Risk attachments

products have as strong a scientific basis as possible, giving governments and the public confidence in the findings and projections,” he said. The review is expected to report in August. While the science now appears to be getting back on track, in a new article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (published online) researchers believe lessons from the Montreal Protocol could speed up measures to deal with some of the pollutants that are potent greenhouse gases in the shorter term, while the massive reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are negotiated and implemented. In spite of Copenhagen’s disappointments, Veerabhadran Ramanathan and Yangyang Xu, at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in La Jolla, write that most participants agreed a ‘Copenhagen Accord’ which included that “deep cuts in global emissions are required according to science, and as documented by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report with a view to reduce global emissions so as to hold the increase in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius and take action to meet this objective.” Ramanathan and Xu write that this 2oC limit translates to a value of radiant energy that should not exceed an excess average of 2.5 watts per square metre of the Earth’s surface. But they state that the build-up of greenhouse gases is already adding 3 watts per square metre. “Even if greenhouse gas emissions peak in 2015, the radiant energy will be exceeded,” they say. They suggest that, while efforts are sought to stabilize the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere by “massive decarbonisation” of the energy sector, other avenues might be pursued alongside. They argue that an effort to reduce short-lived greenhouse gases such as methane and hydrofluorocarbons could be a major target for action. And they believe the “great success story” of the Montreal Protocol may provide a model. “Had CFC-11 and CFC-12 not been regulated, their greenhouse effects would have added 0.6–1.6 watts per square metre of radiant energy by now and could have exceeded the carbon dioxide effect during this century,” they write. “We just have to repeat this successful model.” Rarely have news editors have disagreed so profoundly over the significance of a scientific story than they did recently when The Lancet (2010, 375, 1525–1535) published a paper indicating that whole-genome sequencing can provide clinically important information on individual patients. The genome discussed in the paper from Stanford University School of Medicine belonged to one of the authors, Stephen Quake. Analysis of 2.6 million single nucleotide polymorphisms in his DNA, and 752 copy number variations, showed that Quake had above-average genetic risks for myocardial infarction, type 2 diabetes and certain cancers. While some newspapers gave the breakthrough and its attendant health and ethical implications banner headlines, others ignored it altogether or reduced it to epigrammatic snippets. “A scientist has had all his DNA screened for diseases and susceptibility to treatments,” said The Daily Telegraph (30 April). “Prof Stephen Quake, at Stanford University, spent £33,000 having his genetic make-up mapped and then Mediawatch: Bernard Dixon looks at responses to some implications of the whole-genome sequencing of one of the authors of a report. Risk attachments