, more children in desperate need of life-saving medicines lay dying. This is not just, nor is it the will of Canadians -- as expressed through the vote in the House of Commons, an opinion poll that shows 80% of the public supports Bill C-393 or in the tens of thousands of e-mails and phone calls that have been coming into the offices of you and your colleagues. Nor is it necessary. The Senate could still pass this bill into law before an election.

As a chamber of sober second thought, we urge you to listen to the clear weight of the evidence and to think critically about the self-interested and unsubstantiated claims by big pharma, which claims in public to care about access to medicines but has done everything it can to kill a bill that is an important part of an overall response.

How is it that children in Canada should have access to medicines but those in developing countries should not? When will common decency and common sense prevail over falsehoods, obfuscation and inaction? We ask you to move forward on Bill C-393 now.

Sincerely,

Richard Elliott
Executive Director
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

C-393 came up.

Senator Dallaire asked Senator Carignon whether he was prepared to speak on the issue.

Carignon said Senator Larry Smith wants to speak - but (again) wasn't in the Chamber.

The Conservatives moved adjournment. Liberals refused and insisted on a standing vote.

We await the news of that vote, but the likely outcome is that the item will again be adjourned.

Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Access to life-saving medicines is not a luxury, but a human right.
~Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Bill C-393 aims to reform CAMR and make it easier for Canada to export affordable, life-saving, generic medicines to developing countries.
~Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Q: Shouldn't we focus on other aspects of the problem. Like health infrastructure, or public education for HIV? A: Hmmm... Let me get this straight. A government can only do one thing at a time? Nevermind the fact that passing this bill doesn't actually cost the taxpayers anything. If anything, the foreign aid that we do provide will likely have greater bang for its buck.

Q: Wouldn't these changes effect the pharmaceutical company's bottom line, which in turn will effect R&D funding, and drive the home costs of medicine up? A: The language is pretty clear in that these are generics that can only be sold in certain markets. These markets happen to constitute a very small percentage of pharmaceutical revenues (we're talking single digits here). Oh yeah, plus you get royalties from doing this anyway. Also, there's nothing stopping you from making your own generic version, so that you can enter the market yourself. Indeed, all evidence would suggest a possible gain in bottom line. Plus, the R&D argument is totally a red herring. Sneaky.

Bell uses the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the "Gish gallop", named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish. The Gish gallop raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which on closer examination do no such thing. In real-time debates the number of particularities raised is sure to catch the opponent off guard; this is why challenges to such debates are often raised by enemies of science. Little or no knowledge of a holistic view of any given science is needed to construct such scattershot attacks.

Quite a few biology and psychology teachers already use the rap songs in their classes to introduce evolutionary concepts to their students, and these videos will make an even more potent vehicle for communicating science in an entertaining manner. The initial funding from the Wellcome Trust allows us to shoot live footage for each video with a professional film crew, edit it, and set up a website to distribute the videos.  This phase of the project will be completed by mid-December.  The additional funding from Crowdfunder will allow us to produce original animation and digital effects and license high-quality nature footage from the BBC, to make the vision of each video really come to life.

Just so you know, Ben and Hannah are my children. You've might have seen them in this previous post, and like any parent, I love them dearly. Nevertheless, traveling with very young children is an interesting experience, as it is by turns wonderful, exhausting, memorable, frustrating, and (just to be clear) exhausting. You are, after all, interacting with a tourist that would most likely rank the playground or the cat that they saw by a tree, far above the Eiffel Tower or the Colosseum. Also, if you're lucky enough to be staying somewhere where there is indoor swimming, then you can rest assured that you will hear of nothing else.

Despite this, one of the things I relish about traveling with kids is how you, as a parent, get to bulk up on your storytelling repertoire. Each travel is its own epic, with logistics as critical as any Everest expedition, a cast of characters that cannot be any more three dimensional, and more video and photographic footage than anyone would ever care for. Best of all, you are part of the cast: you might not have the biggest role, but that's o.k. - you get to be responsible for the Director's Commentary.

And oh what a commentary! The trip would have it all. There will be drama, there will be tears, there might even be vomit, and in my son's case, there will always be plain pasta with only butter on it. If nothing else, you can tell your listeners that the best part of traveling with children is how funny they can be: they interact with culture in their own special way. For me, I still don't think I've laughed any harder than when my daughter, during an outing to one of the many cathedrals we've visited, looked upon a crucifix and then with a slightly confused look on her face, asked in a loud clear voice, "What is up with that guy?" Seriously, the stories you build from these experiences can pretty much cover every conceivable narrative theme (with, I suppose, the possible exception of sex - see previous note on exhaustion).

This is actually why I'm surprised that I haven't found a good website whose primary aim is to collect such personal kid travel commentary. Wouldn't such a hub be a great resource for families everywhere? The advice that it would reveal would presumably not only be incredibly useful but also very entertaining to read. Indeed, it might even be emotionally relevant. It could be that first crucial step in combating a long festering anguish, the sort that a mishap during a family vacation might inadvertently create. This, I know to be true: I am speaking as a parent who once booked a hotel with a swimming pool that was off limits to children.

Anyway, if ever such a website existed, here would be my most useful and surprising travel tip. It would concern a vacation we took when my daughter was only 9 months old, where we took it upon ourselves to spend 4 weeks exploring, on the cheap, the European Alps. I can't remember why we did this, but "because we were idiots" seems to work. What I do remember, vividly, is my wife and I being incredibly stressed before the flight to France. This was due to the prospect of being stuck in an enclosed airplane for double digit hours: obviously not the best setting for a potentially fussy baby. In fact, we were so stressed about this, that we had been unable to sleep for two whole days prior to the flight, and to add further insult, we were unable to get a wink in during the flight itself. Contrast that to Hannah, who ended up not even aware of the plane, having slept peacefully throughout the entire experience. Worse still, we hadn't properly considered the consequences of arriving in France so late in the evening. In fact, we wouldn't be able to check into our cramped hotel until after midnight. Physically, we were two parents who were fatigued beyond belief. Emotionally, we were crushed. Our late arrival meant that we would be now be navigating an experience ostensibly entitled, Overnight in a thin walled hotel room with a fully rested and loud baby.

Playground, Chamonix, France; 2002

So how did we deal with this predicament? The short answer is that we didn't have to, whereas the long answer wonderfully demonstrates that the most brilliant of ideas can come from the most unexpected of places. When we arrived at our hotel, as tired and as anxious as humanly possible, the hotel manager booked us into our small room and told us of the small crib that would be provided. He then calmly informed us that since there was also a deaf tour group staying at the hotel, he had taken the liberty of strategically booking these hard of hearing customers into all of the rooms around us. In other words, he had in effect created a baby noise buffer zone, and to this very day, I look back at that moment as being one of the happiest of my life.

In any event, there must be other parents reading this right now, with their own useful and surprising traveling tips, or maybe an epic to share. Would be lovely to hear a few more.]]> http://boingboing.net/2010/12/21/how-not-to-go-crazy.html/feed 43 http://boingboing.net/2010/12/01/students-doing-right.html http://boingboing.net/2010/12/01/students-doing-right.html#comments Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:59:44 +0000 David Ng In light of World AIDS Day, I'd thought I'd post a little bit about Universities Allied for Essential Medicines. It's a bit of a mouthful, but it's a student run non-profit that does brilliant things. Even though the video above is two years old, Mike Gretes does a lovely job highlighting some of what UAEM does, and there's also tons of information on their website:

Many important medicines and public health technologies are developed in academic laboratories. Their accessibility in poor nations is profoundly affected by the research, patenting and licensing decisions made by universities. We are a group of university students who believe that our universities have an opportunity and a responsibility to improve global access to public health goods

I just noticed, with some amusement, that the 2010 Toy of the Year is something akin to a cute robotic rodent. Specifically, they are called Zhu Zhu Pets, a mechanical universe of furry and mobile hamsters, expandable with a hamster-like ecosystem complete with wheels, balls, and see through tunnels. The fact that this was announced during the International Year of Biodiversity seems deliciously ironic but maybe also informative? (Read more here)

"2010 is the International Year of Biodiversity. The 2010 Toy of the Year is a Zhu Zhu pet. What is up with that?"

I had a great experience here at Boing Boing, and want to send on a big thanks to Mark, Cory, Xeni, David, Rob and the rest of the crew for letting me spend some quality time here. I'm also grateful to the many museum folks who let me chat with them, and so graciously showed me their projects. Kudos especially to Bob Bloomfield for the warm welcome and the many discussions on biodiversity advocacy. Hopefully, my posts didn't dilute the overall awesomeness here at Boing Boing, and at the every least, I hope a few more people are interested in Nagoya COP10. Also, it was fun to do my part to increase the Chewbacca quotient (even if only slightly) here at the site.

With that, I'd like to end with two last requests. Both related to biodiversity: one is kind of worthy, the other a little goofy. One requires folks of the artistic bent, the other maybe a more scientific approach.

First, if you haven't already done so, do please check out the PHYLO project. If you don't know what it is, think Pokemon but with real creatures, and then read the about section (or this previous Boing Boing post). Although the project is being hosted by my lab, it is hardly my project. Basically, all images, web infrastructure, game rules, IP advice, and educational discussion, to make the 180 or so cards currently available (new one every weekday!), has been produced solely from the fine act of crowd sourcing. Everything is open source and open access, completely free, so that all you really need is a printer, some paper, and you're good to go. It's been very cool to watch it progress, but I'd love it if more people came by to contribute. In fact, if it sounds interesting to you and/or your kids, you can even start playing it right now.

In particular, we'd like more artists to participate. You'll note that the artwork for the cards is pretty freakin' excellent (see the image above), and we're hoping for a wider pool of people to contribute. Doesn't matter what the organism is: it can be one you've already drawn, or one where you try your hand at something that's not currently a card (for instance we are well represented by birds and mammals, but poorly lacking in things like reptiles, insects, aquatic plants, and still no blue whale yet). Heck, in honour of the Boing Boing community, I think we can even open the doors for unicorn submissions, but ONLY if you also provide a picture of a real creature (NOTE: you might wonder where a unicorn card might fit in with a biodiversity project, but we are not above a little parody in the project - see if you can find the one other fictional card already hidden in the collection).

Anyway, how do you submit? Well, there is a special Flickr pool just for art submissions, but if it's easier you can also pass on a link to your art in the comments below (make sure the link also has a way of contact so that we can follow up); do the same via this post; or, if you're on Deviant Art, by sending on a note to my deviantart.com account. All in all, any help is greatly appreciated.

We're also now at the stage where we can begin to construct locale specific starter decks. In other words, with our card numbers continually expanding, we can provide pdfs of decks that make sense to a particular city or region, as well as decks of cards chosen to support the exhibits at learning institutions (I'll be making one for the Natural History Museum for example). This would have awesome educational potential, so it would be great if we could get locale specific "champions" to help with this.

Finally: wouldn't these cards look cool on a smart phone? Maybe there are biodiversity type apps out there that would like to add a "card" layer to their functionality. Or maybe just a way to play trumps or some such similar game with the cards? Just saying.

Second, here is a request that involves the blue whale I wrote about earlier.

Photo by Stuart Pearce (link)

During construction (of the whale model), workmen left a trapdoor within the whale's stomach, which they would use for surreptitious cigarette breaks. Before the door was closed and sealed forever, some coins and a telephone directory were placed inside -- this soon growing to an urban myth that a time capsule was left inside. The work was completed -- entirely within the hall and in full view of the public -- in 1938. At the time it was the largest such model in the world, at 28.3 m in length, though the construction details were later borrowed by several American museums, who scaled the plans further. (Wikipedia)

Isn't that wonderful? I've also heard other stories about what might be inside the belly of this whale (including one that mentioned a distill), and have increasingly heard the term "Narnia doors" around this museum. Apparently, the museum is so vast and so twisty-turny that it's not uncommon to open a door and end up somewhere totally unexpected.

In fact, the idea of the blue whale possibly harboring some secret inside is such a delicious notion, that I'm a bit disappointed that someone like J.K. Rowling didn't lend her considerable imagination to include it in her vast Harry Potter iconography (although I might pursue this myself in a children's science culture/novel I'm working on). Anyway, in this respect, I'm curious to find out more. To be specific, I was wondering if:

1. Anybody knows more about what might be inside the whale, and

2. Without having to open up the huge hollow model, what technical options (high tech or better yet DIY) are there to take a peek inside?

And with that, this is where I'll sign off. Thanks for reading and playing along, and "May the Scientific Method always be with you." ]]> http://boingboing.net/2010/09/03/thanks-for-reading-a.html/feed 20 http://boingboing.net/2010/09/03/nagoya-cop10-primer-3.html http://boingboing.net/2010/09/03/nagoya-cop10-primer-3.html#comments Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:06:12 +0000 David Ng Nagoya COP10 Primer #1: with references to Star Wars Nagoya COP10

Primer #2: with a reference to Kevin Bacon Nagoya COP10 sidebar: UNFCCC YOU!

Nagoya COP10 Primer #3: with a small reference to LOL cats

So what should be done at Nagoya? This is the 20 million species plus question. And for all of the criticism that I've (and others) have proffered, we should appreciate that the task at hand is going to be quite the challenge. If nothing else, this is immediately clear from the often anthrocentric (humans rule the Earth and are just playing our role on the evolutionary front, so deal with it!) commentary left on biodiversity pieces throughout the internet.

There is a somewhat official Strategic Plan document out there, one that (with a remarkable lack of brevity) highlights 2020 goals and attempts to identify the process and partners to be involved. It's worth a look, although probably best absorbed by taking in the tables shown on page 19 on. It involves a list of some 20 different target statements. Some of which are short, bouncy, although still vague like a twitter tweet:

1. By 2020, everyone is aware of the value of biodiversity and what steps they can take to protect it.

Others are more to the point:

11. By 2020, At least 15% of land and sea areas, including the most critical terrestrial, freshwater and marine habitats, have been protected through effectively managed protected areas and/or other means, and integrated into the wider land- and seascape.

A few establish direct talking points for individual COP members:

16. By 2020, Each Party has an appropriate, up-to-date, effective and operational national biodiversity strategy, consistent with this Strategic Plan, based on adequate assessment of biodiversity, its value and threats, with responsibilities allocated among sectors, levels of government, and other stakeholders, and coordination mechanisms are in place to ensure implementation of the actions needed.

And this one, almost works as a haiku:

3. By 2020 Subsidies harmful

to biodiversity

are eliminat...

Well, maybe not a 5-7-5 haiku. Still, the 20 targets make for a good, if detailed, read. I'm actually tempted to see how they might fare as a poem: if I stack them one by one, and then giving it the title, "By 2020."

The purpose of this long and comprehensive list of targets, of course, is to address the vagueness discussed before. This is a good thing: but how wieldy these discussions will be, especially in the context of 190+ COP members needing to reach an agreement remains to be seen. In light of this, maybe structuring this discussion around a more simple list is better.

I quite like the suggestions laid out in this recent paper, "Biodiversity targets after 2010" by Mace et al. (pdf). For starters, it's written in a pretty readable fashion, but more importantly, it tries to break the targets into three defined categories, as described in this box.

This seems pretty clever to me. Let's break up the priorities depending on: (1) whether the loss in biodiversity is directly "bad" for you (as well as anthrocentric commenters); (2) whether the loss in biodiversity results in a loss of sociological and/or cultural value (i.e. makes you "sad"); and (3) what kind of things are needed in order to tackle the previous two. If viewed in this manner, the hope is that everyone can find something of value in this process. In fact, I think an important part of 3 (or the blue target) is to also showcase how closely tied 1 and 2 are to each other (things that make you "sad" are often things with a direct "bad" effect - often an effect you're not necessarily prepared for).

In any event, let's end with a list of priorities, whittled from our "By 2020" poem, and worded explicitly for those of you who don't wish to read the strategic document outlined earlier. In fact, let's borrow from a great list seen at the IYB UK website. Here they suggest that at the very least, Nagoya COP10 can provide the following:

1. A new set of targets to protect our natural resources that are achievable and measurable.

2. A protocol for fair access to, and sharing the benefits from, the world's genetic resources. This is called the Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) protocol.

3. The need to put a fair economic value on nature's services that are currently used for free, such as fertile soil, pollination of our crops, and flood defences. This will be based on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) report.

4. Support for establishing a single source for access to reliable scientific evidence which can be used to inform policy decisions on biodiversity issues. This is called the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and will operate in a similar way that the IPCC informs climate change policy.

My favourite is the first one, which in a sort of grant-proposal-speak, is basically asking for a strong and kick ass Nagoya agreement.

Now, what can you do to help move this along? Well, on the high effort scale, you can obviously get involved in various biodiversity outreach programs. I'm sure there are many in your local neck of the woods. However, at the lower end of the effort scale, just being vocal about such things is a good star (even if you disagree heartily about everything I've written). Dialogue generates more dialogue which then generates debate which then generates noise which then, if you're lucky, might generate notice from the government players, which is what you hope for.

The timing is also interesting politically. For the US, biodiversity has inadvertently been pushed into the public's consciousness by the horrible Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The images and stories presented have been visceral and gut wrenching, and tragically informative in providing a look at how a locale is closely tied to its ecosystem. In the UK, Nagoya COP10 is Prime Minister Cameron's first real test on the environmental front - so there's lots of eyeballs monitoring his government's action. And in Canada, where my home is... well... Stephen Harper should be well aware that the sweater vests he loves so dearly are very much a product of biodiversity.

Anyway, since this is my last Nagoya COP10 primer, I'm hoping you can just go on and make some online noise. For example, those four priorities above seemed primed for a twitter rework. Or maybe just come up with any creative/witty/funny/deep Nagoya related tweet. You can even stick a #nagoyaCOP10 hashtag in there. It would be interesting to see what great lines people can come up with.]]> http://boingboing.net/2010/09/03/nagoya-cop10-primer-3.html/feed 0