Geoff Brumfiel, Washington It’s not just distance that separates the twoneutrino projects planned by the UnitedStates — their scientific objectives are clearly different too, according to a reviewby the National Academy of Sciences.

The report was commissioned earlier thisyear by the White House Office of Scienceand Technology Policy (OSTP) to clarify the degree of overlap between the proposedIceCube neutrino detector in Antarctica and the National Underground Science Laboratory (NUSL), which would probably be built at Lead, South Dakota (see Nature417, 5; 2002).

The academy panel was chaired by BarryBarish, a physicist at the California Instituteof Technology in Pasadena. This month’sreport describes the two projects as distinct,saying that there is “essentially no overlap orredundancy in their primary science goals”.

John Marburger, director of the OSTP,says that although the report confirms theprojects are scientifically distinct, they willend up competing for money in any case.

Neutrinos are subatomic particles withno electric charge and very small mass. Theyseldom interact with other particles and are not deflected by electromagnetic fields,so they can travel unhindered through

turbulent regions of space. “Recent discover-ies have created special opportunities to useneutrinos in new ways to advance ourknowledge of the Universe and the laws thatgovern it,” the panel finds.

The planned projects both aim to detectthese elusive particles, but from differentsources and for different reasons. IceCubewould monitor a cubic-kilometre block ofAntarctic ice for the rare flashes of light thatoccur when neutrinos interact with water

news

724 NATURE | VOL 420 | 19/26 DECEMBER 2002 | www.nature.com/nature

Neutrino projects are poles apart, says panel

Simulation: strings of light-sensitive detectors inIceCube, one of two proposed neutrino projects.

John Whitfield, London Three British zoologists have set up aconsultancy firm that plans to sell ideasgleaned from the study of animal behaviourto corporate clients.

Animals and businesses face many of thesame problems, argues one of the group,Alex Kacelnik of the University of Oxford.“A petroleum company forages for oil inmuch the same way as a starling mightforage for worms,” he says. The basic choice

they face, he points out, is whether to stay ina field that is productive but in decline, or tomove on and take a chance elsewhere.

Kacelnik’s work on starlings has led himto believe that humans and other animalsapproach risk in similar ways. He now plansto apply his models of how animals copewith uncertainty through the consultancyfirm Oxford Risk Research and Analysis(ORRA), which he founded last month withtwo other Oxford zoologists, John Krebs,chair of the UK Food Standards Agency, andEd Mitchell. ORRA aims to studycompanies’ decision-making processes,identify areas where risks are beingmisjudged, and recommend remedies.

The consultancy has already startedwork with clients in the pharmaceutical and energy industries, a universitystatement said. In work for onemultinational client, it found that decision-makers tended to be too cautious aboutdoing business in unfamiliar regions, butwere too gung-ho about investing wherethey knew. ORRA recommended changes inwhere and when the client made decisions,and called for more contact between itsdifferent operations.

It is too early to say whether any of ORRA’s clients will follow itsrecommendations, Kacelnik says. Thecompany has worked on three projects so far, and aims to have about a dozen, along with five full-time employees, by theend of its first year’s operations.

Outside observers say that theconsultancy’s approach may prove alluring.“Companies are willing to explore anyviable approach to dealing with risk andusing it to their advantage,” says RichardApostolik, president of the GlobalAssociation of Risk Professionals, based inJersey City, New Jersey. But to prosper, he adds, ORRA will have to show clientstangible results.

Animal behaviour can teach us muchabout human decision-making, sayspsychologist Daniel Read of the LondonSchool of Economics. But he urges caution:“Animals have the product of millions of years of evolution, but they can’t take that knowledge and apply it to newenvironments.” In situations where humansget the chance to stop and think thingsthrough, Read argues, animal behaviourmay not be a very useful model. ■

molecules. The sheer size of IceCube meansthat it should detect neutrinos generated bypowerful events outside our Galaxy, givingastrophysicists a new way to observe phe-nomena such as black holes. The neutrinosmight also shed light on other high-energyparticles that inhabit intergalactic space.

By contrast, the NUSL, a laboratory thatwould have facilities 2–4.5 km below ground,would study the properties of neutrinos gen-erated closer to home — by the Sun and byparticle accelerators on Earth. Its experimentswould be aimed at improving researchers’understanding of neutrinos themselves and ofthe fundamental nature of matter.

But despite their differences, the two projects have some things in common: eachis projected to cost about a quarter of a billion dollars to build, and each has alreadylined up some enthusiastic backers in Congress. IceCube, for example, secured $15 million in funding in 2002 and couldreceive another $25 million next year (seeNature 418, 573; 2002).

But the panel’s sterling endorsement ofboth projects is no guarantee that either willproceed. The National Science Foundationand Department of Energy will now reviewthe findings and decide whether to includethem in future budget requests. ■

Corporate chiefs told to follow animal urges

DA

RW

IN R

IAN

TO

& B

ILL

BE

LLO

N

© 2002 Nature Publishing Group