Professor Simon Pearce Dr Tim Cheetham published an fascinating clinical review in the British Medical Journal earlier this month. Their research, a collaboration between Newcastle University and Newcastle NHS Foundation Hospital, led the two respected academics to conclude that Vitamin D should be added to milk and other food products, in a bid to halt a rise in the number of children suffering from rickets. Here’s the press release from Newcastle University that highlights their research.
After reading the press release, a startling fact jumped off the page:
“Half of all adults in the UK have Vitamin D deficiency in the winter and spring, and one in six have severe deficiency. This is worse in northern regions and could be part of the reason for the health gap between the north and south.
“And the condition has been linked to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, several cancers, and autoimmune conditions as well as osteomalacia, which is the painful manifestation of soft bones in adults.”
I discovered their research after reading lurid headlines in the Metro Newspaper last week. The front page splash carried the headline “Video gaming leads to a surge in rickets”. The headline was so obviously misleading that I knew it would irritate the army of video game players who form Gamers’ Voice, the group we established just before Christmas.
Even the respected correspondent in the Times, David Rose, had to suffer the indignity of the headline “TV and computer games blamed for rickets” ITN (yes, ITN) ran the story “Experts say gaming leads to a rise in rickets”. Well done to the one media outlet I could find thatwrote the headline: “50% of UK Vitamin D deficient”
After consulting members of Gamers’ Voice, I emailed Professor Pearce:
“I read the front page of the Metro this morning with interest. Am I right in thinking that you have written a report that links video games to rickets? Is it possible to send me details?”
He was candid about how the story was portrayed in some newspapers and online outlets:
“No we really didn’t do a study to show that, or say that Gaming causes rickets. It was a classic piece of dodgy lazy journalism, taking 3 words out of PA’s hyped-up version of our press release.”
The Press Association release that I assume he’s referring to, does not mention video games, though there is a reference to computers.
By chance, I’d met the amiable Nicholas Lovell at a video games industry conference on the day the story was published. He was similarly irritated by the misleading headlines and had contacted the academics as well. Nicholas is not a journalist. He’s an analyst. Still, he did fair reporting a favour last week.
So, once again video games get a kicking in the press based on an untruth. And the poor health academics who are trying to get their important research across to policy makers have their work undermined by nonsensical headlines. Now that I’ve read the research and talked to Professor Pearce, I feel I have a duty to help them get their message across.
I’m going to table this motion later today:
This House notes with concern the recent clinical review by Cheetham and Pearce in the British Medical Journal, “Diagnosis and management of vitamin D deficiency” that shows an increase of rickets amongst children in the UK; further notes that this was reported in many newspapers as being linked to the growth of video games and that the newspaper “Metro” published the front page headline “Video gaming leads to a surge in rickets”; understands that half of all adults in the UK have Vitamin D deficiency in the winter and spring, and one in six have severe deficiency and the condition has been linked to cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, several cancers, and autoimmune conditions as well as osteomalacia; understands that it has been known since 1922 that rickets and osteomalacia are caused by a deficiency of Vitamin D in the diet and inadequate exposure to sunlight; and therefore realises that video games do not, in fact, cause the disease; believes that the solution to combatting rickets is cheap and simple; calls on the government to examine the case for Vitamin D supplementation in food and for parents to encourage their children run around more.”
I’m also going to quiz Department for Health Ministers to see what work they’re doing in this area.
Finally, if you’re a gamer, why not let Metro know about the research.
I feel a tiny shudder of pride to see Data.gov.uk launched today. It was a stream of work that was set in motion through the work of the Power of Information Task force, chaired by the great former Lib Dem MP, Richard Allan.
The site will act as a resource for the many who want to make our world a better, easier place to live. Perhaps more importantly from an elected representative’s perspective, it marks a milestone in cultural change for the civil service that many thought would never happen. The data sets that are being liberated make the public sector just that little bit more accountable. I’m not sure where the site will go but I do know that the small number of civil servants who worked with Tim Berners Lee and Nigel Shadbolt to make it happen deserve our respect and admiration. They swam against the tide and for once, they’ve succeeded.
Prospect magazine has an interesting insight into the story of Data.gov.uk. I can’t wait to read the full story.
This is what I was going to say. Not all of it got in. You’ll have to wait for Hansard to see the exact transcript.
Mr. Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Labour): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable specified institutions to make digital copies of cultural artefacts for archival purposes not withstanding the existence of any intellectual property right; and for connected purposes
Mr Speaker –
The transmission of our heritage has been revolutionised by the interconnected world of the internet. The greatest cultures of the world are on the cusp of being open to the hundreds of millions of people who use the internet. From the richness and history of India and China, Brazil or Mexico, future generations will discuss, consider and analyse their heritage online.
As H.G. Wells predicted and Pierre Levy recently said, for the first time, humankind has the capacity to build a universal digital memory. Many of our countries’ cultural institutions have only started on this grand project in the last decade.
Their work, though, is often hampered by laws that were framed to deal with the problems of the analogue age. Our system of copyright has for many years – perhaps even before the invention of the World Wide Web – been creaking at the edges. It has been unable to cope with the explosive growth of creativity, content creation and new technology and the ever increasing pace of change of the latter 21st century.
The Gowers Review identified many steps that could be taken to allow our great cultural institutions – like the British Library, the British Film Institute and the National Archives – to curate their works in a manner that allows all the opportunities of the digital age to be grasped.
Gowers highlighted that the UK had far more stringent restrictions on copying classes of work for archival and preservation purposes than other countries.
It also made specific recommendations on how the UK should deal with Orphan works – copyrighted works where it is either difficult or impossible to track down the rights holder.
It is reassuring to know that many of these issues raised by curators and copyright lawyers are proposals contained within the Digital Economy Bill currently being discussed in the Other Place. However, Mr Speaker the many wise heads in the Other Place that are applying their wise minds to the draft Bill are moving many, many amendments at a baffling pace. We do not know in what form the Bill will come to this House. Although if Lords Errol and Whitty, Razzel and Clement Jones get their way, at least we can be reassured that the Bill will be in much better shape when it reaches us.
The Digital Economy Bill is perhaps the most important Bill the creative industries have seen this decade. Yet they know, as we all do in this House, that parliamentary time is short in advance of a General Election.
They, like many members of this House, would be concerned to see some of the big measures contained within the Bill dealt with in a last minute deal between the two political parties in the wash-up of a dissolved Parliament. In particular, measures contained within clauses 11 and 17 of the Digital Economy Bill that give unprecedented powers to the Secretary of State to interpret copyright infringement and take technical measures to punish infringers.
If the measures are bounced through it will be widely interpreted as a shabby and tawdry deal between the two front benches in order to satisfy the interests of old and big publishing interests at the expense of smaller publishers, creators and consumers.
We live in unprecedented times in terms of our ability to store digital content. Kryder’s law, that almost mystical formula that says that digital data capacity will double every 13 months – means that we can now super-process acres of data that was undigestible only a decade or so ago.
Ten years ago, I had a Discman and a few hundred CDs. Three years ago, my iPod held thousands of songs.
If Kryder’s law holds true, somewhere around 2013 an iPod will be able to carry a years worth of video. By 2016, it will hold all of the commercial music ever produced. By 2019, it could carry a lifetime of video, 85 years of it. And somewhere around 2024 all the content every produced in history could be stored on a device that fits into a pocket.
When this unprecedented technological advance is fully understood, it leads many to draw the conclusion that existing proposals to brand a generation of innate Internet users as pirates, is simply futile.
What is required is a complete rethink on copyright.
One that accepts that technology now allows people to share content, crunch it, mash it and remake it. To illustrate my point with a contemporary political example: when Labour was elected in 1997, young political propagandists from all parties had to make their point by using an aerosol and a balaclava. Now, they use can use photoshop. The recent experience of the website MyDavidCameron.com is an example of where people take an idea and re-use it to add to a discussion and make a point. Political Party managers might not like it but it has given election billboards and new relevance and interest for the forthcoming general election. It’s actually made electioneering interesting, unpredictable and dare I say it, fun.
Legislative change needs to keep up with this pace. Current copyright laws are simply not fit for the digital age.
And if you don’t think that digital natives will change the world of politics with their billboard mash ups, I ask colleagues to take a look at the voting figures for the Pirate Party.
In Sweden, the Pirate Party – an organisation dedicated to giving a generation of ‘net users a voice in the copyright settlement – elected a Member of the European Parliament. They are now the third largest party in Sweden.
In Germany, 1 in 8 first time voters supported the German Pirate Party in their recent elections. The message in the UK is clear. Just because they don’t have the capacity to lobby government as easily as the BPI, young people will react very strongly at the ballot box if their Internet rights are diminished.
And when they are told by an army of big publishing lobbyists that the creative industries are in peril, they have the capacity to google a strong riposte:
Yesterday, the UK Film Council said that in 2009 British cinemas saw their best admissions in 7 years with box office takings in the UK and Ireland exceeding £1billion for the first time. 2009 saw £1.73 billion was spend on video games – a big increase on the previous year. Last year 240 million books were sold, in 2000 the figure was 154 million.
Sure our publishing industries are undergoing massive turbulence and are in flux but young people simply will not by the argument that piracy is the root cause when they see figures like these.
Mr Speaker, I turn to the detail of this Bill. A significant part of our cultural and scientific heritage is simply decaying in cupboards and basements around Britain – orphaned; because the rights holders to the work cannot be traced.
This Bill allows named institutions be able to take digital copies of all their works for archiving purposes only – unimpeded by any copyright and licensing restrictions.
Currently, as the law stands, copyright exceptions do apply to allow reproduction of works for preservation; however it only allows for one copy to be made. This is impossible for digital preservation as it will often require multiple copies in order to get the right format and as viewing formats change.
A library usually needs to contact the copyright holder is in order to obtain permission to use the work in ways not covered by national copyright exceptions. The problem of orphan works now impedes many library and archive mass digitisation projects where rights holders cannot be traced.
The fragmented structure of the film industry – with many companies being established but producing new films with a high failure rate – there are works in its collections where the production company has ceased to exist and no successor company owns distribution rights. The BFI believe that about 10% of their non fiction holdings fall into this category.
Orphan Works mean our heritage and other public sector content is being locked up. While much is of little commercial value, it has a high academic and cultural significance. It should not be left unused.
There are a number of cumbersome steps that our cultural institutions have to go through to meet the current requirements of copyright law when seeking to use or reproduce a copy of works held in their collections. They need to be able to preserve their works, shift formats over time and make our heritage available. Our history should not be left rotting in basements; and I beg leave to introduce this Bill.
