There's no question that geoengineering and intellectual property (especially as it relates to SRM) is a complicated issue, but it's worth noting that "intellectual property" per se did not derail the SPICE field test. Rather, according to the facts that have been made public, it was a (contested) violation of EPSRC IP rules, i.e., failing to disclose a patent application, that led to cancellation of the field trial. This is different from a scenario in which an experiment is cancelled due to objections to the application of an IP framework to SRM geoengineering, which is how some are portraying the SPICE debacle.
That's not to say that EPSRC IP rules strike the right balance, or that patents should even be permissible when it comes to SRM, only that the IP regime itself does not appear to be responsible for the cancellation. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:26:11 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: > > A charter for geoengineering > > Nature > > 485, > > 415 > > (24 May 2012) > > doi:10.1038/485415a > > Published online > > 23 May 2012 > > A controversial field trial of technology to mitigate climate change has > been cancelled, but research continues. A robust governance framework is > sorely needed to prevent further setbacks. > > Geoengineering research has a problem. That much should be clear following > last week's cancellation of a field trial for the Stratospheric Particle > Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. The solutions to this > problem are not so obvious, but they must be found — and fast. > > The SPICE field trial was supposed to involve spraying water into the > atmosphere at an altitude of 1 kilometre using a balloon and hosepipe, as > part of a host of work exploring whether it is possible to mitigate global > warming by introducing particles into the stratosphere to reflect some of > the Sun's energy away from Earth. > > But the field trial — which is only a small part of the overall SPICE > project — became bogged down in protests and delays almost as soon as it > was announced. Last week, as first reported by *Nature*, the project's > lead investigator announced that it was being abandoned, citing concerns > about intellectual-property rights, public engagement and the overall > governance regime for such work. > > Colleagues have leapt to the defence of the SPICE team, and praised its > decision to continue with the theoretical strands of its work. Indeed, the > researchers have acted with commendable honesty. But the SPICE issue is a > perfect example of the problems that will persist until geoengineers grasp > the nettle of regulation and oversight. > > We have been here before. Work on 'fertilizing' the oceans to promote > blooms of phytoplankton that would lock up carbon dioxide ran into similar > protests and governance wrangles. In 2009, an experiment to test the idea > by dumping tonnes of iron sulphate into the Southern Ocean caused huge > public disquiet and went ahead only after further discussions. > > “Problems will persist until geoengineers grasp the nettle of regulation > and oversight.” > > Researchers argue that 'geoengineering' is a falsely inclusive term. They > say that SPICE-style 'solar-radiation management' is completely different > from ocean fertilization, and different again from carbon capture. But > these technologies have similar aims and, when it comes to rules and > regulations, they probably need to be dealt with together. > > The geoengineering community has tried to bring some discipline to the > emerging field. The 'Oxford Principles' — developed in 2010 by researchers > at the University of Oxford, UK — offer some useful ground rules. They say > that geoengineering should be regulated as a public good; there should be > public participation in decision-making; research should be disclosed and > results published openly; impacts should be assessed independently; and > decisions to deploy the technologies should be made within a robust > governance framework. > > These are excellent principles. But they are vague, and cannot serve as a > guide to conducting specific experiments in such a broad field. > > A meeting of geoengineers in Asilomar, California, in 2009 — influenced by > a meeting at the same location in 1975, when researchers hashed out > guidelines for genetic engineering — produced similarly vague > recommendations, such as the need to conduct research openly and to consult > the public when planning research. It also called for governments to “when > necessary, create new mechanisms for the governance and oversight of > large-scale climate engineering research activities”. > > The SPICE fiasco starkly demonstrates the need for such mechanisms. For a > project of such high profile to founder on problems of intellectual > property, regulation or public protest would be bad enough. That it ran > into difficulties in all three areas shows an underlying problem. > > Of the issues raised, intellectual property may turn out to be the easiest > to resolve (see page 429 <http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/485429a>). > Science has a long and generally happy relationship with patents, including > those for technology with the ability to drive worldwide change. Likewise, > lessons on public engagement and dealing with protests can be taken from > earlier rows over genetic modification, stem cells, fertility work and > animal research. > > More troubling is the lack of an overarching governance framework. > Although the SPICE trial has been cancelled, other tests of geoengineering > technology will surely follow. Other work, such as fiddling with clouds to > make them more reflective or to try to bring on rain, touches on both > climate-change mitigation and weather modification. > > Geoengineers should keep trying. They should come together and draft > detailed, practical actions that need to be taken to advance governance in > the field. Regulation in these cutting-edge and controversial areas needs > to be working before the experiments begin, rather than racing to catch up. > Cancelled project spurs debate over geoengineering patents > > SPICE research consortium decides not to field-test its technology to > reflect the Sun’s rays. > > - Daniel > Cressey<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#auth-1> > > 23 May 2012 > > Technologies to keep Earth cool could one day provide a radical fix for > climate change — and, in a world struggling to control its greenhouse-gas > emissions, could also prove highly lucrative for inventors. > > But should individual researchers, or companies, be allowed to own the > intellectual property (IP) behind these world-changing techniques? The > issue was thrust into the spotlight last week after a controversial > geoengineering field trial was cancelled amid concerns about a patent > application by some of those involved in the project, as first reported by > *Nature*1<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#b1> > . > > The £1.6-million (US$2.5-million) Stratospheric Particle Injection for > Climate Engineering (SPICE) project was funded by the UK government to > investigate whether spurting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere > could help to bounce some of the Sun’s warming rays back into space. As > part of this project, SPICE had planned to test a possible delivery system: > pumping water up a 1-kilometre-long hose to a balloon, where it would be > sprayed into the sky. > > The project had already sparked protests from environmentalists wary of > geoengineering2<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#b2>. > > But “a potentially significant conflict of interest” over a patent > application for SPICE’s technology, which some team members only recently > became aware of, was a decisive factor in the cancellation, says project > leader Matthew Watson, an Earth scientist at the University of Bristol, UK. > The patent was submitted by Peter Davidson, a consultant based on the Isle > of Man who was an adviser at the workshop that gave rise to SPICE, and Hugh > Hunt, an engineer at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is one of the > SPICE project investigators. > Related stories > > - Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent > row<http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2012.10645> > - Geoengineering won't curb sea-level > rise<http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/news.2010.426> > - World view: Not by experts > alone<http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/466688a> > > More related > stories<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#related-links> > > UK funding bodies require anyone assessing or applying for grants to > declare relevant potential conflicts of interest. Davidson and Hunt say > that they were clear about their patent application before SPICE was > awarded funding, and there is no suggestion that they acted > inappropriately. But at least one of the funding councils is now > investigating the circumstances surrounding the SPICE grant, and the patent > in question, says Watson. > > Hunt blames a culture clash for the confusion. “It is completely normal > for engineering projects to be protected by IP,” he says. “The issue here > is that in climate science there is mistrust of IP, and I understand that > now.” He says he does not expect to earn any money from the patent. > > SPICE’s climate modelling and other technology development work will > continue, but the incident is another blow for a field already troubled by > concerns over governance. In 2010, researchers and policy-makers gathered > at the Asilomar Conference Center near Monterey, California, to agree a set > of guiding principles for the field — an effort that largely > failed3<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#b3> > . > > The following year, a smaller group produced the ‘Oxford Principles’, > stating that geoengineering should be “regulated as a public good”. The > lead authors of those principles later warned that patenting of > geoengineering technologies could “have serious negative impacts”, by > creating a culture of secrecy that could delay much-needed developments. > > “The issue here is that in climate science there is mistrust of IP.” > > Climate scientist David Keith of Harvard University in Cambridge, > Massachusetts, agrees, advocating legal restrictions on patents related to > solar-radiation management. Any technologies that could be controlled by a > small number of people, yet have the capacity to rapidly alter our planet’s > climate, “are deeply troubling”, he says. But Keith is not against > patenting in principle — he has applied for patents on techniques to remove > carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. > > Shobita Parthasarathy, a public-policy researcher at the University of > Michigan, Ann Arbor, says that the field urgently needs to agree on > detailed rules for IP. In 2010, she noted a “dramatically increasing” > number of patent applications in the area, containing broad language that > could allow a small number of patent holders to take control of a huge > swathe of > technologies4<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#b4>. > > One possible solution, she says, is to develop a unique system for handling > geoengineering patents, akin to the way that atomic-energy patents are > controlled in the United States. That system puts certain technologies > off-limits, and allows the government to take control of some intellectual > property. “I don’t think the solution is to get rid of IP,” she says. > > Another option might be to allow patent-holders to receive royalties, but > without the option to restrict the use of the patent, says Tim Kruger, a > researcher at the Geoengineering Programme, University of Oxford, UK, who > helped to develop the Oxford Principles. This would allow some research and > development to proceed, while still providing a financial incentive to work > in the area, he says. > > But geoengineering patents of any kind could give companies a vested > interest in the continuation of climate change, argues Holly Buck, a social > scientist who has studied the ethics of geoengineering. “It seems > conceptually wrong to create conditions for an enterprise that would > institutionally benefit from a stressed climate.” > > Nature > > 485, > > 429 > > (24 May 2012) > > doi:10.1038/485429a > > > On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 2:26:11 PM UTC-4, Greg Rau wrote: > > A charter for geoengineering > > Nature > > 485, > > 415 > > (24 May 2012) > > doi:10.1038/485415a > > Published online > > 23 May 2012 > > A controversial field trial of technology to mitigate climate change has > been cancelled, but research continues. A robust governance framework is > sorely needed to prevent further setbacks. > > Geoengineering research has a problem. That much should be clear following > last week's cancellation of a field trial for the Stratospheric Particle > Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. The solutions to this > problem are not so obvious, but they must be found — and fast. > > The SPICE field trial was supposed to involve spraying water into the > atmosphere at an altitude of 1 kilometre using a balloon and hosepipe, as > part of a host of work exploring whether it is possible to mitigate global > warming by introducing particles into the stratosphere to reflect some of > the Sun's energy away from Earth. > > But the field trial — which is only a small part of the overall SPICE > project — became bogged down in protests and delays almost as soon as it > was announced. Last week, as first reported by *Nature*, the project's > lead investigator announced that it was being abandoned, citing concerns > about intellectual-property rights, public engagement and the overall > governance regime for such work. > > Colleagues have leapt to the defence of the SPICE team, and praised its > decision to continue with the theoretical strands of its work. Indeed, the > researchers have acted with commendable honesty. But the SPICE issue is a > perfect example of the problems that will persist until geoengineers grasp > the nettle of regulation and oversight. > > We have been here before. Work on 'fertilizing' the oceans to promote > blooms of phytoplankton that would lock up carbon dioxide ran into similar > protests and governance wrangles. In 2009, an experiment to test the idea > by dumping tonnes of iron sulphate into the Southern Ocean caused huge > public disquiet and went ahead only after further discussions. > > “Problems will persist until geoengineers grasp the nettle of regulation > and oversight.” > > Researchers argue that 'geoengineering' is a falsely inclusive term. They > say that SPICE-style 'solar-radiation management' is completely different > from ocean fertilization, and different again from carbon capture. But > these technologies have similar aims and, when it comes to rules and > regulations, they probably need to be dealt with together. > > The geoengineering community has tried to bring some discipline to the > emerging field. The 'Oxford Principles' — developed in 2010 by researchers > at the University of Oxford, UK — offer some useful ground rules. They say > that geoengineering should be regulated as a public good; there should be > public participation in decision-making; research should be disclosed and > results published openly; impacts should be assessed independently; and > decisions to deploy the technologies should be made within a robust > governance framework. > > These are excellent principles. But they are vague, and cannot serve as a > guide to conducting specific experiments in such a broad field. > > A meeting of geoengineers in Asilomar, California, in 2009 — influenced by > a meeting at the same location in 1975, when researchers hashed out > guidelines for genetic engineering — produced similarly vague > recommendations, such as the need to conduct research openly and to consult > the public when planning research. It also called for governments to “when > necessary, create new mechanisms for the governance and oversight of > large-scale climate engineering research activities”. > > The SPICE fiasco starkly demonstrates the need for such mechanisms. For a > project of such high profile to founder on problems of intellectual > property, regulation or public protest would be bad enough. That it ran > into difficulties in all three areas shows an underlying problem. > > Of the issues raised, intellectual property may turn out to be the easiest > to resolve (see page 429 <http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/485429a>). > Science has a long and generally happy relationship with patents, including > those for technology with the ability to drive worldwide change. Likewise, > lessons on public engagement and dealing with protests can be taken from > earlier rows over genetic modification, stem cells, fertility work and > animal research. > > More troubling is the lack of an overarching governance framework. > Although the SPICE trial has been cancelled, other tests of geoengineering > technology will surely follow. Other work, such as fiddling with clouds to > make them more reflective or to try to bring on rain, touches on both > climate-change mitigation and weather modification. > > Geoengineers should keep trying. They should come together and draft > detailed, practical actions that need to be taken to advance governance in > the field. Regulation in these cutting-edge and controversial areas needs > to be working before the experiments begin, rather than racing to catch up. > Cancelled project spurs debate over geoengineering patents > > SPICE research consortium decides not to field-test its technology to > reflect the Sun’s rays. > > - Daniel > Cressey<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#auth-1> > > 23 May 2012 > > Technologies to keep Earth cool could one day provide a radical fix for > climate change — and, in a world struggling to control its greenhouse-gas > emissions, could also prove highly lucrative for inventors. > > But should individual researchers, or companies, be allowed to own the > intellectual property (IP) behind these world-changing techniques? The > issue was thrust into the spotlight last week after a controversial > geoengineering field trial was cancelled amid concerns about a patent > application by some of those involved in the project, as first reported by > *Nature*1<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#b1> > . > > The £1.6-million (US$2.5-million) Stratospheric Particle Injection for > Climate Engineering (SPICE) project was funded by the UK government to > investigate whether spurting reflective aerosols into the stratosphere > could help to bounce some of the Sun’s warming rays back into space. As > part of this project, SPICE had planned to test a possible delivery system: > pumping water up a 1-kilometre-long hose to a balloon, where it would be > sprayed into the sky. > > The project had already sparked protests from environmentalists wary of > geoengineering2<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#b2>. > > But “a potentially significant conflict of interest” over a patent > application for SPICE’s technology, which some team members only recently > became aware of, was a decisive factor in the cancellation, says project > leader Matthew Watson, an Earth scientist at the University of Bristol, UK. > The patent was submitted by Peter Davidson, a consultant based on the Isle > of Man who was an adviser at the workshop that gave rise to SPICE, and Hugh > Hunt, an engineer at the University of Cambridge, UK, who is one of the > SPICE project investigators. > Related stories > > - Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent > row<http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nature.2012.10645> > - Geoengineering won't curb sea-level > rise<http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/news.2010.426> > - World view: Not by experts > alone<http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/466688a> > > More related > stories<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#related-links> > > UK funding bodies require anyone assessing or applying for grants to > declare relevant potential conflicts of interest. Davidson and Hunt say > that they were clear about their patent application before SPICE was > awarded funding, and there is no suggestion that they acted > inappropriately. But at least one of the funding councils is now > investigating the circumstances surrounding the SPICE grant, and the patent > in question, says Watson. > > Hunt blames a culture clash for the confusion. “It is completely normal > for engineering projects to be protected by IP,” he says. “The issue here > is that in climate science there is mistrust of IP, and I understand that > now.” He says he does not expect to earn any money from the patent. > > SPICE’s climate modelling and other technology development work will > continue, but the incident is another blow for a field already troubled by > concerns over governance. In 2010, researchers and policy-makers gathered > at the Asilomar Conference Center near Monterey, California, to agree a set > of guiding principles for the field — an effort that largely > failed3<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#b3> > . > > The following year, a smaller group produced the ‘Oxford Principles’, > stating that geoengineering should be “regulated as a public good”. The > lead authors of those principles later warned that patenting of > geoengineering technologies could “have serious negative impacts”, by > creating a culture of secrecy that could delay much-needed developments. > > “The issue here is that in climate science there is mistrust of IP.” > > Climate scientist David Keith of Harvard University in Cambridge, > Massachusetts, agrees, advocating legal restrictions on patents related to > solar-radiation management. Any technologies that could be controlled by a > small number of people, yet have the capacity to rapidly alter our planet’s > climate, “are deeply troubling”, he says. But Keith is not against > patenting in principle — he has applied for patents on techniques to remove > carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. > > Shobita Parthasarathy, a public-policy researcher at the University of > Michigan, Ann Arbor, says that the field urgently needs to agree on > detailed rules for IP. In 2010, she noted a “dramatically increasing” > number of patent applications in the area, containing broad language that > could allow a small number of patent holders to take control of a huge > swathe of > technologies4<http://www.nature.com/news/cancelled-project-spurs-debate-over-geoengineering-patents-1.10690#b4>. > > One possible solution, she says, is to develop a unique system for handling > geoengineering patents, akin to the way that atomic-energy patents are > controlled in the United States. That system puts certain technologies > off-limits, and allows the government to take control of some intellectual > property. “I don’t think the solution is to get rid of IP,” she says. > > Another option might be to allow patent-holders to receive royalties, but > without the option to restrict the use of the patent, says Tim Kruger, a > researcher at the Geoengineering Programme, University of Oxford, UK, who > helped to develop the Oxford Principles. This would allow some research and > development to proceed, while still providing a financial incentive to work > in the area, he says. > > But geoengineering patents of any kind could give companies a vested > interest in the continuation of climate change, argues Holly Buck, a social > scientist who has studied the ethics of geoengineering. “It seems > conceptually wrong to create conditions for an enterprise that would > institutionally benefit from a stressed climate.” > > Nature > > 485, > > 429 > > (24 May 2012) > > doi:10.1038/485429a > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/T5uTvbczWBAJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
