Author: Ben Debski

Hunting whales in the pursuit of scientific research is one that many whaling countries use to justify their deeply unpopular expeditions. Amongst them is South Korea, who this week announced that it plans to continue hunting whales for the purpose of science at a meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in Panama.

A loophole in the IWC 1986 moratorium on commercial whaling permits countries to hunt whales in the name of science, and it has been used by a number of nations before, most notably Japan.

South Korea says the research they plan to carry out, off the Korean coast, is crucial to accurately determine whale stocks in the region.

The decision has drawn strong criticism from countries opposed to whaling, including Australia, who’s Prime Minister Julia Gillard said she would do all they could to block the decision. “Our ambassador will speak to counterparts in South Korea, at the highest levels of the government, and indicate Australia’s opposition to this decision.”

The head of the New Zealand delegation, Gerard van Bohemen, described the plans as “reckless,” adding “New Zealand is strongly opposed to (South) Korea’s proposal.”

In October of last year, Japan announced plans to continue its annual whale hunt in the South Ocean, despite a disastrous previous year that saw their ships disrupted and outnumbered by the Sea Shepherd group of anti-whaling protestors.

Pro-whaling countries claim that whale meat has been a staple part of their population’s diet, although in Japan it has sharply declined over the last 50 years. However, many opponents want an outright ban imposed, and for countries to strive for conserving whale populations.

Japan maintains that commercial whaling provides important scientific benefits, however at a 2010 IWC summit a 200-strong group of international scientists condemned this stance, saying: “Given the risks involved and that commercial whaling meets no essential human need, we call on all the IWC governments to abandon experiments in the

Once the king of the smartphone industry, Canada’s struggling phone maker Research in Motion (RIM) has just announced yet more losses, compounding a steady decline over the last few years that has seen firms like Apple, Samsung and Google dominate.

RIM, whose Blackberry phone proved so popular with business clients for much of the last decade, declared losses of $518m for the three months to June. Revenues for the first quarter 2012 fell to $2.8bn, down by a huge 43%. The losses have meant significant job losses of 5,000 staff.

Alongside the losses, RIM have announced that their proposed new operating system, Blackberry 10 has also been delayed until 2013, adding speculation that it may never see the light of day.

RIM’s hold over the market has evaporated as rival manufacturers have successfully merged the consumer and business segments, meaning RIM’s business focused offering was redundant. When RIM tried to offer Blackberry phones that were more entertainment focused, some argued they’d neglected their core market.

The future strategy of the company has become unclear. Recently announcing that they had appointed two investment banks to advise them, the company said: “We are aggressively working with our advisers on our strategic review and are actively evaluating ways to better leverage our assets and build on our strengths, including our growing BlackBerry subscriber base of approximately 78m, our large enterprise installed base, our unique network architecture and our industry-leading security capabilities.”

Where they go from here is unclear. Potentially spinning off some services, like the popular Blackberry Messenger, to rival providers is one area that could open up more users, but would likely mean less incentive for people to stick with their Blackberry phones.

What is certain, however, is that something drastic needs to change to prevent RIM from losing all relevance in the highly competitive smartphone industry.

As European leaders meet to discuss a series of ways to kick-start economic growth, massive infrastructure investment is being touted by some as the answer.

Talk of raising nearly €130bn to invest in transport, technology and renewable energy has increased in advance of this week’s two-day summit in Brussels, as it’s seen as a way to create swathes of jobs and boost struggling industries.

However, some feel it is unlikely to have much of an effect. HSBC’s chief economist Stephen King says the amount being discussed is “tiny,” amounting to under one percent of all 27 EU countries combined national income. He also does not see much point in increasing the amount, pointing out the large-scale transport projects in Spain and Greece that have done little to stimulate growth.

King says talk of infrastructure investment is often just a means for politicians to look like they have a plan: “In too many cases, large-scale public sector infrastructure projects merely satisfy a politician’s need to “do something”, whether or not the activity involved ultimately delivers the predicted benefits.”

It is clear that investment is needed in parts of Europe, particularly in the east. However, a recent investigation by Reuters shows that despite setting aside billions of euros over the last decade for infrastructure towards the east of Europe, a fraction of the pot has been used.

A fund of €14.9bn for transport projects, notably the Trans-European Transportation Network, has seen just €1.65bn used. The reason for this is thought to be due to funds only being paid out on completion of the projects.

If countries are unwilling to get infrastructure projects off the ground in the first place, then talk of increased EU investment is unlikely to be much more than that.

A study into the contribution of immigrants to the US economy has shown that they are contributing 75 percent of all registered patents.

The Partnership for a New American Economy found that foreign students at the best US research universities were playing important roles in developing new technologies, but were also facing difficulties with visas once their studies are completed.

The value of the students’ innovation to the economy is clear from the areas they are focusing on, with science, technology, engineering and maths seeing the most amount of registered patents associated with the students.

The group, set up by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, also found that the mother countries of the students were encouraging them to return home in order to help drive their own economies.

The study encourages the government to do more to help these students remain in the US after they graduate, so that they can continue to offer their skills and innovation to the economy. Under current laws, foreign students can only stay in the US for between 12 and 29 months, depending on whether they have got a relevant job.

Highlighting the important contribution these immigrants are making, Bloomberg said in a statement to the NYT: “Now that we know immigrants are behind more than three of every four patents from leading universities, the federal laws that send so many of them back to their home countries look even more patently wrong.”

With consternation from groups about the lack of jobs for US born workers, however, relaxing immigration laws will not be something warmly received by all. Indeed, Eric Ruark, from the Federal for American Immigration Reform group, says: “No one is asking what is in their best interest, the American worker. It’s what is best for the employers. What is best for the foreign workers. It’s not as if the foreign workers aren’t skilled. What’s being ignored is we already have a domestic work force that has the same skills.”

Last week Microsoft announced its latest foray into the hardware market by showing off its new Surface tablet computer.

A direct attempt at challenging Apple’s iPad, the Surface will run on the Windows 8 operating system, and is the latest in a long line of tentative attempts by Microsoft, more known for its software, to establish itself as a computer manufacturer.

Previous attempts include the Zune mp3 player, and the aborted tablet Courier, which came in the form of a two-screen notebook.

According to the NYT, however, Microsoft’s tablet announcement is a desperate move by the software giant to stem the tide of customers moving to Apple products, particularly in light of the failure of Hewlett-Packard’s tablet efforts.

It is also surprising that Microsoft has moved away from its hardware partners, such as HP and Dell, in order to make the device. Usually focusing on their operating system, it is believed that Microsoft has seen how Apple has benefited from controlling both the software and hardware design and wants to exert similar design controls on the finished product.

Lou Mazzuchelli, a technology entrepreneur and former analyst, told NYT: “You’ve got this sclerotic partnership where the partners don’t have any oxygen to be innovative. I believe Microsoft was painted into a corner. If they didn’t move soon, Apple would have so much of a lead, it would be almost impossible to catch them.”

The trouble for Microsoft, however, is that their track record with hardware design is patchy at best. The Zune player tried in vain to match Apple’s iPod, but was discontinued in 2010 after poor sales. Attempts to launch mobile phones, such as the Microsoft Kin, and tablet’s like the Courier were aborted before launch, despite over-the-top presentations that saw CEO Steve Ballmer try to capture the imagination in the way former Apple chief Steve Jobs did on so many occasions.

If Microsoft is to succeed, it should maybe focus more on getting their hardware partners to integrate the Windows 8 operating system into their devices, instead of Google’s Android system. Apple are likely out of reach in the all-in-one stakes.