30 | NewScientist | 17 March 2012

Battle for realityFrom Ronnie HawkinsYour report on climate change sceptics targeting schools in the US (25 February, p 6) shows that we have entered a time of crisis and confusion, with what counts as knowledge seemingly up for grabs, and society’s hold on reality looking increasingly shaky.

Science attempts to understand things in a way that is independent of our thoughts about them. Our social constructions, on the other hand, would not exist outside of our shared web of beliefs, desires, intentions and expectations. We have become so preoccupied playing games with that socially constructed symbol we call money, for example, that we have forgotten the total dependence of the economy upon ecology, and seem to be destabilising the latter upon orders from the former.

What most conservatives fear is that the public will one day see this, begin to integrate scientific

knowledge into their world view, and restore proper dependency relations, changing our social institutions accordingly. What the conservatives want to conserve, in other words, is an abstract conceptual scheme that is out of touch with reality, not the concrete Earth systems that actually support our lives and are now urgently in need of conservation.

Little wonder that they seek to cast doubt not only on climate change but also on evolution and the origins of life. The battle for humanity’s future, therefore, must be recognised as a battle over the nature of reality itself.Chuluota, Florida, US

Wider lab threatFrom Duncan Campbell, Association of Public AnalystsThe closure of the UK Forensic Science Service is not the only set of laboratory closures of concern in the UK (11 February, p 10). The network of public analyst labs,

which provides a similar service in the area of food law enforcement, faces a bleak future. By the end of this month, and all within the space of one year, labs in Durham, Leicester and Bristol will have shut. The service is demand-led and demand is falling due to pressures on local authority budgets.

Risks to consumers are not what they were 150 years ago, but we only need to look at recent scares involving the dye Sudan I, melamine in baby food and the risks of drinking fake vodka to see that food scandals continue.

Lab capacity, capability and expertise cannot be turned on and off like a tap. When a public analyst lab is closed, a wealth of experience is lost for good.Leeds, UK

Digital griefFrom Lena MasI have just read your story “Death in the digital world” (18 February, p 24), and agree that laws need to keep up with technology, and address the problems and needs of the bereaved who have to sort out the digital affairs of their loved ones.

Not only is dealing with this stressful, it proved impossible in my case. I needed to get into my late husband’s Hotmail account in order to let his friends and business contacts know about the funeral and memorial service. Email would have been more efficient and emotionally easier than making hundreds of phone

calls, but Microsoft required so many documents to allow me access that it proved impossible.

Almost two years after his death, my late husband’s Hotmail, PayPal, Skype and Facebook accounts, along with his digital music files, are still not closed.London, UK

Who pays?From Rory AllenDavid Hone of Shell International makes a valuable point on the potential for carbon capture and storage (CCS) to reduce the impact of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels (4 February, p 30), but he fails to discuss how it would be funded.

It seems clear that the fairest, as well as the most economically efficient, way would be through a carbon tax, with every tonne of carbon consumed subject to a levy equal to the cost of final disposal through CCS. Would Shell, or any other oil company, back this? I suspect not. In which case, would this be just another example of polluters expecting other people to pay for the clean-up?London, UK

Ethical dilemmasFrom Neal LyonBen Haller’s letter (25 February, p 36) about your editorial on brain-eavesdropping (4 February, p 3) makes a reasonable point regarding the possible abuse of scientific discoveries. However, I find his assertion that scientists must therefore “refuse to work on technologies that are likely to be abused” absurd.

Scientists have a responsibility to ensure that their research does not bring into question the ethics of the project. But to ask them to predict potential abuse of their work and base their project’s continuation on this would be ridiculous. A knife is a useful tool with many functions; it can also

Enigma Number 1689

OPINION LETTERS

WIN £15 will be awarded to the sender of the first correct answer opened on Wednesday 18 April. The Editor’s decision is final. Please send entries to Enigma 1689, New Scientist, Lacon House, 84 Theobald’s Road, London WC1X 8NS, or to enigma@newscientist.com (please include your postal address). Answer to 1680 Do magic: (a) 34; (b) 1398 The winner David Porter of Norton, County Durham, UKAnswer to 1683 Lottery numbers: The balls in order are 20, 31, 02, 03 and 10 The winner Karen Shefford of Arkesden, Essex, UK

IAN KAYThree very logical friends, Amy, Bob and Carol, sat in a circle wearing hats. Each hat had a number on it so all three could see the others’ numbers but not their own. They were told that the numbers were three different positive digits.

They each made a statement in turn and were told to raise their hands when they knew their own

number. Amy said: “Carol’s number is greater than Bob’s.” No one raised their hand.

Bob then said: “The sum of Amy’s and Carol’s numbers is even.” On hearing this, Carol raised her hand. Even then Amy and Bob did not raise theirs. But, after a pause, and once it had become clear that Amy wasn’t going to raise her hand, Bob raised his and then Amy raised hers.

What were Amy’s, Bob’s and Carol’s numbers?

What’s my number?

1120317_Op_Letters.indd 30 12/3/12 12:09:21