Israel denies Gaza access to human rights workers: Report

Israel denies rights workers entrance to the Gaza Strip, undermining claims of carrying out its own probe into the 2014 war, HRW says

A Palestinian security officer at the gate under Palestinian control at the Kerem Shalom crossing between Israel and the Gaza Strip after Israel closed the Erez crossing in June 2015 (AFP)-Palestinians wait for travel permits to cross into Egypt through the Rafah border crossing after it was opened by Egyptian authorities for humanitarian cases in December 2016 (AFP)

Workers stand on a truck loaded with aid parcels provided by Turkey after it entered the southern Gaza Strip from Israel in July 2016 (AFP)--A Palestinian boy rides a horse past the rubble of buildings that were destroyed during the 50-day war between Israel and Hamas militants in the summer of 2014 (AFP)

Monday 3 April 2017

Human rights workers documenting abuses and advocating an end to them have been barred by the Israeli military authorities from entering and leaving the Gaza Strip, Human Rights Watch said in a report released on Monday. 

Since 2008, Human Rights Watch has only once received permission to get foreign staff into Gaza via Israel for a September 2016 visit that the Israeli authorities characterised as exceptional. Neither Human Rights Watch nor Amnesty International has been able to get staff into Gaza via Egypt since 2012.

By barring the groups' entry, the Israeli government is undermining its own claims of relying "on human rights organisations as an important source of information for their criminal investigations into potential serious crimes committed during the 2014 Gaza war," the monitor said.

The Palestinians formally gained membership of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in April 2015 and asked the Hague-based court to investigate the 50-days' long conflict in Gaza in the summer of 2014 and prosecute Israel for alleged war crimes.

Israel allowed the first visit in the country by the ICC in September 2016, but it had said the court had no authority to assess claims of war crimes against Palestinians.

Instead, Israel said it would carry out its own investigation, and that, although Israeli investigators do not enter Gaza, they rely on human rights organisations to alert them of potential violations, provide documentary and forensic evidence, and facilitate witness testimony.

However, HRW details in its report how Israel systematically bars human rights organisations from travelling into and out of Gaza, even when the Israeli security services make no security claims against them as individuals.

Israel controls Gaza access, except at the Egyptian border, and controls all crossings between Gaza and the West Bank. Egypt has contributed to a de facto closure of the Strip. The Israeli authorities have kept the Gaza Strip mostly closed in the past two decades and especially since 2007.

They allow entry to some employees of humanitarian aid organisations, but not to human rights workers.

"If Israel wants the ICC prosecutor to take seriously its argument that its criminal investigations are adequate, a good first step would be to allow human rights researchers to bring relevant information to light," said Sari Bashi, HRW's Israel and Palestine advocacy director.

"Impeding the work of human rights groups raises questions not just about the willingness of Israel's military authorities to conduct genuine investigations, but also their ability to do so."

The ICC prosecutor's office is carrying out a preliminary examination of the Palestine situation which includes "analysing whether crimes falling under ICC jurisdiction have been committed, whether those crimes are sufficiently grave to merit the court's attention, and whether national authorities are genuinely carrying out credible investigations and, if appropriate, weighing prosecutions in cases being considered for investigation by the ICC."

The Israeli authorities claim that their investigations meet international standards and that they are relying on sources provided by human rights workers, while in reality preventing them from collecting documents, evidence and testimonies. 

HRW has invited the ICC prosecutor's office to take note of the restrictions imposed, suggesting that Israel's claims of an independent investigation cannot be accepted. 

The Israeli military attorney-general's office (MAG) stated that it attributes "great importance" to its "extensive and daily dialogue" with human rights organisations, whose reporting, it said, provides important input into its decisions about whether to open a criminal investigation or how to obtain a fuller picture in existing investigations.

However, the MAG also criticised documentation by human rights organisations as suffering from "methodological, factual and legal flaws" and, in some cases, "a clear bias". The MAG called the travel restrictions on human rights workers "unavoidable ... due to weighty security and political considerations". 

Israel has accused the Palestinian militant groups of committing serious crimes of their own by firing rockets toward Israeli civilian areas. 

Palestinian authorities are not known to have investigated any of these alleged crimes, but the restrictions on both leaving Gaza and receiving visits by colleagues and experts from elsewhere hinder the potential of Palestinian human rights workers to carry out their work, coordinate with colleagues, and conduct advocacy.

For example, during the 2014 war, neither Israel nor Egypt allowed an external weapons expert to enter Gaza, leaving Palestinian human rights groups to rely on a weapons expert from the Gaza authorities' police force to analyse forensic evidence from the fighting, the monitor said.

Moreover, Hamas authorities in Gaza do not adequately protect human rights workers from retribution and, in some cases, arrest and harass those who criticise Hamas or the activities of armed groups in Gaza, HRW also noted.

The inability to get foreign human rights workers into and out of Gaza, therefore, also limits the ability of human rights groups to document Palestinian abuses inside Gaza, because of safety concerns for local staff.

"Israel, Hamas and Egypt should change their policies to protect the vital work of human rights groups seeking to protect Palestinians and Israelis from abuses by the authorities and armed groups," Bashi said.

HRW has called on Israeli authorities to end the generalised travel ban and allow access to and from Gaza for all Palestinians. Until then, the authorities should add human rights workers to those eligible for travel permits.

Egypt should also facilitate travel for human rights workers via its border, and the Hamas authorities should protect human rights workers from retribution, the monitor said.

This article is available in French on Middle East Eye French edition.

Stephen Bannon removed from National Security Council

 President Trump on April 5 removed White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon from the National Security Council. Here’s what you need to know. (Video: Bastien Inzaurralde/Photo: Matt McClain/The Washington Post)

By Robert Costa and Abby Phillip April 5 at 4:02 PM

President Trump on Wednesday removed controversial White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon from the National Security Council, part of a sweeping staff reshuffling that elevated key military and intelligence officials to greater roles on the council and left Bannon far less involved in shaping the administration’s day-to-day national security policy.

The restructuring reflects the growing influence of national security adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army three-star general who took over the post after retired general Michael Flynn was ousted in February and is increasingly asserting himself over the flow of national security information in the White House.

The new order establishing the structure of the council, which was published in the federal register, puts McMaster in overall charge of the both the National Security Council and the Homeland Security Council headed by homeland security adviser Tom Bossert. Trump’s original order had placed the NSC and HSC on equal footing, with McMaster and Bossert as coequals who could convene and chair meetings of principals and set agendas. Now, Bossert can call and chair meetings only “at the sole discretion” of McMaster, according to the order.

Even as Bannon has been removed from the list, invitees to principals and deputies meetings have expanded to include the deputy national security adviser for strategy. The post is currently held by Dina Powell, an Egyptian-born former national security official in the Bush administration and a Goldman Sachs official whose influence within the West Wing has grown rapidly.

[Inside Trump’s White House, New York moderates spark infighting and suspicion]

McMaster has become a rising and blunt force within the White House and he has made clear to several top officials and to the president that he does not want the NSC to have any political elements. McMaster has also expressed that while he understood Bannon’s role, he believed it was not necessary for the president to have him there as the NSC was reorganized under McMaster's leadership.

The move followed days of discussions with top aides, including Bannon, about the scope of the adviser’s role moving forward and it reflects McMaster's more complete takeover of the council and its operations, according to five officials familiar with the decision.

Two senior White House officials said Bannon’s departure was in no way a demotion and that he had rarely attended meetings since being placed on the council. They and others interviewed for this story spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. The news of Bannon's removal was first reported by Bloomberg News.

In a statement, Bannon framed his removal as the culmination of an effort to change the makeup of the NSC as it operated under President Obama's national security adviser, Susan Rice, who played a part in expanding the NSC staff.

“Susan Rice operationalized the NSC during the last administration,” Bannon said. “I was put on to ensure that it was de-operationalized. General McMaster has returned the NSC to its proper function.”

13 things you may not have known about Stephen K. Bannon

Trump’s chief strategist served in the Navy, has a daughter in the Army and once referred to himself as a Leninist.

Bannon's place on the committee had been a subject of intense controversy when the move was announced in January. National security experts, including a former Obama administration official, characterized it as an elevation of a White House official with no national security experience, even while other national security officials in the administration were included on the NSC only when “issues pertaining to their responsibilities and expertise” were involved. The White House later added the director of the CIA to the NSC.

The White House strongly disputed that characterization, saying that Trump chose to change the structure of the committee from the one in place during the Obama administration to reduce the number of meetings in which senior intelligence officials were required to participate if they did not pertain to their areas of expertise.

Instead, one of the officials said, Bannon's role on the council early on in the administration was to guide and in essence keep watch over Flynn, who was tasked with reshaping the operation and whose management style could be combative. That official and a second official said Bannon did this from afar, attending one or two meetings of the group.

Bannon's view of the NSC under Obama is reflective of his broader efforts to “deconstruct” the federal government, including slimming down bureaucracies like the NSC.

National security experts acknowledged that the Obama structure had been rife with complaints of too many meetings involving a glut of decision-makers, but those issues could also have been resolved at the discretion of the national security adviser.

“Whether it was too operational or too much micromanagement, that criticism did exist, but you don't need the chief strategist to be the one to try to rein that in,” said John B. Bellinger III, who was the legal adviser to the National Security Council in the George W. Bush administration. “Overall, if the thrust of all of these changes is that Steve Bannon has been removed from the NSC and the principals committee and replaced by Dina Powell... that may show you that the White House is heading is a heading in a slightly different direction in terms of decision-making.”

[McMaster staffing NSC with traditional GOP foreign policy hands]

Bannon's departure from the NSC is the latest change to personnel in the senior ranks of the White House. Last week, deputy chief of staff Katie Walsh left her post to take on a new role in a pro-Trump outside group, and Flynn was ousted in February after it was revealed that he misled Vice President Pence about his contacts with the Russian ambassador during the transition.

Several officials said that McMaster is putting his own stamp on the NSC process and trying to formalize it, despite ongoing concerns that Trump’s top White House aides — and some NSC staffers particularly close to them — continue to hold their own national security strategy meetings outside that process.

“McMaster is trying to put them under his control and either removing or downgrading people who had independent linkages to the White House so that advice will flow through him, which is normal,” said Mark Cancian, a national security expert and former White House official who at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Trump's NSC also became embroiled in the controversy over Russian interference in the 2016 election. The Washington Post reported last week that three officials from the NSC collected and distributed documents to House Permanent Select Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), who is investigating contacts between Trump campaign officials and Russian officials during the election. Nunes held a news conference and briefed the president on those documents, which he said suggested that Trump associates were the subjects of incidental and legal surveillance by the Obama administration.

McMaster, who has become a conduit for foreign diplomatic leaders, has kept a low public profile since joining the administration, avoiding interviews and speeches. But inside the White House, he has gained significant influence and his plans for the council have largely been encouraged by the president’s closest aides.

The new changes reflect McMaster's intent to put his stamp on the decision-making process in a White House known for competing power structures and where few advisers to the president adhere to a rigid chain of command. His 1997 book, “Dereliction of Duty,” which highlighted the failure of military leaders to give candid advice to the president in the lead up the Vietnam War, sets a high bar for national security advisers.

“He was very critical of the joint chiefs and how they didn't speak up more forcefully against the war,” said Cancian. “He put a mark on the wall here and he has to live up to it.

“It's going to drive him to be very clear and pointed in his advice particularly if he disagrees with the president or other elements of government,” he added.

Bannon retains his title and position and remains a confidant of the president who is working closely with other advisers on domestic and foreign policy.

In addition, according to the federal register, the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are being restored to the NSC's principal's committee, which was their role in the Obama administration. The director of the CIA has also been added to the principal's committee.

National security experts viewed those changes as largely cosmetic given that those officials would have independent lines of communication to the president, independent of the NSC.

Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

After Crackdown on Protesters, Venezuela’s Opposition Slams Judges for ‘Coup’ Attempt

BY EMILY TAMKIN-APRIL 5, 2017

On Wednesday, Venezuela’s opposition censured the country’s Supreme Court judges whom they accused of carrying out a veiled coup on behalf of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Last week, Venezuela’s Supreme Court sought to assume the functions of the National Assembly, seen by many as the last stronghold of the Venezuelan opposition. Members of the opposition denounced the move as a coup; protesters took to the streets of Caracas; and even the attorney general, a long time ally of Maduro, criticized the ruling on live, state-controlled television.

Why make the ruling in the first place? Because, as Harold Trinkunas, a nonresident senior fellow with the Brookings Institute, explained to Foreign Policy, the Venezuelan government has a bond payment due April 12. And in order to make that bond payment, the government was hoping to strike a deal.
Speculation says that that deal would be with Russian oil company Rosneft, under which Caracas would cede some assets — in Venezuela — to the Russian energy giant in lieu of cash payment.

But any new joint venture or the sale of part of any existing joint venture has to be approved by the National Assembly. The legislature won’t approve such a thing, because it is one of the precious few pieces of leverage it has over the Maduro government. And so the court tried to circumvent it.

“They tried to get the legislature out of the mix and just take unilateral action. When they find their laws inconvenient, they just change them,” Eric Farnsworth of the Americas Society/Council of the Americas said. But it went too far, apparently, even for Maduro.

On Saturday, the court reversed (much of) the ruling. “The controversy is over,” Maduro said.
Except it wasn’t.

“You can’t just pretend to normalize the nation after carrying out a coup,” lawmaker Julio Borges said at the time. And Maduro couldn’t. Thousands of protesters were still out in Caracas on Tuesday when security forces — the National Guard and national police, joined by pro-government gangs — deployed tear gas and water cannons against those in attendance.

This was different than other protests of the recent past. There was, said Farnsworth, an urgency to the protests, an indication that thousands of people saw their government meant to act like a dictatorship, with a sharp dose of repression. (Given the government’s dramatic reaction, it seems they thought so, too.)

The opposition is not only seeking to dismiss the judges who issued the ruling. They are also trying to move up the next presidential election, which is scheduled for the end of 2018. But the Maduro government does not seem inclined to acquiesce in that request.

In the meantime, Venezuela has gone from dismal to dire. The country is wracked by a scarcity of food and medicine, the worst inflation in the world, and has 82 percent of households in poverty — the very impoverished for whose benefit Maduro claims to be clinging to power.

With the country careering off a cliff, the government might be forgiven for seeking a parachute. Except Maduro and most of his top officials are wary of being held accountable for a spate of crimes they have allegedly committed while in office, making it safer to stay in — even as the economy goes south. But for Maduro, a former bus driver, heading for a ditch still seems safer than seeking a head-on collision with justice.

“The government is out of cash,” Trinkunas said, adding, “the question is, what are the costs of exiting, and what are the costs of staying on?”

Photo credit: FEDERICO PARRA/AFP/Getty Images

Like this article? Read an unlimited of articles, plus access to our entire 46 year printed archive, the FP App, and the FP Insights Tool when you subscribe to FP Premium for 20% off!

South Sudan “Rebels” and the CIA; Show Me the Money!

by Thomas C. Mountain-Apr 5, 2017

( April 5, 2017, Eritrea, Sri Lanka Guardian) For going on 3 years now a “rebel army” of some 20,000 South Sudanese soldiers have been fighting to overthrow the Salva Kiir government without any visible means of support. The government has oil revenues and aid funds but the “rebels” (and their propaganda arm in the west) have not been asked by anyone in the international media to “show me the money”.

Why? Maybe the recent kidnapping of Chinese oil company workers as a part of the “rebels” demand that China abandon its only oil field in Africa in Sudan. which can best be described as a blow struck on behalf of the “US National Interest”, for the USA is the ONLY party that benefits by the South Sudanese civil war.

Getting China out of African energy is why the CIA is picking up the tab for this most savage series of tribal based ethnic cleansing and massacres, to the tune of over $300 million and counting. Where else could this kind of off the books cash be coming from?

Do the math, 20,000 under arms at salaries starting at $300 a month and then add food, supplies, fuel, ammunition etc and you get a monthly nut of close to $10 million, over a $100 million a year and this for years now.

Show me the money! is the golden rule and why isn’t anyone asking this question when it comes to the South Sudan civil war? Who else could it be but the CIA that these “rebels” are getting their blood money from?

Thomas C. Mountain is an independent journalist in Eritrea who has been covering Sudan since 2003. See thomascmountain on Facebook or best contact him at thomascmountain at g mail dot com

Theresa May, transitions and the Northern Ireland border

Gary Gibbon-

6 APR 2017

Theresa May has been given permission by the Tory Right to embrace a full blown transition period after Brexit.

I mentioned last month that Mrs May’s position on ECJ jurisdiction seemed to have switched. Now, on her trip to the Middle East, she has acknowledged that freedom of movement could continue for a transition period after Brexit.

The Right in her party appear, on legal advice, to have satisfied themselves that there is no turning back on Brexit and that any chance of slipping back into the EU through a back door, which in truth is exactly what quite a few pro-Remain MPs privately talked about, is now out of the question. So they (or a critical mass of them) are willing to compromise on extending some major facets of life inside the EU for a couple of years or so as long as Britain has left by the end of March 2019.

Some Remain MPs’ hopes will now switch to extending the transitional arrangements, which could have echoes of Norway’s status in some respects. They’ll be hoping this semi-soft Brexit could be perpetuated longer than a two to three year transition phase.

None of this will calm any nerves in the neighbourhood I’ve just been visiting: the Northern Ireland border areas around Londonderry.

After decades of a sealed border, some of them with heavy military presence, the area had just emerged blinking into a happier new dawn of free movement only to have that threatened by the talk of a “hard border.”

The British and Irish governments say, as one, they’ll work out a border arrangement that is “frictionless and seamless,” which sounds a lot like some sort of underwear ad. They are working on technologies that allow tracking goods and lorries and a leak from the Irish government confirmed that it has been looking at a small number of customs checkpoints on several of the main roads (there are 200 plus crossings in total on a 300 mile border). These customs posts would probably be several miles back from the actual border and discreetly located off the main road. Lorries would be directed to turn off the main road, maybe via an electronic sign or messaging (no one wants a lone customs officer directing traffic on the curb side). Only a minority of lorries would be detoured for the checks. Don’t worry, the message goes, the borders will feel the same as they do now.

I didn’t meet anyone on either side of the border who was confident the governments will pull that off. Some think they might start with that approach and then ratchet up security as the border proves a smuggler’s delight.

The Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s tenure continues in a strange limbo (his potential successors seem wary of wielding the knife – both are fearful of “alienating Kenny and his old brigade of rural backbencher,” Tom Kelly writes in today’s Belfast Telegraph. Mr Kenny is using what political time he has left to lobby the rest of the EU furiously on Ireland’s behalf. He’s in Berlin today meeting Chancellor Merkel. Other Irish government ministers have been very busy lobbying fellow EU governments too, trying to get them to endorse a light touch border arrangement and generally flag up Ireland’s profound concerns about the political and economic impact of Brexit.

One UK government source told me that the Irish government is effectively trying to get EU leaders “to turn a blind eye” to a porous border in the greater interests of peace and prosperity, “just as they turn a blind eye to all sorts of things across the 28.” “Dublin thinks it’s a matter of will and trade-offs,” the UK government source said.

The source acknowledged, as many residents of Derry and the nearby towns of Donegal suspect, that “on goods, no-one has a solution yet.”

‘I’m no Mother Teresa’ says Suu Kyi, denying ethnic cleansing

Tuesday, 14 August 2012-‘Over 30,000 minority Muslims killed in Myanmar’7

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte (L) is welcomed by Myanmar’s leader Aung San Suu Kyi in Yangon, Myanmar March 20, 2017. Source: Reuters/Pyay Kyaw Aung

Myanmar's National League for Democracy Party leader Aung San Suu Kyi speaks during a news conference in Yangon November 5, 2015. Source: Reuters/Jorge Silva

6th April 2017

AUNG San Suu Kyi used her first interview with the BBC in years to deny the existence of ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya.

Having led the pro-democracy and human rights movement against a military dictatorship in Burma (Myanmar), Suu Kyi has attracted widespread criticism for her failure to condemn persecution of the Rohingya minority.

Speaking to the BBC’s special correspondent Fergal Keane on Wednesday, Suu Kyi said, “I’m just a politician. I’m not quite like Margaret Thatcher… but on the other hand, I’m no Mother Teresa either.”

SEE ALSO: Suu Kyi offers to step down after failure to unite a fractured Burma

Burma’s military has been accused of human rights abuses against the Muslim Rohingya minority in Rakhine State, including mass killings and gang rapes, as it fights a group of Muslim insurgents.

“I think there’s a lot of hostility there,” said Suu Kyi on Wednesday, adding that “It’s Muslims killing Muslims as well if they think that they are collaborating with the authorities.”

The United Nations has claimed more than 1,000 Rohingya have been killed in security forces’ operations in Rakhine, and at least 70,000 Rohingya have fled to neighbouring Bangladesh since late 2016.

When asked by the BBC if she feared being remembered as a Nobel laureate who failed to stand up to ethnic cleansing in her own country, Suu Kyi asserted, “No because I don’t think there’s ethnic cleansing going on.”

“I think ethnic cleansing is too strong an expression to use for what is happening,” she said.

UN special rapporteur Yanghee Lee has previously accused Burma of trying to “expel” the Rohingya from the country altogether via bureaucratic means, which would amount to ethnic cleansing.

Burma’s Religious Affairs and Culture Ministry recently announced it was working on a treatise at proving the Rohingya community are not indigenous to the country.

Lee has also highlighted egregious human rights abuses including throwing children into fires and the rape of Muslim women.

But Suu Kyi said “It’s not just a matter of ethnic cleansing as you put it. It’s a matter of people on different sides of a divide.”

SEE ALSO: Amid mounting criticism, is Aung San Suu Kyi still a noble Nobel winner?

Asked by Keane why “as an icon of human rights” she hadn’t spoken out against persecution and killings of Rohingya, Suu Kyi said, “This question has been asked since 2013 when the last round of troubles broke out in the Rakhine.”

“People would say I said nothing simply because I didn’t make the kind of statement which they thought I should make, which is to condemn one community or the other,” she said.

Southeast Asia researcher at the Lowy Institute Aaron Connelly noted that it was Suu Kyi’s first interview with the BBC in several years, having boycotted the news outlet since the 2015 elections.

It was not however with the network’s regular Burma correspondent, Jonah Fisher, who has been critical of Suu Kyi and the government.

Despite its transition to democracy, media in the military dictatorship remains closely monitored and controlled. A foreign journalist was fired last year from the Myanmar Times for covering allegations of rape against the military.

A group of local and foreign journalists were reportedly allowed to enter Rakhine State recently, with the government claiming journalists were “impressed with extensive media access.”

How artificial life spawned a billion-dollar industry

A DNA double helix is seen in an undated artist's illustration released by the National Human Genome Research Institute to Reuters on May 15, 2012. REUTERS/National Human Genome Research Institute/Handout/Files

A robotic DNA sample automation machine works on DNA samples at a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. laboratory at the biotechnology company's headquarters in Tarrytown, New York, U.S., March 24, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Segar/Files---A researcher, seen through a window, prepares DNA in a laboratory at the Bioaster Technology Research Institute in Lyon, France, October 31, 2014. REUTERS/Robert Pratta/Files

By Ben Hirschler | LONDON- Thu Apr 6, 2017

Scientists are getting closer to building life from scratch and technology pioneers are taking notice, with record sums moving into a field that could deliver novel drugs, materials, chemicals and even perfumes.

Despite ethical and safety concerns, investors are attracted by synthetic biology's wide market potential and the plummeting cost of DNA synthesis, which is industrialising the writing of the genetic code that determines how organisms function.

While existing biotechnology is already used to make medicines like insulin and genetically modified crops, synthesizing whole genes or genomes gives an opportunity for far more extensive changes.

Matt Ocko, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist whose past investments include Facebook, Uber and Zynga, believes the emerging industry has passed the "epiphany" moment needed to prove it can deliver economic value.

"Synthetic biology companies are now becoming more like the disruptive, industrial-scale value propositions that define any technology business," he said.

"The things that sustain and accelerate this industry are today more effective, lower cost, more precise and more repeatable. That makes it easier to extract disruptive value."

Ocko, whose Data Collective firm has invested in companies including organism design firm Gingko Bioworks and bioengineer Zymergen, is not alone.

Other tech veterans backing the new wave of "synbio" start-ups include Jerry Yang, Marc Andreessen, 

Peter Thiel and Eric Schmidt, famous for their roles at Yahoo, Netscape, PayPal and Google respectively.

UNCERTAINTIES REMAIN

Experts meeting in London this week said the science toolkit was improving fast and the cost of synthesising DNA was now 100 times cheaper than in 2003, although uncertainties remain about regulation and the public's appetite for tinkering with life.

The global conference hosted by Imperial College London, bringing together scientists and money people, comes four weeks after researchers announced they were close to building a complete artificial genome for baker's yeast.

This ambitious project has brought complex artificial life a big step closer because yeast is a eukaryote, an organism whose cells contain a nucleus, just like human cells.

The yeast work shows how DNA can be manipulated on a large scale, with genetic code increasingly treated like a programming language in which binary 1s and 0s are replaced by DNA's four chemical building blocks, abbreviated as A, T, G, C.

A growing emphasis on computing is closing the gap between biology and traditional tech, even though this is an area that remains unpredictable, variable and complex.

"The intersection of biology and technology is a difficult place to be because of different cultures and languages, but I think we are breaking through some of those barriers," said Thomas Bostick, former head of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who now leads biotech firm Intrexon's environment unit.

The idea that engineering life can be broken down into data and coding is part of the appeal for tech investors.

"DNA is seen as the next programmable matter and that is what a lot of the Silicon Valley investors are excited about," said John Cumbers, founder of synthetic biology network SynBioBeta.

"They've witnessed the power of software over the last 25 years and they are looking for the next big thing."

Data from SynBioBeta shows a record $1.21 billion was invested in the sector worldwide in 2016, a threefold increase from five years earlier, while the number of firms in the sector has almost doubled to 411. For a graphic see tmsnrt.rs/2n3VYuO

A range of companies are springing up, from those producing new chemicals for industry to providers of DNA synthesis and related software, like U.S.-based Twist Bioscience and Britain's Synthace.

Work is also advancing by leaps and bounds in the complementary area of gene editing now being embraced by many of the world's top drugmakers.

CHANGE OF TACK

The current product focus represents a change of tack from the first widely tipped application of synthetic biology in making biofuels from engineered algae.

In the event, algal biofuel proved a lot harder to scale up than expected and a tumbling oil price during the Great Recession of the late 2000s undercut the business model.

Drew Endy of Stanford University believes the case for using synthetic biology to take on gasoline never stacked up.

"Why would you bank your whole platform on a bulk high-volume, low-price, low-margin product? It's baffling, not strategic," he said.

Today's synbio firms are looking at more niche and expensive products, such as potent painkillers and cancer medicines made in yeast cells - or fabrics with novel properties, although some have only reached demonstration stage.

California-based Bolt Threads recently debuted a limited edition $314 necktie made from yeast-derived spider's silk and Japanese rival Spiber has made a concept piece spider-silk parka jacket.

Boston-based Gingko Bioworks, meanwhile, is developing a rose oil for French fragrance house Robertet and Switzerland's Evolva has developed a vanillin, or vanilla extract, that, unlike most vanilla flavouring, is not made from petrochemicals.

In some areas - especially anything to do with food or the environment - synthetic biology is already running into criticism. Friends of the Earth was quick to condemn the new yeast-derived vanillin as "extreme" genetic engineering.

Other controversies appear inevitable as synthetic biologists push the envelope with more extreme projects, such as a Harvard team's "Jurassic Park"-style proposal to resurrect the woolly mammoth by adapting the Asian elephant genome.

Intrexon's Bostick, whose firm is releasing millions of genetically manipulated mosquitoes in Brazil in a bid to slash populations of Zika-carrying insects, believes each synthetic biology scheme has to prove its benefits outweigh the risks.

"There are always pros and cons, and we owe people a fair and balanced assessment."

(Reporting by Ben Hirschler; editing by Giles Elgood)

Unacceptable objection to liquor ban in India

by N.S.Venkataraman-Apr 5, 2017

Apr 5, 2017

( April 5, 2017, Chennai, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Supreme Court order banning the liquor shops within 500 metres of  highways has been criticized by liquor producers, merchants and liquor addicts all over India. Claims are made that such closure will lead to loss of millions of jobs all over India and huge loss of income for the government. These are exaggerated fears and misgivings.

Unacceptable objection to liquor ban in India.docx by Thavam Ratna on Scribd

Smoking causes one in ten deaths globally, major new study reveals

Efforts to control tobacco have paid off, says study, but warns tobacco epidemic is far from over, with 6.4m deaths attributed to smoking in 2015 alone

Students wearing masks with no smoking signs attend an anti-smoking lecture in Fuyang, China. More than a million deaths a year in China are from smoking related diseases. Photograph: Reuters

Sarah Boseley Health editor-Wednesday 5 April 2017

One in 10 deaths around the world is caused by smoking, according to a major new study that shows the tobacco epidemic is far from over and that the threat to lives is spreading across the globe.

There were nearly one billion smokers in 2015, in spite of tobacco control policies having been adopted by many countries. That number is expected to rise as the world’s population expands. One in every four men is a smoker and one in 20 women. Their lives are likely to be cut short – smoking is the second biggest risk factor for early death and disability after high blood pressure.

The researchers found there were 6.4m deaths attributed to smoking in 2015, of which half were in just four populous countries – China, India, USA, and Russia.

Major efforts to control tobacco have paid off, according to the study published by the Lancet medical journal. A World Health Organisation treaty in 2005 ratified by 180 countries recommends measures including smoking bans in public places, high taxes in cigarettes and curbs on advertising and marketing.

Between 1990 and 2015, smoking prevalence dropped from 35% to 25% among men and 8% to 5% among women. High income countries and Latin America – especially Brazil which brought in tough curbs on tobacco – achieved the biggest drops in numbers of smokers.

But many countries have made marginal progress since the treaty was agreed, say the authors of the study from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in the US. And although far more men smoke than women, there have been bigger reductions in the proportions of men smoking also, with minimal changes among women.

Senior author Dr Emmanuela Gakidou said there were 933m daily smokers in 2015, which she called “a very shocking number”. The paper focused only on those who smoke every day. “The toll of tobacco is likely to be much larger if we include occasional smokers and former smokers and people who use other tobacco products like smokeless tobacco. This is on the low end of how important tobacco is,” she told the Guardian.

There is much more that needs to be done, she said. “There is a widespread notion that the war on tobacco has been won but I think our evidence shows that we need renewed and sustained efforts because the toll of smoking in 2015 is much larger than most people would think, so we absolutely have a lot more to do. We need new and improved strategies to do it and a lot of effort and political will.”

Traditionally there have been far fewer women smoking around the world than men, but it was a huge problem for both, she said.

“There are some really worrisome findings – for example in Russia female smoking has increased in the last 25 years significantly. There are also some western European countries where about one in three women are smoking. So it is true globally that a lot fewer women smoke than men but there are some countries where it is a big problem for women,” she said.

Dr Kelly Henning of Bloomberg Philanthropies, which is committed to tobacco control and co-funded the study with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, said: “I think the study highlights the fact that the work is not finished on tobacco. The good news is the decline in daily smoking among men and women ... however there are still many smokers in the world and there is still a lot of work to do. I think we have to keep our eye on the issue and really do more.”

Countries with some of the highest death tolls such as China and Indonesia “really don’t need those health problems - they have so many other issues they are trying to address. But tobacco control is critically important in those places,” she said.

“China has more than a million deaths a year from smoking related diseases and China is only beginning to see the effects of their high male smoking rate. That is only one instance of what is expected to become an extremely major epidemic,” she said.

Writing in a linked comment, Professor John Britton from the University of Nottingham said: “Responsibility for this global health disaster lies mainly with the transnational tobacco companies, which clearly hold the value of human life in very different regard to most of the rest of humanity.” British American Tobacco, for instance, sold 665bn cigarettes in 2015 and made a £5.2bn profit.

“Today, the smoking epidemic is being exported from the rich world to low-income and middle-income countries, slipping under the radar while apparently more immediate priorities occupy and absorb scarce available human and financial resources,” he writes. “The epidemic of tobacco deaths will progress inexorably throughout the world until and unless tobacco control is recognised as an immediate priority for development, investment, and research.”