24 | NewScientist | 3 November 2018COMMENT
Holding it together
Europe’s scientific elite say a hard Brexit will damage science. They should
use their clout to get a less bad deal for all, says Ehsan MasoodWHEN 29 Nobel prizewinners
and six Fields medallists last week
conveyed the danger posed to
science by Brexit in a letter to UK
prime minister Theresa May and
European Commission president
Jean Claude Juncker, you can be
sure they sat up and took notice.
Such was the concern inside
the UK government that science
minister Sam Gyimah took to the
radio to reiterate his commitment
to finding ways for scientists to
be able to work in Europe; and to
replace funds that might be lost.
This response didn’t satisfy
some of the letter’s signatories,
because it will always be second
best to the research community’s
desire to stay in the EU. But it
was still an impressive display of
science’s collective firepower, and
scientists’ ability to persuade the
government on a matter that is of
vital importance to their interests.
The unfolding tragedy of Brexitwill damage science, but it will
be far worse for other parts of
society. A hard Brexit will be a
disaster for those who need
medication from Europe. It will
be catastrophic for those on the
lowest incomes when prices rise.
A hard Brexit also risks rocking
the peace in Northern Ireland
and rekindling the flames of
independence in Scotland.
By the government’s own
estimates, crashing out of the
EU poses a risk to public order.
And yet, you won’t find
government ministers in a rush
to respond to these communities.
There are no ministers taking to
microphones promising to replace
the close to €11 billion that the UK’s
poorest regions will receive from
the EU between 2014 and 2020.
That is a more concerning
problem than scientists losing
access to EU projects. Top
scientists are among our society’sPetro dollars
Venezuela’s cryptocurrency isn’t just about
keeping the economy afloat, says Brett ScottVENEZUELA is caught in a triple-
pinch. Oil production is falling,
hyperinflation is undermining its
currency, the bolivar, and foreign
reserves to pay for imports are
dwindling. Against this backdrop,
President Nicolás Maduro went
on TV last month to encourage
citizens to invest in the petro, a
national cryptocurrency launchedin February. Can it succeed
where the bolivar has failed?
Venezuela needs to raise US
dollars, but is frozen out of
international financial markets
after defaulting on its loans. Its
answer, it seems, is to mint petro
tokens and sell them in exchange
for foreign currency. Maduro
claims they are like an “oilvoucher”, representing oil from
a particular region. This way the
petro, notionally backed by real
resources and foreign reserves,
can be linked to the bolivar,
arresting its slide.
The crypto community already
has a reputation for harbouring
opportunists. It is common
practice for them to generate
tokens, give them a catchy name,
and then try to sell them for
dollars. If anything, Maduro is
just following a well-establishedformula. Holding a petro seems
not to give the holder the right
to redeem it for either oil or
oil revenues, which suggests
Maduro’s link between the petro
and oil exists in words alone.
The libertarian core of the
crypto community has been
riled by this state-controlled
cryptocurrency. But they are
prone to seeing the world as a
battle between two monolithic
forces – states and markets – and
they fail to recognise that not all
states are equal. Countries like
Venezuela occupy the lower
rungs of the world’s geopolitical
hierarchy. They are supposed
to play nicely within the global“ The libertarian core of the
crypto community has
been riled by this state-
controlled cryptocurrency”