Picking and choosing

You may remember at the beginning of April a row broke out over science and politics. This row was re-ignited today [22 April] when the UK Drug Policy Commission and the think-tank Demos released a research report saying it was time to rethink drug control laws. The Commission/Demos work will refocus attention on the resignations earlier this month of a number of experts from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. They quit in protest over the way that ministers ignored the scientific advice and instead were accused of playing politics by pledging to ban mepherdone and therefore could be seen to be 'acting tough' in the run-up to the election.
A couple of weeks later and drugs were forgotten as airports across Europe were shut because of the Icelandic volcanic ash cloud which drifted over the continent. This time British ministers were in trouble from airlines and opposition politicians who accused them of dithering over lifting the ban. UK airports remained closed for a day longer than others in Europe. Planes were flying again following the creation of new guidelines by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) raising the threshold of ash density in the atmosphere at which flying is deemed safe from zero to 0.002 grams per meter cubed per hour. It said new data collected from test flights and additional analysis from manufacturers over the past few days had "helped to validate a new standard that is now being adopted across Europe."
But the advice received by government and its response to that advice has been questioned. The government says safety was paramount but it is now facing claims for compensation from an angry and already financially-weak airline industry.
Decisions over both mepherdone and volcanic ash were taken using information and political judgement, and both were subject to hard lobbying by self-interested parties. It seems politicians can expect to be damned when they do listen to scientific advice and damned when they ignore it. While scientists are fallible, perhaps we all need to recognise that listening to the information-based expert advice has to be the best route on all occasions.

Digital Economy Act is a far cry from Digital Britain vision

Chalking out legislation for the internet and safeguarding interests of the consumers, providers and other stakeholders on the web is a tricky business. Just as no one anticipated decades ago how the internet would unfold, it is difficult to formulate today, the legal framework for the internet.
Even as we continue to marvel at the potential of the internet and collaborative web tools for information, communication and day-to-day business, the government has passed the Digital Economy Bill into a law this month that will regulate the areas of digital media in the UK.
The Digital Economy Act has received the Royal Assent this week and will commence in June 2010. It aims at tackling issues such as copyright infringement, electronic publications, functions and powers of Ofcom and orphan works among others. But it fails to acknowledge that amid the web 2.0 revolution, consumers themselves have become distributors of information and it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between the state, the market and the users in the world of internet.
Among other unpopular measures, the act proposes strict rules for illegal file sharers such as a temporary suspension of internet connections for repeated copyright infringement following warnings from their ISPs (internet service providers). It also proposes giving the secretary of state power to update copyright law without parliamentary assent.
Separately, library expertss think proposed amendments to the orphan works Clause 42 (works with no known owner) pose one of the greatest barriers to mass digitisation of content by the UK's leading national institutions.
The Bill itself was accused of poor legislation and as posing a danger to the society by experts because it could have a significant impact for online activity that are currently poorly understood.
Critics called for more time for public debate and consideration over the issues raised in the Bill and for a more measured approach just as it was approved by the House of Lords a month ago.
We surely need a legal framework for digital activities and we surely need to safeguard business interests of those adversely affected by rampant piracy on the internet. But a hasty third reading of the Bill and enacting it as a law hurriedly before the general elections is dangerous and threatens to restrict the opportunities on the web.
The Act should uphold the principles stated in the Digital Britain report that promises digital inclusion, faster broadband, greater transparency, empowering citizens with internet access and most importantly power and right of information to all.
What we need is a law made judiciously, prudently and after carefully assessing and discussing the impact of the web. The last thing we need now is a regressive, bureaucratic and short-sighted law governing our web practices.
A legislation in the digital arena must follow a measured approach because if a decision backfires it will affect significantly not just what is at stake now but also what is at stake in the future.