Disastrous pattern of academic-gov't collusion must not be allowed to continue

[kristopher]

Disastrous pattern of academic-gov't collusion must not be allowed to continue

...A group of 16 pro-nuclear scientists led by a former president of the Atomic Energy Society of Japan (AESJ) and former members of the Nuclear Safety Commission (NSC) of Japan held a press conference on April 1. In it, they said that the amount of radioactive material stored in the reactors at the Fukushima plant far exceeds that which was stored at Chernobyl, and that even if we are to avoid immediate dangers, the Fukushima plant would require close monitoring for many years to come. These remarks, which were coming not from anti-nuclear activists but from pro-nuclear experts, were evidence that nuclear energy proponents were finally acknowledging the seriousness of the current situation.

It was 14 years ago that Kobe University professor emeritus and seismologist Katsuhiko Ishibashi wrote a paper warning of the possibility of a nuclear accident, like the current one, triggered by a massive quake or tsunami. In the May issue of the monthly magazine Sekai, Ishibashi mentions how NSC Chair Haruki Madarame and Toshisho Kosako -- a radiation expert and professor at the University of Tokyo who resigned from his post as a senior nuclear advisor to the government on April 30 over the government's handling of the crisis -- reacted to his paper at the time.

According to Ishibashi, Madarame disputed the various concerns that were raised, and characterized Ishibashi as a nuclear layperson, saying, "We've never heard of Ishibashi at the AESJ." Kosako also lambasted Ishibashi's claims, saying, "There is absolutely no possibility of massive amounts of radiation being released... When publishing papers, it is common for academics to be cautious about covering subjects on which they lack expertise. In his paper, Ishibashi makes unfounded statements about a topic outside his specialty."

There are countless examples of seals of approval given to scientists' views that support the implementation of government policy, while those challenging the government are dismissed and silenced...

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/perspectives/news/20110506p2a00m0na003000c.html

Among other things, this goes to the ripple effect and consequences of the fact that the nuclear fission is a quasi-governmental profit seeking industry.

[kristopher]

1. We have the same problem here with "special interest science"

Climate Change, Nuclear Economics, and Conflicts of Interest
Kristin Shrader-Frechette
Sci Eng Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-009-9181-y


Abstract
Merck suppressed data on harmful effects of its drug Vioxx, and Guidant suppressed data on electrical flaws in one of its heart-defibrillator models. Both cases reveal how financial conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. Such conflicts also occur in electric-utility-related research. Attempting to show that increased atomic energy can help address climate change, some industry advocates claim nuclear power is an inexpensive way to generate low-carbon electricity. Surveying 30 recent nuclear analyses, this paper shows that industry-funded studies appear to fall into conflicts of interest and to illegitimately trim cost data in several main ways. They exclude costs of full-liability insurance, underestimate interest rates and construction times by using “overnight” costs, and overestimate load factors and reactor lifetimes. If these trimmed costs are included, nuclear-generated electricity can be shown roughly 6 times more expensive than most studies claim. After answering four objections, the paper concludes that, although there may be reasons to use reactors to address climate change, economics does not appear to be one of them.


Introduction
For many years bioethicists have recognized that conflicts of interest can skew biomedical research. An Annals of Internal Medicine study recently showed that 98% of papers based on industry-sponsored studies reflected favorably on the industry’s products. A Journal of the American Medical Association article likewise concluded that industry-funded studies were 8 times less likely to reach conclusions unfavorable to their drugs than were nonprofit-funded studies. Does something similar happen in electric-utility-related science?

Jonathan Porritt, chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission and advisor to Gordon Brown, says it does. “Cost estimates from the industry have been subject to massive underestimates—inaccuracy of an astonishing kind consistently over a 40-, 50-year period” (Porritt, Chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission 2006). A UK-government commission agrees, claiming virtually all nuclear-cost data can be “traced back to industry sources” (UK Sustainable Development Commission (UK SDC) 2006). University of Greenwich business professor, Stephen Thomas, says nuclear-industry sources “are notoriously secretive about the costs they are incurring” (Thomas 2005).

Such charges suggest the need to scrutinize industry claims that, to address climate change, nuclear power is “the most cost-effective power source” (European Atomic Forum 2006).

It is well worth reading and the full article is available for download by clicking this link:
http://nd.edu/~kshrader/pubs/ksf-2011-climate-change-econ-conflicts-interest-see.pdf