Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row

66 views
Skip to first unread message

Sam Carana

unread,
May 15, 2012, 10:13:47 PM5/15/12
to geoengineering
Nature News - 15 May 2012 - by Daniel Cressey
Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row.
Balloon-based ‘testbed’ for climate-change mitigation abandoned.
http://www.nature.com/news/geoengineering-experiment-cancelled-amid-patent-row-1.10645

Let me also repeat my April 2012 contribution to this discussion,
which one of the moderators of this group didn't want groupmembers to
read:

David Keith, a Harvard University professor and an adviser on energy
to Microsoft founder Bill Gates, said he and his colleagues are
researching whether the federal government could ban patents in the
field of solar radiation, according to a report in Scientific
American.

Some of his colleagues last week traveled to Washington, D.C., where
they discussed whether the U.S. Patent Office could ban patents on the
technology, Keith said.

"We think it's very dangerous for these solar radiation technologies,
it's dangerous to have it be privatized," Keith said. "The core
technologies need to be public domain."

As suggested by Sam Carana, a declaration of emergency, as called for
by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG), could be another way to
deal with this issue.

A declaration of Emergency could give governments the power to
overrule patents, where they stand in the way of fast-tracking geo-
engineering projects proposed under emergency rules.Thus, patents
don't need to be banned, prohibited or taken away; instead, patent
will continue to apply in all situations other than the emergency
situation, while new patents could also continue to be lodged during
the emergency period.

Even where patent are directly applicable to proposed projects, patent
law would still continue to apply, the emergency rules would merely
allow governments to proceed in specific situations, avoiding that
projects are being held up by legal action, exorbitant prices or
withholding of crucial information.

A declaration of emergency could also speed up projects by removing
the need to comply with all kinds of time-consuming bureaucratic
procedures, such as the need to get formal approvals and permits from
various departments, etc. This brings us to the need to comply with
international protocols and agreements. If declared internationally, a
declaration of emergency could overrule parts of such agreements where
they pose unacceptable delays and cannot be resolved through
diplomacy.

Cheers,
Sam Carana

O Morton

unread,
May 16, 2012, 8:10:04 AM5/16/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.de/2012/05/testbed-news.html

SPICE personal statement.

It is with some regret that today the SPICE team has announced we’ve decided to call off the outdoor ‘1km testbed’ experiment that was scheduled for later this year. The reasons for this are complex and I will try to explain the decision here. It should be noted that these views are my own and do not necessarily imply consensus within SPICE. Where a range of opinions exist I will try to make that clear. Importantly however, the decision to call of the experiment was made by all the project partners in agreement.

Firstly, there are issues of governance. Despite receiving considerable attention no international agreements exist. Whilst it is hard to imagine a more environmentally benign experiment, which sought to only pump 150 litres (2 bath loads) of pure water into the atmosphere to a height of one kilometre over a deserted field, in terms of SRMGI nomenclature, it represented a transition from stage 2 to stage 3 research. Most experts agree that governance architecture is needed and, to me personally, a technology demonstrator, even a benign 1/20 scale model, feels somewhat premature, though many in SPICE would disagree. Counter to my personal feelings is the argument that technologies that could inject SO2 into the stratosphere, particularly aircraft, already exist and that process could, but obviously should not, begin tomorrow. It is therefore wrong to consider the tested experiment as an enabling technology and that various delivery mechanisms should be tested given there is minimal, well managed proximal (e.g. health and safety) risk and no impacts on climate or biodiversity. 

Secondly, there are issues of intellectual property. SPICE, as a team, is committed to researching climate engineering carefully with the profound belief that all such research should be done, as per the Oxford Principles, for the greater good. We have all agreed, through a partner-wide collaboration agreement to (a) put all results into the public domain in a timely manner and (b) not to exploit (i.e. profit from or patent) results from the SPICE project. However, a patent application exists that was filed prior to the SPICE project being proposed, describing the delivery technology, presenting a potentially significant conflict of interest. The details of this application were only reported to the project team a year into the project and caused many members, including me, significant discomfort. Information regarding the patent application was immediately reported to the research councils, who have initiated an external investigation. Efforts are underway to make the patent application’s intentions unambiguous: to protect intellectual property and not for commercial purposes.

Thirdly, it will take time to explore these issues through deliberation and stakeholder engagement. This means that any postponement of the 1km tested would be a de factocancellation as the experiment’s value, to elucidate balloon and tether dynamics to inform computer models, diminishes over the project lifetime. The SPICE team sincerely hopes that this decision will facilitate rational, unrushed discussion on issues that include both governance and intellectual property but span broader issues surrounding SRM.
Posted by matt watson at 00:43

Stephen Salter

unread,
May 16, 2012, 12:53:24 PM5/16/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Hi All

This does not make sense on at least five grounds.

1.� A patent allows you to stop other people making a profit from your ideas but does not stop them doing reseach.

2.� The patent mentions 'dispersing solid particles into the Earth's atmosphere by balloon.'� The SPICE project was going to use a liquid.

3.� The team would have learned lots of good things about balloons and hoses by pumping water up to the balloon but not letting it come out of the nozzle at the end of the hose.

4.� The holder of a patent would be delighted to have somebody test it and would give a free licence for this purpose, maybe even chip in some of the cost.

5. Lowell Wood was talking about this many years ago so the basic idea is already in the public domain.

On Tuesday Peter Davidson did webinar for our Institute of Chemical Engineers.� He is keen on Titanium dioxide rather than SO2.� You can get a set of slides, an article and a replay from www.tcetoday.com/webinars

Stephen




On 16/05/2012 13:10, O Morton wrote:
http://thereluctantgeoengineer.blogspot.de/2012/05/testbed-news.html

SPICE personal statement.

It is with some regret that today the SPICE team has announced we�ve decided to call off the outdoor �1km testbed� experiment that was scheduled for later this year. The reasons for this are complex and I will try to explain the decision here. It should be noted that these views are my own and do not necessarily imply consensus within SPICE. Where a range of opinions exist I will try to make that clear. Importantly however, the decision to call of the experiment was made by all the project partners in agreement.

Firstly, there are issues of�governance. Despite receiving considerable attention no international agreements exist. Whilst it is hard to imagine a more environmentally benign experiment, which sought to only pump 150 litres (2 bath loads) of pure water into the atmosphere to a height of one kilometre over a deserted field, in terms of SRMGI nomenclature, it represented a transition from stage 2 to stage 3 research. Most experts agree that governance architecture is needed and, to me personally, a technology demonstrator, even a benign 1/20 scale model, feels somewhat premature, though many in SPICE would disagree. Counter to my personal feelings is the argument that technologies that could inject SO2�into the stratosphere, particularly aircraft, already exist and that process could, but obviously should not, begin tomorrow. It is therefore wrong to consider the tested experiment as an enabling technology and that various delivery mechanisms should be tested given there is minimal, well managed proximal (e.g. health and safety) risk and no impacts on climate or biodiversity.�

Secondly, there are issues of�intellectual property. SPICE, as a team, is committed to researching climate engineering carefully with the profound belief that all such research should be done, as per the Oxford Principles, for the greater good. We have all agreed, through a partner-wide collaboration agreement to (a) put all results into the public domain in a timely manner and (b) not to exploit (i.e. profit from or patent) results from the SPICE project. However, a patent application exists that was filed prior to the SPICE project being proposed, describing the delivery technology, presenting a potentially significant conflict of interest. The details of this application were only reported to the project team a year into the project and caused many members, including me, significant discomfort. Information regarding the patent application was immediately reported to the research councils, who have initiated an external investigation. Efforts are underway to make the patent application�s intentions unambiguous: to protect intellectual property and not for commercial purposes.

Thirdly, it will take time to explore these issues through�deliberation�and�stakeholder engagement. This means that any postponement of the 1km tested would be a�de factocancellation as the experiment�s value, to elucidate balloon and tether dynamics to inform computer models, diminishes over the project lifetime. The SPICE team sincerely hopes that this decision will facilitate rational, unrushed discussion on issues that include both governance and intellectual property but span broader issues surrounding SRM.
Posted by�matt watson�at�00:43

On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 03:13:47 UTC+1, Sam Carana wrote:
Nature News - 15 May 2012 - by Daniel Cressey
Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row.
Balloon-based �testbed� for climate-change mitigation abandoned.
--
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/-/VGZplsYC_voJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.


--
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs

Josh Horton

unread,
May 18, 2012, 11:25:24 AM5/18/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Here's an interesting perspective on this from James Wilsdon in the Guardian.


Don't dismiss geoengineering – we may need it one day

Though the Spice project has been dealt a blow, more research is needed to assess our options for mitigating global warming

Opponents of geoengineering will no doubt seize upon this week's cancellation of the fieldwork element of the Spice project as a significant victory in their campaign to outlaw research in this area. There are important lessons to draw from the problems encountered by the project, which planned to investigate the feasibility of spraying particles into the stratosphere to mitigate global warming. But a hastily imposed moratorium on geoengineering research is not one of them.

As the Royal Society argued in its influential 2009 report, more research is needed if we are to assess the feasibility, risks and uncertainties of different geoengineering options. This research needs to be carried out in a safe, transparent and socially responsible way. But without more knowledge of what might be involved, the dilemmas of geoengineering will remain impossible to debate and resolve.

Spice, which stands for Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering, involves a team of scientists from several UK universities. Their proposed experiment was environmentally benign, and involved using a hose to pump two bath loads of water into the atmosphere over a deserted field. But this didn't stop one environmental group from dubbing it a "trojan hose", for moving the world one step closer to large-scale deployment of geoengineering.

This element of the Spice project has now been cancelled, but the rest of the research will continue as planned. Jack Stilgoe, a social scientist at Exeter University who has been working with the Spice team, notes that: "Spice was always going to be a social experiment as well as a scientific one." As the work moves cautiously forward, two lessons stand out for the future of geoengineering research.

First, the role of intellectual property and the private sector in geoengineering needs attention, and may need direct regulation. The project was set up in line with the "Oxford Principles" of geoengineering, which state that it should be treated as a public good. Other prominent scientists working in the field, such as David Keith at Harvard University,have argued that patents for techniques of solar radiation management should be banned.

But this model, however ideal, is already under strain. The problems with Spice arose in part from conflicts of interest over a patent application filed by a private consultant, Peter Davidson, who participated in an early workshop that gave rise to the project. Matt Watson, the lead researcher on Spice writes in his blog that: "The details of this application were only reported to the project team a year into the project and caused many members, including me, significant discomfort." Regulators need to look at this issue with some urgency and design frameworks that allow responsible research to proceed, while ensuring that any resulting technologies stay in the public domain, protected from commercial interests.

Second, scientific and environmental bodies need to intensify efforts to establish better frameworks for the governance of geoengineering. Projects like the Solar Radiation Management Governance Initiativehave made a strong start in this regard. Colleagues at my own university, Sussex, are involved in a new Oxford University-led projectthat aims to build on these initial efforts.

However much we may recoil at the prospect, if the world refuses to respond to climate change with sufficient urgency, geoengineering may one day be needed. The worst outcome would be for it to be deployed in unregulated or reckless ways by corporations or individual nations. Responsible research, ethical reflection and careful regulation must go hand-in-hand as we move reluctantly down this path.

• James Wilsdon is professor of science and democracy at SPRU (Science & Technology Policy Research) at the University of Sussex. From 2008-2011, he was director of science policy at the Royal Society.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Michael Hayes

unread,
May 16, 2012, 9:42:30 PM5/16/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com

Hi Folks,

 

To add to Dr. Salter's astute observations;

 

1) Operation in international waters would negate all patent protection. Patents are territorial.

2) The SPICE Team could use the P. Syringea enzyme within distilled water, which would create cloud streets, and simply call the experiment an effort to carry out local weather modification much like current, non-tethered, aircraft based efforts while gathering engineering data.

3) Patents are never considered enforceable (at the practical level) until they are legally challenged. Many times the patent office will issue a questionable patent and let the courts figure out the strength of the claims. I have personal knowledge of this happening.

4) A mere "application" is not "enforceable".

5) The term "Routine Engineering" would be applicable to the SPICE Project. Sound patent claims are an issue of reduction not addition. A patent claim which has distinct attributes of A, B and C technologies, which results in a Z effect, can not be superseded by adding an additional attribute of, lets say, technology D. However, if a claim reduces A,B & C down to A and B, that represents a new and useful claim.  Adding a balloon to stepped pumps is "Routine Engineering". It is no more patentable than if I were to nail the stepped pumps to a tree! There is no conceivably patentable distinction between release at tropospheric and stratospheric altitudes. Patent claims can not be based upon 'size' or 'length'.

To conclude:

The SPICE Team should go forward as they are not just leading the way in a potentially important "Routine Engineering" development, but are also (hopefully) leading the way in meeting the non-engineering challenges. International governance is simply not applicable to local weather modification or routine engineering.

Best,

Michael

 

 

 

 


 

On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
Hi All

This does not make sense on at least five grounds.

1.  A patent allows you to stop other people making a profit from your ideas but does not stop them doing reseach.

2.  The patent mentions 'dispersing solid particles into the Earth's atmosphere by balloon.'  The SPICE project was going to use a liquid.

3.  The team would have learned lots of good things about balloons and hoses by pumping water up to the balloon but not letting it come out of the nozzle at the end of the hose.

4.  The holder of a patent would be delighted to have somebody test it and would give a free licence for this purpose, maybe even chip in some of the cost.


5. Lowell Wood was talking about this many years ago so the basic idea is already in the public domain.

On Tuesday Peter Davidson did webinar for our Institute of Chemical Engineers.  He is keen on Titanium dioxide rather than SO2.  You can get a set of slides, an article and a replay from www.tcetoday.com/webinars

Stephen




On 16/05/2012 13:10, O Morton wrote:
It is with some regret that today the SPICE team has announced we’ve decided to call off the outdoor ‘1km testbed’ experiment that was scheduled for later this year. The reasons for this are complex and I will try to explain the decision here. It should be noted that these views are my own and do not necessarily imply consensus within SPICE. Where a range of opinions exist I will try to make that clear. Importantly however, the decision to call of the experiment was made by all the project partners in agreement.

Firstly, there are issues of governance. Despite receiving considerable attention no international agreements exist. Whilst it is hard to imagine a more environmentally benign experiment, which sought to only pump 150 litres (2 bath loads) of pure water into the atmosphere to a height of one kilometre over a deserted field, in terms of SRMGI nomenclature, it represented a transition from stage 2 to stage 3 research. Most experts agree that governance architecture is needed and, to me personally, a technology demonstrator, even a benign 1/20 scale model, feels somewhat premature, though many in SPICE would disagree. Counter to my personal feelings is the argument that technologies that could inject SO2 into the stratosphere, particularly aircraft, already exist and that process could, but obviously should not, begin tomorrow. It is therefore wrong to consider the tested experiment as an enabling technology and that various delivery mechanisms should be tested given there is minimal, well managed proximal (e.g. health and safety) risk and no impacts on climate or biodiversity. 

Secondly, there are issues of intellectual property. SPICE, as a team, is committed to researching climate engineering carefully with the profound belief that all such research should be done, as per the Oxford Principles, for the greater good. We have all agreed, through a partner-wide collaboration agreement to (a) put all results into the public domain in a timely manner and (b) not to exploit (i.e. profit from or patent) results from the SPICE project. However, a patent application exists that was filed prior to the SPICE project being proposed, describing the delivery technology, presenting a potentially significant conflict of interest. The details of this application were only reported to the project team a year into the project and caused many members, including me, significant discomfort. Information regarding the patent application was immediately reported to the research councils, who have initiated an external investigation. Efforts are underway to make the patent application’s intentions unambiguous: to protect intellectual property and not for commercial purposes.

Thirdly, it will take time to explore these issues through deliberation and stakeholder engagement. This means that any postponement of the 1km tested would be a de factocancellation as the experiment’s value, to elucidate balloon and tether dynamics to inform computer models, diminishes over the project lifetime. The SPICE team sincerely hopes that this decision will facilitate rational, unrushed discussion on issues that include both governance and intellectual property but span broader issues surrounding SRM.
Posted by matt watson at 00:43

On Wednesday, 16 May 2012 03:13:47 UTC+1, Sam Carana wrote:
Nature News - 15 May 2012 - by Daniel Cressey
Geoengineering experiment cancelled amid patent row.
Balloon-based ‘testbed’ for climate-change mitigation abandoned.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.





--
Michael Hayes
 

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages