So many people have asked me what the result of the election will be! I'll be glad when it's over - or will I?

During the day, the President of the Review Conference, Ambassador Cabactulan announced that agreement had been reached on the setting up of three subsidiary bodies which will focus more in-depth on the specific topics of practical nuclear disarmament, regional issues (including the Middle East resolution), and institutional issues of the Treaty. This doesn't sound like much but, in terms of the long and slow diplomatic process, marks a positive achievement, and the focus can now turn to the substantive issues and the associated negotiations.

There does seem to be a lot of common ground on issues such as the value of continued nuclear arsenal reductions, the need for progress on the resolution on the Middle East, the importance of the entry into force of the CTBT, the desire for negotiations of a FMCT, and (unfortunately) the right to develop nuclear energy for “peaceful purposes”. But significant differences remain - especially regarding views on nuclear weapons and security. Although Switzerland pointed out that nuclear weapons have no use as they are immoral and illegal, France insists on their importance and while the P5 emphasized their “unprecedented progress and efforts" in nuclear arms reduction, disarmament, confidence-building and transparency, Egypt clearly stated that the nuclear weapon states have not changed their inflexible military doctrines and continue to rely on arguments based on nuclear deterrence.

Today I was involved in two workshops - in the morning the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) had organised a session on "Nuclear Weapons in Europe - for a Nuclear Weapon Free World". I presented the situation in the UK and the possible consequences of the election. There were also interesting reports from Germany, Italy and Holland and some discussion on the use of Non Violent Direct Action (NVDA) tactics from groups such as Nukewatch and others who organise events across the US in an attempt to highlight the issues. There were reports also of experiences at the recent Aldermaton blockade and Falsane 365.

In the afternoon I was speaking at a session on "Misuse of brain power: the conversion of science and technology for human and environmental needs". This was arranged by the International Peace Bureau (IPB) and International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP), and was chaired by Reiner Braun (INES) and a major focus was the military industrial complex. Subrata Ghoshroy (a whistleblower on the US missile defence system from MIT) clarified the strong economic relationship between the Pentagon and universities in the US. Here, links between the Department of Defense and academia make universities dependent on military research, and leads to biased science. Subrata encouraged students and faculties to unite in opposing militarism, urged the anti-war movement to prioritize the opposition of military research at universities, and stressed the need for scientists and engineers worldwide to support the adoption of the uniform civil clause.

Jackie Cabasso, from the Western States Legal Foundation, criticized the recent increased funding for nuclear laboratories by the Obama administration which strengthens the nuclear infrastructure, and enhances nuclear capabilities. She also questioned the right of scientists to answer ethical, political, and societal questions with technical answers, and stressed that the role of scientists is not to make policy. From the same organisation, Andy Lichterman confirmed the political and economic power of the institutions within the military industrial complex and emphasised that because of the false assumption that these institutions are politically and economically neutral, change is not likely to come from within. A strong social movement working for the development of alternative institutions devoted to healthcare, education, and social needs is required.

I talked mainly about the ethical dimension of research and described how, although scientific and engineering research in the UK has to be conducted in an ethical manner, the ethical considerations do not apply to the products of the research. So scientists might build weapons of mass destruction but still be considered ethical. I also highlighted the work of Scientists for Global Responsibility in the UK and how through publications such as "Soldiers in the Laboratory" they have shown the increasing dependence of university research on military work. In addition, local industries are also becoming increasingly involved in military contracts because, especially in times of financial crisis, they often see defence work as safer and more likely to expand. Owen Greene (from Bradford University Peace Studies Department) discussed the neccessity of political will and the urgency of ensuring that investments in science and production are transparent. He also suggested that civil society movements should be aware of the challenges of scientists in countries like India, Pakistan, and Brazil. The Q&A session covered issues such as the need for an interdisciplinary approach to challenge the military industrial complex, the connection between the ratification of the CTBT and funding for nuclear laboratories.

In the evening there was a special screening of the new film "Countdown to Zero" from the Global Zero Campaign. Dawn and Ben from National CND attended this and we will be discussing how we can use it when it is released in the UK in the near future.

Alan Mackinnon and I were invited by Judith Le  Blanc from Peace Action to meet her and some members from Le Mouvement de la Paix for a social get together. Our groups have been working closely together on a number of events here in New York and it was great to have the chance to chat together about other things for a change. A lovely evening - thanks Judith!