This article is reproduced with the permission of New Scientist for exclusive use by Nova users.

Biofuel issues rekindle Berkeley's radical flame
21 April 2007
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Michael Reilly Berkeley

TWO students at the University of California, Berkeley, pour jugs of a thick, dark liquid onto the steps of the campus administration building. Wearing lab coats emblazoned with the BP logo, they shout at passers-by to "start getting used to oil".

This was the scene last month, as protesters chanting "No BP!" opposed a deal between industry and academia to develop new biofuels. Admittedly, it was a dim echo of the 1960s, when Berkeley was the global epicentre of student revolt. Still, this humble demonstration was a reminder that the radical spirit lives on. Berkeley is a scientific powerhouse with a political conscience, where even an apparently progressive effort to develop "green" fuels provokes an outcry that the university is selling its soul to Big Oil.

Four decades ago, thousands of Berkeley students laid siege to campus buildings in the name of free speech. Firebrand Mario Savio railed against the machine of Berkeley's administration and urged students to "put your bodies upon the gears". In 2007, just a small crowd turned up to berate BP, and the "oil" was actually molasses - which the students had wanted to clean up before they were arrested.

Today, the radical flame may burn brightest in the hearts of some of Berkeley's senior academics. In February, BP, Berkeley, its neighbour the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign announced a $500 million project to develop new biofuels. Since then 130 Berkeley faculty members have signed a petition expressing concerns that the deal may compromise academic integrity.

Even in a department that stands to benefit from the deal there are reservations. Dan Kammen, who works in Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group (ERG), believes firmly that the world desperately needs pioneering research into alternative fuels - which the BP deal can facilitate. But with big business leading the way, he is concerned that it could come at a social and environmental cost.

"The classic example is Miscanthus," Kammen says. He is referring to a tall grass that could be used as a source of cellulose to make cheap ethanol. "You can do all these things with it in terms of producing fuel, but you're never going to be able to eat it." And while US farmers will not starve if their fuel crops were suddenly to plummet in value, the same may not be true of poor farmers in Indonesia.

Such political awareness is rare among researchers looking to develop new energy technologies, but at Berkeley, and especially within the ERG, it is ingrained. "Everyone here sees themselves as a scholar and an activist," says Kammen. "It's just a matter of where on the spectrum they are." Indeed, some of his PhD students are actively involved in the Stop BP-Berkeley campaign.

The BP row is not a one-off, either: in 1998, when the multinational Novartis paid $50 million for rights to cherry-pick Berkeley's research on plant biotechnology, it provoked a storm of protest.

One thing seems certain, says Kammen: such intense debates are a product of the campus's legacy of radicalism. "When you do a deal like this with Berkeley you build in dissent," he says. "BP has chosen a difficult date."

"There has not been a peep of protest at Illinois," he adds.

From issue 2600 of New Scientist magazine, 21 April 2007, page 14

For the latest from New Scientiist visit www.newscientist.com