1. The document discusses the politicization of science and how research results can be influenced by government funding priorities. It questions whether scientists' views should be given more weight than public concerns. 2. It argues that massive environmental assessments related to projects like fracking and HS2 are difficult for the public to understand due to their length and complexity, undermining the goal of meaningful consultation. 3. The document expresses concerns about the lack of a coherent, long-term energy policy in the UK and how this contributes to uncertainty that fuels opposition to certain energy sources like fracking.

1. My final response
Apologies for the delay in responding but exam boards and marking have got in the way.
Thanks for your detailed response and, in particular, your insight into the risk assessment
procedures for fracking processes. Whist you might feel we are poles apart I do not see such a
difference. We are approaching fracking from two different lenses and its unconventional in that it is
not for or against. Anyway here is my final response.
1. Introduction
I feel there is one very important theme here across all your postings which I haven’t raised explicitly
with you before concerning the way science is not politically neutral. It is socially and politically
constructed through the funding and political processes by which results and reports are released
and its wider uptake and application in policy and decision making. In many cases these are cherry
picked ( see Scott et al 2013 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305900613000214
page 3 and Figure 1) with other evidence not factored or allowed into the process.
I often find myself and, indeed am, presently in positions where my research results are not allowed
to contain certain words or inflammatory statements criticising government policy when the
research is funded by government. I find this challenging to deal with but equally ensure through
other outlets that my concerns are made public arenas. So the separation of science from society is
dangerous. You recently highlighted side by side the signed letters for fracking (eminent scientists)
and against fracking (mainly environmental and pressure groups). The implication is that the
eminent scientists are to be believed in favour of wider publics and social scientists. So this begs the
question of whether, in your view, the views of a scientist have any more weight than the concerns
of a member of the public or pressure group such as Friends of the Earth who have not been
supplied/convinced with necessary information to allay their fears,. Who is at fault here?. Is it the
scientists who can’t communicate their findings perhaps? Or is it that these publics should trust
scientists inherently even if they are funded or depend in the future on grants by the very agencies
who want a positive outcome?
In your response you alerted me to the massive scientific evidence presented to support
environmental assessments. But I struggled to read and understand the 50,000 pages of the
environment statement for HS2 even though it matters professionally to me and I do not consider
myself uninformed. Furthermore, many of the public would struggle to find the time to read the 164
page non-technical summary. Notwithstanding the fact that these massive pieces of work are
funded by the developer themselves making it a rather cosy arrangement, the bombardment of
information to publics in the name of ‘consultation’ is a fallacy; it is not consultation it is deliberate
manipulation as so few people or agencies have the time and resources to respond effectively. This
is rarely commented on and needs urgent action in my view.
I do not see much value in playing a blame game but I just feel natural and social scientists need to
work together better to address these key issues and fracking is a classic case that shows me it is not
working and indeed is merely polarising opinion. That is one reason why I am so keen to engage with
you over this issue.
The other points in your last response are now addressed.

2. 2. Word limit
Any post is limited to about a 1000 words for obvious reasons of readability and paper requirements
as you acknowledge. Your critique of that original post including perceived factual inaccuracies
rightly demanded more evidence and justification. In so doing I strayed outside my original piece.
3. Impact of posts
I am happy to post on your behalf your overall views on fracking with a 1000 word limit. I will also
ask someone who is opposed to post 1000 words I can post two new pieces side by side. Remember
my piece was on government process and policy and I made clear I do not want, not have the
expertise, to enter the merits of pro or anti fracking.
4. Relaxation of safeguards
New environmental safeguards as proposed by the EC (Broomfield 2012
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/energy/pdf/fracking%20study.pdf) were rejected by
UK government. My point about relaxing covers both present and proposed and I failed to address
this in my last response. In my view, a serious own goal has been scored by UK government by failing
to implement a bespoke Directive which might give the public confidence that all fracking issues are
being addressed. I am impressed by the detailed assessment procedures and risk assessments
undertaken in conventional oil and gas exploration in your answer but one key difference is that
despite the harsh environments, there is rarely any centres of population nearby. Whilst I am not an
expert the impacts of such activities have significant lag effects and it is this kind of uncertainty that
fuels my concern for detailed regulatory scrutiny. You also claim that the regulatory environment in
the UK is better than elsewhere in EU and thus a directive would not need to apply. If this is the case
al well and good but a Directive merely requires member states to implement its own legislation in
fulfilment of its requirements. Thus if our government does all that you say why would it object to it.
The UK could merely put existing laws into a new piece of legislation or a revised government
circular. Its outright opposition stated clearly that extra obligations would threaten the industry.
I also note you feel such a Directive would be an unproductive use of time but that investment of
time might mean less public objections and judicial reviews later on in the process. Addressing
public concern is key and that must mean more than just ticking a box to say they have been
consulted!
The issue of public perception of risk, in my view, is important and we need to have proper
safeguards that address all issues. Issue of cumulative impacts, underground risk assessments and
methane emissions were deemed to be inadequately addressed in the present regulatory
environment. Can you confirm that this is wrong in the UK in the onshore context where fracking is
going to take place?
The point about economic growth and government support for fracking is actually very important in
driving a collective national response to fracking applications that supports the economic benefits of
fracking despite environmental risks or costs. This makes the Defra agencies allow economic benefits
to trump environmental concerns and risks gagging real concerns.

3. 5. Dash or Lurch
Two points here. The dash is nothing to do with the industry. You claim it is not new technology.
What is new, however, is that the government move to support it so quickly from previous energy
statements and render any opposition irrational as the debate is being aired and concerns made
apparent. The scientific and political trashing or arguments by name calling and use of words such
as ignorant, enemies of enterprise or environmental Taliban in my view is not a way to win and
argument. This merely intensifies public opposition and whether you or I like it, it becomes a
political football.
The dash/lurch terms were simply to express that, in the absence of any clear energy policy, we see
particular sources being favoured (some according to which energy minister you talk to!) leading to
uncertainty within the energy industry itself. This equally applied to New labour with their Nuclear
fix which itself fell foul of the Aarhus Convention in terms of trying to rush a consultation process
through before providing sufficient information/consultation in the public domain. I still feel that the
lack of good information on fracking and its costs and benefits is one reason why we still have
fracking doomsayers and fracking utopians out there. So one of my wider arguments that has got
lost in this debate is the need for a coherent energy policy which meets government commitments
to the Aarhus Convention. I suspect many of us will need to read that commitment as all too often
we fail to respect it resulting in legal action later down the road. This is not legal nit-picking rather it
is a failure of government to acknowledge its own rules it agreed to. We need clear goals/targets in
line with our other climate change commitments as well as meeting principles of social and
environmental justice which should be equal drivers with economic growth.
This does all relate to a point where we are both in total agreement; we are facing an energy crunch
and that is why we must have a coherent energy policy and strategic plan for the development of
infrastructure. Scotland has a spatial plan within which we can see key infrastructure development
that has national significance. In England we have abandoned spatial planning which is producing
negative impacts on energy, transport and housing sectors which in themselves also need to be
joined up. Part of my main argument is that this uncertainty in policy is fuelling the energy crunch
and providing a chaotic environment for investment.