Planet Nature

It would be unfair to accuse Congress of laziness -- there have been these things called the healthcare and climate/energy bills -- but it's been over a month into the 2010 fiscal year, and Congress still hasn't appropriated money for most science agencies. Thursday night, the Senate passed its version of the Commerce, Justice, Science, or CJS bill -- which contains funding for agencies like NSF and NASA. It now will sent to conference to iron out differences with the previously passed House version, a process that could easily take a month or more.

But if the Senate bill reflects the latest wisdom of the doyens of the Hill (if wisdom is what it is), then science is sitting pretty well. NASA would receive the full $18.7 billion that the Obama administration asked for. Interestingly, language accompanying the bill expresses concern that the International Lunar Network -- a planned system of lunar seismic detectors -- was tied to the human space programme rather than being a justifiable science mission in its own right. The Senate gave it $21 million for continued development.

The NSF would get $6.9 billion, just $130 million below the administration's request. However, the report language expresses concern about workplace environment -- no doubt tied to the porn scandal early this year. But it also questions the NSF's practice of rotating scientists in to the agency on short term appointments. The Senate bill acknowledges that this practice keeps NSF program managers fresh, but says it "creates gaps in management oversight". I wonder how scientists will feel if funding decisions were managed by career civil servants stuck in Washington rather than by their own.

By now you have probably checked out our most recent selection of Research Highlights in our November issue. Here are some other interesting methods papers up for consideration that we weren't able to feature in the journal.

Visualization of ATP levels inside single living cells with fluorescence resonance energy transfer-based genetically encoded indicators
PNAS 106, 15651 - 15656 (2009)

The yeast Wsc1 cell surface sensor behaves like a nanospring in vivo
Nature Chemical Biology 5, 857 - 862 (2009)

Genetic address book for retinal cell types
Nature Neuroscience 12, 1197 - 1204 (2009)

Protein quantification across hundreds of experimental conditions
PNAS 106, 15544 - 15548 (2009)

Biocompatible Functionalized Polyglycerol Microgels with Cell Penetrating Properties
Angewandte Chemie International Edition 48, 7540 - 7545 (2009)

Single-molecule sequencing of an individual human genome
Nature Biotechnology 27, 847 - 850 (2009)

Cell-selective metabolic labeling of proteins
Nature Chemical Biology 5, 715 - 717 (2009)

Generation of Functional Eyes from Pluripotent Cells
PLoS Biology 7, e1000174 (2009)

RNA-MATE: a recursive mapping strategy for high-throughput RNA-sequencing data
Bioinformatics 25, 2615 - 2616 (2009)

Targeted capture and massively parallel sequencing of 12 human exomes
Nature 461, 272 - 276 (2009)

Sensitive digital quantification of DNA methylation in clinical samples
Nature Biotechnology 27, 858 - 863 (2009)

Lord Drayson, the UK science minister, has thrown his weight behind a set of demands from the government’s independent advisors which were drawn up in the wake of the controversial sacking of drugs advisor David Nutt.

In an interview with Nature, Drayson also admitted there were concerns among government advisors that pre-date ‘Nutt-gate’. He said at recent meetings “a number of leading scientific advisors across different fields ... expressed to me some underlying concerns”.

“Not a huge concern, bubbling, but it was not just about advice relating to drugs classification,” says Drayson. “What’s happened over the last few days is that sort of bubbling concern has turned into very serious concern because of the events that have taken place.”

Drayson also confirmed the veracity of an email leaked to the Sun newspaper, in which he apparently said he was “pretty appalled” and that the Home Secretary’s decision to sack Nutt was “a big mistake” (see: Cracks show in government over Nutt-gate).

“I can confirm that was an email that I wrote and it reflects how I felt at that point,” he told Nature today. “I learnt about it through a Google Alert, which is not a great way to learn about it.”

An inquiry into the leak – which Drayson says “absolutely was not leaked from my end” – is now underway.

However, Drayson insists that good can still come of the whole affair. He says he backs a set of Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice, drawn up by other advisors and leading scientists (see: Home Secretary under fire over ‘Nutt-gate’).

“What I want to do is to be in a position to be able to come out and reassure the scientific community which I know has been very seriously concerned about all this, that the government takes the independence of scientific advice very seriously indeed,” he says.

“I think the principles which were set out yesterday, did provide a very good framework, a starting point, to allow us to confirm these things. I think they reflect a number of things which were in the code of conduct. What I want to do now is … come up with a way of implementing these principles.”

Jeff Tollefson; cross-posted from In the Field

Things are winding down here in Barcelona. The latest negotiating text is out, and everybody is waiting for the final plenary session.

Negotiators seem to have coalesced on what needs to come out of Copenhagen, as opposed to what many would like to see. The basic idea, covered in a bit more detail in my last post, is that leaders could sign an agreement providing decisions on the big issues, including emissions targets, financing, technology, adaptation and deforestation, and then come back early next year to get the details for a formal treaty in place. That might not sound like much, but it eliminates the sense of doubt that was clouding the talks earlier in the week.

There's a bit of confusion in some places, particularly among greens and representatives from developing countries, about what that means, but most see it as a viable solution given that securing a complete, ratifiable treaty might not be possible. Indeed, despite what might be called an air of cautious optimism, the gap between rich and poor countries remains substantial and apparently unbridgeable.

This stark truth was on full display as the G77 group representing developing countries, the European Union and then the United States held back-to-back press conferences giving their assessment of where we stand. I'll take a closer look at the implications of all this in next week's issue, but here's a quick summary: The G77 said it won't support any agreement unless rich countries cut their emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020; the EU said its offer to go up to 30 percent is already aggressive; and the US said its unofficial numbers, which appear in legislative proposals that would reduce emissions to just a few percent below 1990 levels, are both unlikely to change and in line with the science.

I say "apparently" because these are negotiations, and there is a sense that everybody wants a deal. I briefly cornered Alf Wills, a G77 leader from South Africa, to talk about the issue, and he acknowledged that developed countries could always try to bridge the divide with offers of things like money and technology. "That's part of the negotiation," he told me.

Earlier this week, an electrical short again sidelined the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful particle accelerator on the French-Swiss border. As the Register first reported, the cause of the electrical short appears to have been a baguette caught inside the machine.

CERN sources have confirmed the incident and blamed it on an errant bird. Under condition of anonymity, a CERN insider answered the Great Beyond's questions about the incident. Seriously, we did not make this up.

Any indication it might have been left on accident by a worker?
A short-circuit was thought to be caused by baguette carrying bird (not unknown for animals to cause this sort of problem). Workers were definitely not implicated.

Can we say anything about the contents of the baguette? Did it contain any tasty filling? If so what type?
Looks to have been a plain baguette - no filling observed. It was very soggy when found.

Is there any indication whether this is a French or a Swiss baguette?
It was a French site – But a frontier crossing bird is not ruled out.

Has anyone considered the possibility that the baguette came from the future to sabotage the LHC? Is there any indication that this is a futuristic baguette?
The possibility has been examined by theoretical physicists - considered unlikely as they feel baguettes will not play a part in future cultures.

Why is a bird considered the most likely theory?
Not unknown for birds to cause this sort of problem in outdoor electrical installations. The bird survived but lost breakfast.

Is this for real?
It is for real.

Will it have any impact on the CERN schedule?
There will be no impact on CERN schedule - full recovery has already taken place. It's similar to a power cut – procedures are in place to deal with this sort of thing.

CERN/Wikipedia/G. Brumfiel

Japanese electronics giant Panasonic is about to get even bigger, by offering to buy the majority of another Japanese electronics company, Sanyo for $4.5 billion. So what? I hear you cry.

This take over will mean that Panasonic is more than plasma-screen TVs, the company will have swiftly catapulted itself into the greentech big leagues. According to Greentech Media the deal, if it is successful (and according to the Guardian it will be) then Panasonic’s green tech portfolio becomes much more impressive.

The company will now have Sanyo’s solar panel capability and both companies’ combined lithium-ion battery arsenal will make the joint venture responsible for 30% of that market, says the Wall Street Journal. And we all know how hot lithium ion batteries are right now. The two companies, also according to that WSJ blog, will together account for most of the current battery market for hybrid cars, including the Toyota Prius and the Tesla cars.

To check out the rest of Panasonic’s green portfolio I recommend a closer look at that Greentech Media piece. It outlines the green credentials of Panasonic’s light bulbs, efficient TVs and even recycling schemes.

Image: Getty

Things are winding down here in Barcelona. The latest negotiating text is out, and everybody is waiting for the final plenary session.

Negotiators seem to have coalesced on what needs to come out of Copenhagen, as opposed to what many would like to see. The basic idea, covered in a bit more detail in my last post, is that leaders could sign an agreement providing decisions on the big issues, including emissions targets, financing, technology, adaptation and deforestation, and then come back early next year to get the details for a formal treaty in place. That might not sound like much, but it eliminates the sense of doubt that was clouding the talks earlier in the week.

There's a bit of confusion in some places, particularly among greens and representatives from developing countries, about what that means, but most see it as a viable solution given that securing a complete, ratifiable treaty might not be possible. Indeed, despite what might be called an air of cautious optimism, the gap between rich and poor countries remains substantial and apparently unbridgeable.

This stark truth was on full display as the G77 group representing developing countries, the European Union and then the United States held back-to-back press conferences giving their assessment of where we stand. I'll take a closer look at the implications of all this in next week's issue, but here's a quick summary: The G77 said it won't support any agreement unless rich countries cut their emissions by at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020; the EU said its offer to go up to 30 percent is already aggressive; and the US said its unofficial numbers, which appear in legislative proposals that would reduce emissions to just a few percent below 1990 levels, are both unlikely to change and in line with the science.

I say "apparently unbridgeable" because these are negotiations, and there is a sense that everybody wants a deal. I briefly cornered Alf Wills, a G77 leader from South Africa, to talk about the issue, and he acknowledged that developed countries could always try to bridge the divide with offers of things like money and technology. "That's part of the negotiation," he told me.

As it happens, negotiators working on technology transfer issues appear to have made some progress this week. They are converging on some institutional issues and the establishment of regional technology innovation centers that could help developing countries gear up for the future. Similarly, observers say talks over adaptation and deforestation are moving forward as well, although green groups still have some concerns about safeguards in the deforestation text. (See my post on Wednesday for details; they succeeded in restoring some language intended to prevent the conversion of natural forests to plantations, but say the language isn't as strong as it should be).

That leaves mitigation and money, which are, admittedly, the biggest issues. Most tend to cite the United States' inability to put a formal number on the table as the main sticking point, but US negotiator Jonathan Pershing slapped that idea down on Friday. He said everybody should have a good idea what the US number is, given that there is a narrow range in the legislation in Congress. Indeed, although no decision has been made, he said there's no reason why the United States couldn't sign a treaty in December. The question is whether there would be one to sign, he said, adding a quick jab at developing countries for, in his view, arguing against a single treaty that binds everybody to differing levels of commitments.

So, with all that as background, we'll just have to wait and see what happens once leaders take the stage. UN climate chief Yvo de Boer said he's been informed that some 40 heads of state are planning to attend Copenhagen in December, which should make things interesting.

Barring major fireworks in the final plenary, this will be my last post, but keep an eye out for our formal coverage in next week's issue of the magazine.

Keith Kloor

All hope for Copenhagen seems lost. According to The Times:

“A world treaty on climate change will be delayed by up to a year and is likely to be watered down because countries with the highest greenhouse gas emissions are refusing to commit to legally binding reductions.”

So if Copenhagen becomes just another rallying point for worldwide action, then where to after that? According to The Guardian:

“Sources said a meeting in Mexico in December 2010 would be more likely to see the legal treaty sealed.”

Whatever new roadmap emerges from Copenhagen, religious leaders meeting this week at Windsor Castle in Britain have pledged to galvanize their constituents to take action on global warming. Andrew Revkin at Dot Earth notes the “remarkable conclave”.

On the energy front, natural gas continues to be heralded for its various environmental attributes. Recent discoveries of abundant shale gas reserves in the United States, argue Daniel Yergin and Robert Ineson in The Wall Street Journal, transform the debate over generating electricity. They write:

"The US electric power industry faces very big questions about fuel choice and what kind of new generating capacity to build. In the face of new climate regulations, the increased availability of gas will likely lead to more natural gas consumption in electric power because of gas's relatively lower CO2 emissions. Natural gas power plants can also be built more quickly than coal-fired plants."

A broader case was spelled out several months ago by a leading Washington DC think thank, which asserted that natural gas:

"creates an unprecedented opportunity to use gas as a bridge fuel to a 21st-century energy economy that relies on efficiency, renewable sources and low-carbon fossil fuels such as natural gas".

Now, it seems that it has a potential peace dividend as well. Building natural gas pipelines in Central Asia, instead of military transport lines, could bring greater stability to countries such as India and Pakistan, according to this article by Saleem H. Ali and Parag Khanna, in Foreign Policy. There are obvious ancillary benefits for the global climate, since natural gas "is likely to be the cleanest and most cost-effective fuel to meet Pakistan and India’s energy shortfall". The authors add:

"Natural gas development offers a unique opportunity to tackle strategic, diplomatic and environmental goals at the same time.”

Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing. But it isn't always clear exactly what Nature Physics expects of its referees. The journal explains in its November Editorial (5, 775; 2009). "Whatever you think about a paper, it is vital to explain to us exactly why you think it. Your colleagues among the other reviewers may disagree with your assessment, and we do not base our decisions on a show of hands. Hence detailed critiques carry more weight in informing our decisions than terse affirmations one way or the other (in most cases we would disregard the latter, regardless of who supplied it). A further point to consider is whether the work presented in a paper is similar to what has been done before — in such a case, please explain exactly what has been done previously and indicate where it was published." The Editorial outlines the journal's peer-review process, what the editors look for in a review, how to write the review, and how the editors make their decisions. "Peer review is essential for maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. It's well worth the effort. And we thank all of you who make it."

Hot on the heels of the pig genome comes news of another animal sequenced down on the farm. Writing in this week’s Science, researchers report the genome of Twilight, an adult female Equus caballus.

While this worthy feat of science has attracted much media interest, none of the coverage seems to mention that the horse genome was actually sequenced back in 2007 and widely reported at the time, although it was only published this week.

It is a useful genome to have though.

“Horses and humans suffer from similar illnesses, so identifying the genetic culprits in horses promises to deepen our knowledge of disease in both organisms,” says Kerstin Lindblad-Toh, of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and Uppsala University in Sweden (press release). “The horse genome sequence is a key enabling resource toward this goal.”

The equine sequence is roughly 2.7 billion letters long and is not dissimilar to our own. “Indeed, 17 horse chromosomes (53%) comprise material from a single human chromosome (in the dog, it is 29%),” the authors write.

The horse genome joins not only the pig, but also the chicken and the cow, with the sheep on the way. All together now: “Old Macdonald had a genome…”

Image: Twilight / courtesy of Doug Antczak, Baker Institute for Animal Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University

EMBO Journal has just announced its annual competition for the best (scientific or non-scientific) cover images in 2010. The front cover of the 4 November issue (pictured) shows an assembly of many of the beautiful images that have been featured on the EMBO Journal since 2007; most of these had been submitted to previous competitions by scientists based throughout the world. Please visit the journal's competition page for details of how you can participate in this year's contest and submit your entries online. You can take a look at the gallery in the journal's online archive for an impression of what type of images might be good candidates for an EMBO Journal cover. The jury and the editors are looking forward to seeing your contributions. The closing date of the 2010 cover contest is 15 January 2010. Send a brief email to covers@embojournal.org if you wish to receive a notification when next year's contest is announced.

In another similar enterprise, the editors of The American Journal of Gastroenterology are seeking eye-catching cover images for the journal in 2010. Images can be submitted using the journal's online manuscript submission service. All readers and contributors to The American Journal of Gastroenterology are eligible. Full information on artwork submission guidelines is available (PDF).
The American Journal of Gastroenterology , the official publication of the American College of Gastroenterology, is the clinical leader in publishing highly cited articles that appeal to all practicing clinicians interested in gastroenterology, hepatology, endoscopy and other related disorders.

The US Congress is finally taking on the controversial idea of geoengineering — large-scale, deliberate manipulation of the climate system to counteract climate change.

The concept has slowly been creeping into public awareness, including a casual — and much overblown — mention by Obama's science advisor John Holdren in his first interview with the Associated Press.

Yesterday the House committee on science and technology heard testimony from five scientists, including big-name geoengineering proponents Lee Lane, codirector of the American Enterprise Institute's geoengineering project, Ken Caldeira of Stanford University and John Shepherd of the University of Southampton. Shepherd recently chaired a Royal Society working group, which also included Caldeira and which released a report on geoengineering in September.

In his opening statement, committee chair Bart Gordon emphasized that there are many uncertainties about geoengineering, including the potential for catastrophic side-effects. But, he said, “the climate is changing”, so “we should accept the possibility that certain climate engineering proposals may merit consideration”.

Brain disease treated by gene therapy
A treatment based on HIV finds first success in humans.

Mars rover plans its escape
Crunch time approaches for a decision on how to free Spirit from a sand trap.

Oldest American artefact unearthed
Oregon caves yield evidence of continent's first inhabitants.

Lisbon Treaty could give research a boost
European Union set to take a bigger role in climate and space policy.

The pressure on the UK Home Secretary over his sacking of an independent science advisor dramatically increased today, with both politicians and other advisors wading into ‘Nutt-gate’.

David Nutt was the chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs until last week, when he was fired by Alan Johnson. Two members of the ACMD have already resigned in protest and today a who’s who of other advisors and leading scientists have signed up for a new set of Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice.

Johnson has also been asked to explain himself to the influential cross party Parliamentary science committee. Phil Willis, the committee chair has written to Johnson, Nutt and the government’s chief science advisor John Beddington to ask for their accounts of the recent events.

Colin Blakemore, who is both a current advisor and former chief executive of the Medical Research Council, was one of those behind the new principles document.

“The priority now must be to rebuild the confidence of the scientific community in the way the Government, and indeed the Opposition parties, treat scientific advice and those who provide it,” he says. “If the Government can sign up to this statement, which essentially summarises commitments that have been made in the past, I hope that we can press the ‘reset’ button on the relationship.”

Jeff Tollefson; cross-posted from In the Field

The European Commission's chief negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, acknowledged this afternoon that Europe might have to settle for a political agreement rather than a binding legal treaty in Copenhagen (see my post this morning for a quick discussion of the issue). Everybody else has been talking about this possibility for some time, but it's not insignificant when the EU, which has always been the primary driver of this process, starts talking about it. Indeed, one environmentalist told me that once Europe gives up on the idea of a fully ratifiable deal in Copenhagen, the game is over.

As noted by The Associated Press, the official European position on the need for a ratifiable treaty remains in place. When I asked a spokesman about some kind of plan "PlanContentRecord B", he squirmed and said this represents more of an acknowledgement of what other people are saying than anything else. In fact, people in the United States started saying this last year, shortly after US President Barack Obama's election, citing the monumental difficulty of establishing a new climate policy in less than a year. Interestingly enough, I talked to one former negotiator who said that many Europeans have been thinking along these lines for just as long but simply chose to maintain pressure by pushing for a full deal.

As it happens, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer and Malta's Michael Zammit Cutajar, who chairs the non-Kyoto negotiations that include the United States, both outlined their vision of a political deal in Copenhagen in a closed-door session with non-governmental groups on Wednesday. For a summary of their positions, check a blog posted by Elliot Diringer at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a group that drew criticism from ncomprehensive one other than Yvo de Boer himself for making the very same assessment last year.

The problem, once again, is that the United States is not ready to commit because it doesn't have, and isn't likely to have before early next year, domestic climate legislation in place. The US and the EU discussed the issue at a climate summit this week in Washington but were unable to reach any agreement on how to move forward.

Jeff Tollefson; cross-posted from In the Field

And now I'll take a look at the major developing countries, as promised both yesterday and today. A new analysis of climate commitments by the six biggest emerging economies - Brazil, China, India, South Africa, Mexico and South Korea - suggests that their cumulative emissions add up to a 25 percent reduction compared to "business as usual" projections for 2020. The report (not yet available on the web but discussed in a session on Tuesday) was commissioned by the German government and this portion was led by Niklas Hohne of the consultancy Ecofys in Koln. For some background, see our earlier coverage here.

Hohne said these six countries make up roughly two-thirds of the developing world emissions, which are more than half of the global total; include everybody and you get a 16 percent reduction in cumulative emissions from the developing world. That is in fact within the 15-30 percent reduction range that has been extracted from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent assessment and made into official EU policy.

This is without word of new commitments expected from Brazil, which ended up delaying its announcement of a new, potentially more comprehensive emissions commitment this week (see our story this week here). President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva held a cabinet meeting to discuss the issue on Tuesday, but the government was unable to settle on a proposal and ended up scheduling another meeting for 14 November.

Leiden University, the Netherlands

A theoretical physicist journeys to a hairy black hole's horizon.

Rumour has it that Steven Spielberg is producing the ultimate science fiction movie, using state-of-the-art general-relativity simulations to create a realistic image of the warped space-time near a black hole. But wouldn't it be great to see such worlds in real life? In fact, you can: by extending your eyesight with 'AdS/CFT', a mathematical result of string theory that describes a 'through the looking-glass' experience that would embarrass the imagination of Lewis Carroll.

AdS/CFT states that information about the strange world of the black hole is, in a very indirect way, encoded in or 'imaged' by the properties of certain quantum-weird forms of matter. Scientists realized recently that these 'quantum critical' states of matter are routinely produced in condensed-matter laboratories. But a particular prediction of AdS/CFT made the string theorists nervous: the event horizon of the special black hole that is imaged by the quantum critical electrons seems to imply that the latter should show a macroscopic entropy at zero temperature. It has further been predicted that the black hole would be unstable and would eventually suck up 'stuff' from its surroundings, covering its horizon with 'hair' (S. A. Hartnoll et al. J. High Energy Phys. 2008, 015; 2008). In the electron system, out of the blue and at a quite low temperature, some unexpected order will set in that removes the ground-state entropy, giving it a unique ground state.

Intriguingly, I learned the other day that condensed-matter experimentalists, unaware of the string theorists' nervousness, are now in the grip of the same idea. The latest thermodynamic experiments on quantum-critical electrons are suggestive (albeit inconclusive) of a developing zero temperature entropy — for the experimentalists, a catastrophe — interrupted at a very low temperature by the onset of an exotic quantum liquid crystalline order (Z. Fisk Science 325, 1348–1349; 2009). It may be that we don't need spacecraft or Spielberg to visit black holes, just a little patience with the condensed-matter experimentalists.

The line in the basement hallway of the US Department of Energy stretched interminably. "What's this line for?" asked one DOE employee. "Is everyone going to the gym or something?"

Nope. The bomb-sniffing dogs and Secret Service made it clear that the line was to see First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama, a figure so popular that the DOE had to give its employees tickets through a lottery.

Making her 13th visit to a federal agency, Obama joined Energy Secretary Steven Chu on Thursday in a tightly packed, 200-person basement DOE auditorium for a mock quiz of 10 middle schoolers who would compete next year in the National Science Bowl, an outreach effort run by DOE. Chu said that Obama was helping him with one of his highest priorities: "elevating the social status of nerds everywhere."

After a quick pep talk to the career civil service employees, Obama got ready to start peppering the kids with questions. "We're all set. I'm Alex Trebek," said Obama. "Secretary Chu is like my Vanna White."

And the two leaders jumped into a 14 minute round of hard-fought science trivia. "Cellular respiration in human cells is carried out mostly by what organelle?" asked Obama. Beeeeep! Catherine Xue, from Takoma Park, Maryland, buzzed in. "Mitochondria?" she asked timidly. "Correct," said Chu. Xue exchanged a fist bump with her team captain, Avikar Periwal.

Chu seemed to take pleasure when the budding scientists nailed a question, but winced when one team incorrectly guessed that nuclear power comprises only 5% of the US energy budget. The other team quickly got the answer right: 20%. "Correct," said Chu with a wry smile. If he gets his way, that answer could change -- Chu is hoping that DOE funding will help launch a new generation of nuclear reactors.

Image: Ken Shipp / DOE Photo

The cost of sequencing a human genome has dropped to just below $5,000. Well, sort of. The Mountain View, Calif.-based company Complete Genomics published a paper today describing its efforts to sequence three genomes at a materials cost of $4,400. Included in the trio is the genome of George Church, personal genomics evangelist and an adviser to the company, who has already posted the analysis of his data here.

The European Commission's chief negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, acknowledged this afternoon that Europe might have to settle for a political agreement rather than a binding legal treaty in Copenhagen (see my post this morning for a quick discussion of the issue). Everybody else has been talking about this possibility for some time, but it's not insignificant when the EU, which has always been the primary driver of this process, starts talking about it. Indeed, one environmentalist told me that once Europe gives up on the idea of a fully ratifiable deal in Copenhagen, the game is over.

As noted by The Associated Press, the official European position on the need for a ratifiable treaty remains in place. When I asked a spokesman about some kind of plan "PlanContentRecord B", he squirmed and said this represents more of an acknowledgement of what other people are saying than anything else. In fact, people in the United States started saying this last year, shortly after US President Barack Obama's election, citing the monumental difficulty of establishing a new climate policy in less than a year. Interestingly enough, I talked to one former negotiator who said that many Europeans have been thinking along these lines for just as long but simply chose to maintain pressure by pushing for a full deal.

As it happens, UN climate chief Yvo de Boer and Malta's Michael Zammit Cutajar, who chairs the non-Kyoto negotiations that include the United States, both outlined their vision of a political deal in Copenhagen in a closed-door session with non-governmental groups on Wednesday. For a summary of their positions, check a blog posted by Elliot Diringer at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a group that drew criticism from ncomprehensive one other than Yvo de Boer himself for making the very same assessment last year.

The problem, once again, is that the United States is not ready to commit because it doesn't have, and isn't likely to have before early next year, domestic climate legislation in place. The US and the EU discussed the issue at a climate summit this week in Washington but were unable to reach any agreement on how to move forward.

As it happens, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a comprehensive climate bill today, but committee votes aren't that important in the Senate. This one is even less important given that Republicans boycotted the vote. The significance of the boycott is unclear, but Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who authored the Senate bill, is already reaching across the aisle in an effort to craft a compromise (see the Washington Post for more detailindex).

One thing is clear: US Senate does not respond to global frustration. On the other hand, discussions about securing some kind of an interim political agreement in Copenhagen and then returning to seal the deal in three to six months do in fact take into account the Senate schedule. Conventional wisdom posits that the bill needs to be finished in the first half of next year, because once lawmakers start campaigning for the 2010 elections in the fall they won't want to touch the issue. That pushes things off until 2011. Scheduling another meeting in, say, June, would maintain pressure on Democrats while giving the Senate some necessary breathing room.

Make of all that what you will. In the meantime, the talks here in Barcelona wrap up tomorrow. There are some early reports of progress on discussions of technology and adaptation, but many of the bigger questions on financing and emissions are likely to get kicked down the road. More soon.

I’m sitting in the plenary session of the Kyoto Protocol, listening to an old debate over the baseline year used to assess emissions. The protocol is currently tied to 1990 emissions, but Japan, Australia and Canada have all suggested that expressing emissions reductions according to multiple baselines might be useful.

The logic is that although the Kyoto Protocol is tied to 1990, many countries – including the United States - are now pegging their climate proposals to more recent years. That has the advantage of providing a picture of what each country plans to do moving forward. The US and European proposals, for instance, actually look similar using a 2005 baseline (for more on that, see our earlier coverage here). On the other hand, many – including Europeans – have long argued that using new baselines would dilute the protocol and potentially let countries like off the hook (in addition to the United States, think Canada, which has acknowledged it cannot meet its Kyoto targets).

Today, like so many other days, the parties were unable to resolve the matter. Japan’s proposal to illustrate the commitments in tabular form drew initial objections, particularly from China, which said any effort to shift away from the legally binding 1990 baseline would be "totally not acceptable." But those backing the proposal's supporters said there should be a way to ensure that the 1990 baseline remains while noting additional baselines. The idea of using “footnotes” came up.

Discussions about the relative merits of footnotes versus charts seem a bit silly, to be sure, but the issue has been a sticking point for a long time. Some kind of resolution will be necessary in whatever emerges from Copenhagen.

The discussion eventually hit the big issue of emissions targets. The Alliance of Small Island States, which fears the dual impacts of acidification and rising sea levels, led the way by adding up all of the developed country targets (including legislation being debated in the United States) for a grand total of 12-19 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. That compares to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's analysis indicating that a 25-40 percent reduction might be necessary by 2020. And AOSIS is actually pushing for 45 percent cut, to increase the likelihood of keeping temperature increase below 1.5 degrees instead of the generally accepted 2-degree target.

As expected, no headway was made on this issue either, but it does lead into my next posting.

And now I'll take a look at the major developing countries, as promised both yesterday and today. A new analysis of climate commitments by the six biggest emerging economies - Brazil, China, India, South Africa, Mexico and South Korea - suggests that their cumulative emissions add up to a 25 percent reduction compared to "business as usual" projections for 2020. The report (not yet available on the web but discussed in a session on Tuesday) was commissioned by the German government and this portion was led by Niklas Hohne of the consultancy Ecofys in Koln. For some background, see our earlier coverage here.

Hohne said these six countries make up roughly two-thirds of the developing world emissions, which are more than half of the global total; include everybody and you get a 16 percent reduction in cumulative emissions from the developing world. That is in fact within the 15-30 percent reduction range that has been extracted from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent assessment and made into official EU policy.

This is without word of new commitments expected from Brazil, which ended up delaying its announcement of a new, potentially more comprehensive emissions commitment this week (see our story this week here). President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva held a cabinet meeting to discuss the issue on Tuesday, but the government was unable to settle on a proposal and ended up scheduling another meeting for 14 November.

It should be noted that the report's analysis of Brazil's existing policies (largely its commitment to curb deforestation by 80 percent by 2020) comes in significantly higher than the analysis by Brazilian scientists cited in our story. The report suggests that existing policies could reduce emissions by 41 percent below BAU, which is higher than a more comprehensive scenario analyzed by Rede Clima. But BAU is a tricky thing to calculate, and Hohne acknowledged that their BAU estimates were in some cases higher than other analyses, particularly for China.

All of which is to say that these numbers might be a bit optimistic, but the clear implication is that the developing world is either living up to its obligations, as interpreted by the EU at least, or coming close. Whether that message holds up or indeed gets through in the first place, however, is a different question.

A paper has been published today in Nature Nanotechnology with a fairly provocative title: Nanoparticles can cause DNA damage across a cellular barrier.

But before we start shouting “grey goo” from the rooftops and blaming nanotechnology for ruining our lives, the paper requires some more considered thought. We already suspect that certain nanoparticles cause damage, but the need for more research is abundantly clear.

What the team, led by Charles Case from the Bristol Implant Research Centre, UK, and his colleagues have shown is that in their lab situation – more of which later – certain nanoparticles can reach through a cellular barrier and cause damage to the DNA in fibroblasts, which are cells important in wound healing.

The fact that nanoparticles can cross a cellular barrier (think blood-brain barrier, or the placenta) could cause alarm, but in this case shouldn’t.

The report is likely to be more interesting for those wanting to study the cellular processes that are happening. The set up in the lab was far removed from a real-life situation. Case’s team used a type of cell that can be used to build a structure that mimics a cellular barrier, they then built up three layers of these cells to make sure there were no gaps, and put the fibroblasts behind it. They then exposed the system to a very high dose of cobalt/chromium nanoparticles – because these are created in small amounts when artificial joints wear during use.

The results showed that the nanoparticles stayed in amongst the barrier cells without killing them. They nanoparticles didn’t reach the fibroblasts. So how was the DNA in the fibroblasts damaged? This is the part that is likely to whet the appetites of other scientists in the field. It looks like the nanoparticles set off a series of signals within the cells of the barrier, that ultimately led to the release of DNA-damaging ATP through two specific channels at the edge of the barrier.

This signalling process meant that the fibroblasts’ DNA was more damaged when the barrier was present than when the fibroblasts were directly exposed to the nanoparticles.

So what does this mean? I can’t put it any better than Andrew Maynard, nanotech regulation expert from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC, who told me, “it's an important study as it raises possible new ways in which harm could occur following exposure. But while it raises new questions, it is far from conclusive on whether this is a relevant or significant way in which specific types of nanoparticles can cause harm. More research is needed.”

After years of disappointment (for me, anyway) the Space Elevator Games has got a winner! Yes, NASA will have to open its purse and pay up.

To recap: the Space Elevator Games is a competition supported by the Spaceward Foundation with cash prizes donated by NASA. It’s all about making a space elevator to go into space. Easy so far. Since 2005 there has been an (almost) annual competition for teams demonstrating some of the integral parts of a space elevator. These include: a tether strong, thin and light enough to reach many hundreds of kilomteres into space and not snap; a climber to clamber up the tether; a way of powering the climber from the ground.

No team had managed to win any of the prize money in the first three competitions. Then last year difficulties finding a venue meant that the games were postponed until various times throughout this year. Between 4 and 6 November (i.e. right now) at NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center the climber/power beaming event is happening.

And guess what, someone managed to win a prize! Yes, on the first day of the competition LaserMotive, a team from Seattle, managed to beam a laser at the underside of a platform which powered it so that it could scoot up a 900m long piece of cable in the allotted time required to be eligible for a prize - 4 minutes, 2 seconds. This qualifies the team for the portion of the prize put aside for being able to travel faster than 2 metres per second, which could be up to $900,000 according to reports.

The other two teams in round one, the University of Saskatchewan Space Design Team, and the Kansas City Space Pirates, didn’t make it.

The news of the successful attempt has spread far, with stories. Amongst others, at the Guardian, the Telegraph, Discover and the AP.

There are two more rounds as the competition continues today and tomorrow, we’ll keep you posted. But if you feel so inclined, you can keep up yourself on Twitter, or at the Spaceward Foundation's live coverage.

I’m sitting in the plenary session of the Kyoto Protocol, listening to an old debate over the baseline year used to assess emissions. The protocol is currently tied to 1990 emissions, but Japan, Australia and Canada have all suggested that expressing emissions reductions according to multiple baselines might be useful.

The logic is that although the Kyoto Protocol is tied to 1990, many countries – including the United States - are now pegging their climate proposals to more recent years. That has the advantage of providing a picture of what each country plans to do moving forward. The US and European proposals, for instance, actually look similar using a 2005 baseline (for more on that, see our earlier coverage here). On the other hand, many – including Europeans – have long argued that using new baselines would dilute the protocol and potentially let countries like off the hook (in addition to the United States, think Canada, which has acknowledged it cannot meet its Kyoto targets).

Today, like so many other days, the parties were unable to resolve the matter. Japan’s proposal to illustrate the commitments in tabular form drew initial objections, particularly from China, which said any effort to shift away from the legally binding 1990 baseline would be "totally not acceptable." But those backing the proposal's supporters said there should be a way to ensure that the 1990 baseline remains while noting additional baselines. The idea of using “footnotes” came up.

Discussions about the relative merits of footnotes versus charts seem a bit silly, to be sure, but the issue has been a sticking point for a long time. Some kind of resolution will be necessary in whatever emerges from Copenhagen.

The discussion eventually hit the big issue of emissions targets. The Alliance of Small Island States, which fears the dual impacts of acidification and rising sea levels, led the way by adding up all of the developed country targets (including legislation being debated in the United States) for a grand total of 12-19 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. That compares to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's analysis indicating that a 25-40 percent reduction might be necessary by 2020. And AOSIS is actually pushing for 45 percent cut, to increase the likelihood of keeping temperature increase below 1.5 degrees instead of the generally accepted 2-degree target.

As expected, no headway was made on this issue either, but it does lead into my next posting.