Now to the matter of this
so-called evidence-based, engineering thinking …
In my blog from last week
(See-through Engineering and Fracking), I mentioned that I was in the process
of studying a report that the UK Government commissioned in 2012. The report
was prepared by bodies that would claim to be independent, objective, rational,
unbiased … The bodies concerned are the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of
Engineering. If you believe that they are truly independent etc. – this is a
choice that everyone is free to make. They do however, like the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers mentioned in last week’s blog, very much look to be lobby
groups. They will probably say that they are not, but there is no accounting
for the silly things that scientific and engineering types say – a rose is a
rose by any other name.
For those wishing to read the
report it is called: Shale gas
extraction in the UK
Having worked for several decades
in preparing reports, some for government agencies, one thing I have learned –
no one is independent when it comes to working with governments, civil servants
and politicians. All have an agenda, and I am no different to anyone else. What
marks me out is that I do not seek to hide my agenda, nor do I engage in
delusional statements about being unbiased.
As for the report, its brief was set
by the Government’s Chief Scientist (at that time Beddington). The brief was
very limited. Specifically, the terms of reference of the review, were: (i) to
identify the major risks associated with hydraulic fracturing as a means
to extract shale gas in the UK, including geological risks, such as seismicity,
and environmental risks, such as groundwater contamination (ii) to establish if
the risks can be effectively managed, and if so how.
In my blog of February 23 2014 (See-through Science) I wrote about a report from a Think Tank
called DEMOS, that was advocating upstream public engagement in science (in policy
making, research strategy development, funding decisions, etc.). The report
discusses how governments can manipulate circumstances to their own interests,
by setting briefs for so-called independent studies, and picking the right people
to undertake the work, so that the conclusions reached are those that the
government wants. Here is a case I believe that well illustrates this
manipulative behaviour.
The brief that was set for the study has led to a report
that is nothing more than a collection of historical facts, information about
regulations and technologies, and tutorials about such, etc. It is the kind of
material that typically, in a high quality report, would be included in an
appendix. But in this case, if such material had been placed where it belongs,
in appendices, then the main body of the report would be very thin indeed!
And if you ask two bodies that represent the interests of
groups (scientists, engineers and technologists) whose thinking, which is
deeply embedded in their cultures (in the form of biases, values, vested
interests, beliefs, etc.), is that the
risks can be managed, what do you expect their conclusions will be? They
are a safe bet to come up with the answer that is sought: that the risks can be managed.
It will not therefore come as a surprise to learn that this
is the conclusion reached. The report states (on page 4): “The health, safety
and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed
‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the
UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through
regulation.”
Was it ever going to
reach any other conclusion? This you must decide for yourself. What I here
offer is an observation that the material in the report does not convincingly support
this conclusion.
The most striking
aspect of the content of this report is the uncertainty, unknowns, lack of
factual information, and, lack of detailed knowledge about sites where fracking
might take place. This report is full of words and phrases such as: if …, the
most likely cause …, this explanation does not necessarily apply to …, one possible
explanation …, an alternative … explanation has been provided …, very little is
currently known about …, there is greater uncertainty about …, large
uncertainties in quantifying …, where possible …, it may be possible …, it is
difficult to predict …, there is a lack of …
I looked at the
report trying to find an analysis of consequences that will follow, when, as we
all know will be the case, the risks turn out not to be manageable. This, you
might reasonably expect, would centre significantly in such a report. Better
think again, for you will not find these considerations which are an essential
part of any serious and professionally conducted risk analysis. Associated with
risks there are consequences, and these too should be stated. They are not, and
it is consequences that concern the public, but evidently not the Government,
the Royal Society or the Royal Academy of Engineering.
With so many
unknowns, uncertainties, and lack of consideration of consequences, the most
professional conclusion to have reached would have been:
“Given the lack of
information and specific details, it is not possible to state with a high
degree of confidence that the health, safety and environmental risks
associated with hydraulic fracturing (often termed ‘fracking’) as a means to
extract shale gas can be managed effectively in the UK , even if operational best
practices are implemented and enforced through regulation.”
An alternative
wording would have been:
“We believe that the health,
safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing (often
termed ‘fracking’) as a means to extract shale gas can be managed effectively
in the UK
as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced through
regulation, even though the evidence for such is not fully convincing.”
Here I also mention
that there is reference in the report to an explanation of why natural gas
prices have fallen in the USA
as a result of exploitation of shale gas. The explanation is quite simple and
predictable: supply is greater than demand. So the next time David Cameron or
George Osborn start beguiling people with vague promises about lower energy
prices, ask them about the scale of fracking that would be needed in the UK to
achieve a circumstance where supply exceeds demand, and if indeed there is
enough exploitable shale gas in the UK to achieve such a situation. Bear in
mind also, as a number of people have observed that there is as yet no
certainty that there are sufficient exploitable shale gas deposits to be sure
of any significant impact, both in terms of prices and security of supply. As I
have mentioned before, exploiting shale gas has all the signs of addicts
desperately seeking that which they are addicted to!
And now to draw the
blog to a conclusion I mention that those invisible Promethean chains once more
can be heard clanking. What the Fracking Report demonstrates is that there are
still far too many people, those who call themselves scientists, engineers and
technologists, who are willing to participate in processes and modes of
thinking that belong in the past. Here in this report one sees an attitude that
regards plundering the earth of its natural resources as an acceptable economic
activity. Here one also sees discussions that accept as a given, the idea that dumping
industrial waste in holes (man made and natural) in the plant, is a legitimate
activity.
In the report one
will also find a very disturbing statement. On page 70, it is stated: “Members
of the Working Group acted in an individual and not a representative capacity,
and declared any potential conflicts of interest.” No-where in this report does
it say, “and we can confirm that none of the members of the working party
declared any conflicts of interest”, or “we carried out independent checks to
verify that the working party had no conflicts of interest.” I am not saying
that they did have conflicts of interest just that the level of professionalism
in this report is such that this is not convincingly proven, which is
important, as the next matter shows.
I mention the above to draw to your attention just how
out-dated and out-of touch with the modern world many scientists, engineers and
technologists, and their lobby groups are. Not here will you find any role
modelling to show to others the changes in behaviour that are needed to achieve
Responsible Research and Innovation, which is what the See-through Science report addresses.
The Fracking report
mentions that there is a lack of trust in the government to act in the
public interest and ensure adequate regulatory oversight. What the report does
not mention is that there is also a lack of trust in scientists, engineers and
technologists. And the reason for this lack of trust is to be found in this
report. And the appropriate public response to this is exactly what is
happening: peaceful protest and opposition, reflecting what is at stake here:
bringing under control powerful vested interests that are combining together to
create a future for our children that will be a nightmare. And part of this
response should be to work to ensure tighter regulation of scientists,
engineers and technologists, and their lobby groups, which I would propose
should include a good dose of individual and collective legal liability, both
civil and criminal, for those who participate in the type of exercises that lead
to reports such as the one discussed here.
It is time to put an end to this sort of nonsense, time for
a different approach to dealing with these types of highly controversial
issues, which place the public on one side, and the rest, the vested interests,
on the other. Time also to start recognising that the legacy we leave to future
generations, who will have to deal with the consequences of this desperate rush
to extract and destroy the remnants of the earth’s fossil fuels, is just as
important as dealing with our own needs. If we had the vision, the courage and
the imagination to do this, then we would I am sure, end-up with a far better
set of circumstances than that which prevails in the modern world. This is also
why I wrote my (about to be published) novel, Moments in Time, for it explores the damage that results from the risks can be managed mind-set.
There are actions that people can peacefully take to ensure
that a better circumstance is brought about. And about this I will have more to
say in future blogs. But first however I want to follow-up on a number of
issues that arise from the blogs that I have written over the past few weeks,
and these I will deal with over the coming weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment