Features

What if your boss was an algorithm? Imagine a world in which artificial intelligence hasn’t come for your job – but that of your manager: whether it’s hiring new staff, managing a large workforce, or even selecting workers for redundancies, big data and sophisticated algorithms are increasingly taking over traditional management tasks. This is not a dystopian vision of the future. According to Professor Jeremias Adams-Prassl, algorithmic management is quickly becoming established in workplaces around the world.

We aren’t necessarily defenceless or impotent in the face of machines – and might even want to (cautiously) embrace this revolution.

Should we be worried? Last month’s A-level fiasco has shown the potential risks of blindly entrusting life-changing decisions to automation. And yet, the Oxford law professor suggests, we aren’t necessarily defenceless or impotent in the face of machines – and might even want to (cautiously) embrace this revolution. To work out how we should go about regulating AI at work, he has been awarded a prestigious €1.5 million grant by the European Research Council.

This will require a serious rethink of existing structures. Over the course of the next five years, Professor Adams-Prassl’s project will bring together an interdisciplinary team of computer scientists, lawyers, and sociologists to understand what happens when key decisions are no longer taken by your boss, but an inscrutable algorithm.

Employers today can access a wide range of data about their workforce, from phone, email, and calendar logs to daily movements around the office – and your fitbit. Even the infamous 19^th century management theorist Frederick Taylor could not have dreamt of this degree of monitoring. This trove of information is then processed by a series of algorithms, often relying on machine learning (or ‘artificial intelligence’) to sift data for patterns: what characteristics do current star performers have in common? And which applicants most closely match these profiles?

What we’re seeing now is a step change: algorithms have long been deployed to manage workers in the gig economy, in warehouses, and similar settings. Today, they’re coming to workplaces across the spectrum, from hospitals and law firms to banks and even universities.

‘Management automation has been with us for a while’, notes the professor. ‘But what we’re seeing now is a step change: algorithms have long been deployed to manage workers in the gig economy, in warehouses, and similar settings. Today, they’re coming to workplaces across the spectrum, from hospitals and law firms to banks and even universities.’ The Covid-19 pandemic has provided a further boost, with traditional managers struggling to look after their teams. As a result, the algorithmic boss is not just watching us at work: it has come to our living rooms.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing: algorithms have successfully been deployed to catch out insider trading, or help staff plan their careers and find redeployment opportunities in large organisations. At the same time, Professor Adams-Prassl cautions, we have to be careful about the unintended (yet often entirely predictable) negative side effects of entrusting key decisions to machine learning. Video-interviewing software has repeatedly been demonstrated to discriminate against applicants based on their skin tone, rather than skills. And that sophisticated hiring algorithm may well spot the fact that a key pattern amongst your current crop of senior engineers is that they’re all men – and thus ‘learn’ to discard the CVs of promising female applicants. Simply excluding gender, race, or other characteristics won’t cure the problem of algorithmic discrimination, either: there are plenty of other datapoints, from shopping habits to post codes, from which the same information can be inferred. Amidst a burgeoning literature exploring algorithmic fairness and transparency, however, the workplace seems to have received scant attention.

Understanding the technology is key to solving this conundrum: what information is collected, and how is it processed?

Existing legal frameworks, designed for the workplace of the last century, struggle to keep pace: they threaten to stifle innovation – or leave workers unprotected. The GDPR prevents some of the worst instances of people management (no automated sacking by email, as is the case in the US) – but it’s nowhere near fine-grained enough a tool. Understanding the technology is key to solving this conundrum: what information is collected, and how is it processed?

‘There’s nothing inherently bad about the use of big data and AI at work: beware any Luddite phantasies’, the professor insists. But employers should tread carefully: ‘Yes, automating recruitment processes might save significant amounts of time, and if set up properly, could actively encourage hiring the best and most diverse candidates – but you also have to watch out: machine learning algorithms, by their very nature, tend to punish outliers.’

Backed by the recently awarded European Research Council (ERC) grant, his team will come up with a series of toolkits to regulate algorithmic management. The primary goal is to take account of all stakeholders, not least by promoting the importance of social dialogue in reshaping tomorrow’s workplace: the successful introduction of algorithmic management requires cooperation in working out how best to adapt software to individual circumstances, whether in deciding what data should be captured, or which parameters should be prioritised in the recruitment process.

It’s not simply a question of legal regulation: we need to look at the roles of software developers, managers, and workers. There’s little point in introducing ‘AI for AI’s sake’, investing in sophisticated software without a clear use case. Workers will understandably concerned, and seek to resist: from ripping out desk activity monitors to investing in clever FitBit cradles which simulate your workout of choice.

‘There’s no such thing as the future of work’, concludes Professor Adams-Prassl. ‘When faced with the temptation of technological predeterminism, always remember to keep a strong sense of agency: there’s nothing inherent in tech development – it’s our choices today that will ensure that tomorrow’s workplace is innovative, fair, and transparent.’

Jeremias Adams-Prassl is Professor of Law in the University of Oxford, and a Fellow of Magdalen College. He tweets about algorithms, innovation, and the future of work @JeremiasPrassl.

The theory of thermodynamics, commonly associated with the steam engines of the 19th century, is a universal set of laws that governs everything from black holes to the evolution of life. But with modern technologies miniaturising circuits to the atomic scale, thermodynamics has to be put to the test in a completely new realm. In this realm, quantum rather than classical laws apply. In the same way that thermodynamics was key to building classical steam engines, the emergence of quantum circuits is forcing us to reimagine this theory in the quantum case.

In the same way that thermodynamics was key to building classical steam engines, the emergence of quantum circuits is forcing us to reimagine this theory in the quantum case.

Quantum thermodynamics is a rapidly advancing field of physics, but its theoretical development is far ahead of experimental implementations. Rapid breakthroughs in the fabrication and measurement of devices at the nanoscale are now presenting us with the opportunity to explore this new physics in the laboratory.

Whilst experiments are now within reach, they remain extremely challenging due to the sophistication of the devices needed to replicate the operation of a heat engine, and due to the high-level control and measurement sensitivity that are required. Dr Ares’ group will fabricate devices at nanometre scales, merely a dozen atoms across, and hold them at temperatures far colder than even deepest outer space.

These nanoscale engines will give access to previously inaccessible tests of quantum thermodynamics.

These nanoscale engines will give access to previously inaccessible tests of quantum thermodynamics and they will be a platform to study the efficiency and power of quantum engines, paving the way for quantum nanomachines.  Dr Ares’ will build engines in which the “steam” is one or two electrons, and the piston is a tiny semiconductor wire in the form of a carbon nanotube. She expects that exploring this new territory will have as great a fundamental impact on how we think of machines as previous studies in the classical regime have had.

This research could also uncover unique behaviours that open the way for new technologies such as new on-chip refrigeration and sensing techniques or innovative means of harvesting and storing energy.

The main question that Dr Natalia Ares’ recently awarded European Research Council (ERC project) seeks to answer is: what is the efficiency of an engine in which fluctuations are important and quantum effects might arise? The implications of answering this question are far ranging and could for example inform the study of biomotors or the design of efficient on-chip nanomachines. This research could also uncover unique behaviours that open the way for new technologies such as new on-chip refrigeration and sensing techniques or innovative means of harvesting and storing energy. By harnessing fluctuations, the requirements to preserve quantum behaviour might become less demanding.

Dr Ares’ findings will have applications in both classical and quantum computing. In the same way that Joule’s experiment demonstrated that motion and heat were mutually interchangeable, Dr Ares aims to link the motion of a carbon nanotube with the heat and work produced by single electrons. She is excited to exploit devices with unique capabilities to discover the singularities of quantum thermodynamics.

For the last six months, in every country, on every continent, politicians, policymakers and scientists have been convulsed by trying to locate and then do the ‘right thing’ in the face of COVID-19 – and very often, apparently, they have been failing.

For the first time, in a very long time, philosophical considerations have become the stuff of political debate and everyday conversation. Is it right to deprive people of their liberty or not; to dictate personal behaviour or not; to close borders or not; to protect life or the health service or the economy, or not?

For the first time, in a very long time, philosophical considerations have become the stuff of political debate and everyday conversation....The world seems stymied by ethical considerations: is there a right thing and, if so, what is it? 

The world seems stymied by ethical considerations: is there a right thing and, if so, what is it? These are not everyday questions, for most people and many politicians in particular stand accused of having done the wrong thing, taken the wrong decisions. But the Oxford Professor of Medical Ethics, (Dr) Dominic Wilkinson, is someone for whom these are everyday questions and he does not rush to judgement. He says, ‘Philosophy can help inform what we ought to do, given what we know.’

The trouble is, Professor Wilkinson says, the ‘facts’ appear to have changed in terms of our understanding of COVID-19 as time has progressed. What we know now, compared with what we knew even three months ago, is vastly different. And, says Professor Wilkinson, ‘You couldn’t make decisions based on what you didn’t know. You can only make decisions [and be judged] on what it was reasonable to do at a particular point in time....You can look back in two, five or ten years and see how things turned out. But even if a decision turns out badly – that doesn’t make it the wrong decision to have made at the time.’

‘Consequentialism’, as it is known in philosophy, commends considering what will follow (the consequences) when you make a decision. You consider what will (or may) happen if you take certain actions. And because of the imperfections of our understanding, Professor Wilkinson says, ‘Sometimes you have to make a decision in good faith.’

Clearly, from the multiplicity of approaches around the world to the pandemic, different governments and policymakers have come to different conclusions – both about the ‘right thing’ to do and the right thing to consider when making those decisions. Most, if not all, will have sought to preserve life. But whose life? A COVID-sufferer’s, a cancer patient’s, a person who loses their job? And mixed in with the question have been other considerations: should we prioritise saving the NHS and flattening the curve over individual liberty – and would this, anyway, achieve the over-arching aim of preserving life?

One canard which has dropped into the debate has been the notion that politicians are merely ‘following the science’. Although beloved by policymakers, Professor Wilkinson insists that science cannot make policy decisions, ‘In some limited instances, it may be ethically obvious what conclusion should follow from ‘following the science’. But with a novel virus, this is not the case....’

One canard which has dropped into the debate has been the notion that politicians are merely ‘following the science’. Although beloved by policymakers, Professor Wilkinson insists that science cannot make policy decisions, ‘In some limited instances, it may be ethically obvious what conclusion should follow from ‘following the science’. But with a novel virus, this is not the case....’

He adds, ‘Decisions involve values....There may be an obvious ethical answer to a straightforward question. But when you’re making an ethical and political decision, all sorts of different values are at stake – how to protect the well-being of people with COVID or of the unemployed or someone with cancer.

‘Science cannot tell us what values we should put weight on. These are ethical decisions – not scientific ones...What is more, science is messy and complicated and very often says different things and science will evolve over time.’

So how do we make sense of countries’ attempts to tackle the pandemic? Is anyone doing the right thing? According to Professor Wilkinson, ‘There isn’t a single right answer, it depends how you weigh up your choices. You need to distinguish between a number of things.’

Does this mean, then, that all decisions are equally valid...?  No, says Professor Wilkinson, ‘Context matters...Philosophers, justifiably reject the idea of ethical relativism. It might be difficult to work out the reasonable, right approach but there are definitely wrong choices

Does this mean, then, that all decisions are equally valid – another philosophical standpoint: ‘relativism’?  No, says Professor Wilkinson, ‘Context matters, what might be the right thing in the UK or the US may not be the right thing somewhere else. But that doesn’t mean it is just a matter of opinion. Philosophers, justifiably reject the idea of ethical relativism. It might be difficult to work out the reasonable, right approach but there are definitely wrong choices.’

For example, Professor Wilkinson, who is also a qualified doctor, says that ‘recommending non-evidenced based’ interventions such as chloroquine, or bleach could be seen as ‘morally wrong’ choices. But he says, ‘We will all make mistakes. There are some things, however, which are not just a matter of someone’s opinion.’

At some point in the future, when the pandemic and the policy decisions are reviewed and blame is apportioned, it may be possible to look back and say that some decisions were made in good faith, given the knowledge at the time, even though they cost lives – meanwhile, others will look wrong.

Consistency, says Professor Wilkinson, is key to ethical decision-making.  Where governments and politicians have failed to show consistency, it becomes difficult to justify decisions. But does that mean, henceforth, that the entire purpose of society should be given to preserving life – our national income should be entirely directed towards curing cancer?

At some point in the future, when...blame is apportioned, it may be possible to look back and say that some decisions were made in good faith, given the knowledge at the time, even though they cost lives – meanwhile, others will look wrong

‘No,’ says Professor Wilkinson. ‘We knew COVID was different from influenza [and needed to be approached differently].  But this is a novel epidemic rather than an endemic condition (such as malaria or TB) and so it is justified to treat it in a different way to the way we treat other healthcare threats.’

Key to the treatment of COVID-19, he says, was the fact that many people were going to be unwell at the same time, whereas cancer is a long-standing threat that is not going to go away. But, with fears of a second wave coming, Professor Wilkinson says, policymakers will soon have a different set of decisions, since it ‘may not be possible’ politically to take the same actions again in the face of a renewed virus. With concerns mounting about the impact on the economy and the reluctance of many younger people to be contained, the priority, he says, must be to ‘save lives’. But the mere number of lives saved is not the only thing that matters. ‘You need to consider the length of life and how the lives of the population are diminished [by intervention measures].’

These are hard questions for anyone, politicians included. It is not just a question of ‘following the science’, ‘this is about making an ethical decision about what might happen. And ethical decisions can be wrong’. There has been little time or opportunity for reflection, but says Professor Wilkinson, ‘Politicians have to balance a range of priorities, think seriously about how to act.’

Whether modern politicians are equipped for such considerations, is not something on which a good philosopher will venture an opinion. But trust is essential, Professor Wilkinson says, ‘Issues of credibility arise when there is inconsistency. We demand of our politicians a high standard.’

Whether modern politicians are equipped for such considerations, is not something on which a good philosopher will venture an opinion. But trust is essential, Professor Wilkinson says, ‘Issues of credibility arise when there is inconsistency. We demand of our politicians a high standard

Since the beginning of the crisis there have been frequent comparisons with wartime embattlement. From a philosophical point of view, it raises similar questions, ‘You have to balance costs and face ethical questions in much the same way...There are lots of parallels with the profound and difficult questions that countries face when they are at war.’

When all this is over, will there be the new world, the new normal of which so much is heard? As a doctor, Professor Wilkinson, believes there could be, ‘Many people who have faced serious illness reflect on their priorities...it helps to put their life into perspective.’

But, he says, ‘The trickiest time is still ahead. We could be facing something worse than the first wave and we will need to take decisions on things such as who gets the vaccine first...there are many more ethical decisions than just the lockdown. We don’t know yet what people will tolerate – what they will do.’

The blame game has a long way to run – particular for those whose decisions do not stand up to scrutiny.

The UNAIDS estimates that 38 million people currently live with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Combination antiretroviral treatment has had great success in saving lives but is also associated with numerous medical and public health challenges. Vaccination remains the best and most cost-effective option for controlling HIV infection across the world. Professor Tomáš Hanke jointly from the University of Oxford, UK, and Kumamoto University, Japan, designs vaccines and coordinates clinical programmes testing the most advanced vaccine candidates developed by his team in the UK, Europe, USA and Africa.

Ending AIDS with vaccination

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) type 1 represents 95% of all HIV infections worldwide and is responsible for the global HIV pandemic. If untreated, HIV-infected patients develop acquired immunodeficiency syndrome – better known as AIDS – that manifests as a progressive failure of their immune system. As a result, patients eventually succumb to opportunistic infections. Combination antiretroviral treatment (cART) has transformed the lives of people living with HIV, and dramatically decreased AIDS-related mortality and onward transmission of HIV.

Unfortunately, the provision of cART to everybody who needs it faces many obstacles particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The cost, complexity of the treatment, necessity of regular monitoring of patients, threat of drug resistance, side effects, social stigma and the use of cART to prevent HIV infections (or pre-exposure prophylaxis), which further stretches the cART supply, make cART a suboptimal therapeutic and an unlikely stand-alone tool to end the HIV epidemic. Therefore, an effective vaccine for both prevention and cure of HIV is urgently needed.

Professor Tomáš Hanke and his team at the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford, UK, together with their collaborators at the Joint Research Center for Human Retrovirus Infection, Kumamoto University, Japan, are studying T cell responses to HIV to inform vaccine development. In addition, Professor Hanke oversees Experimental Medicine trials of his leading T-cell vaccine candidates in healthy and HIV-positive people at several global sites and collaborates with prestigious universities and organisations such as the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative, IrsiCaixa AIDS Research Institute-HIVACAT in Spain, Imperial College London, the Kenya AIDS Vaccine Initiative-Institute for Clinical Research and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. He also co-ordinates the ‘Globally Relevant AIDS Vaccine Europe-Africa Trials Partnership’ consortium, acronymed GREAT, which builds research capacity and tests vaccine candidates in Eastern and Southern Africa, and is one of the principal investigators of the European AIDS Vaccine Initiative 2020.

Rational iterative development

Most of today’s HIV vaccine research focuses on antibody-mediated immunity, which neutralises cell-free viruses and typically involves exposing people to the outer HIV spike. However, to achieve HIV control, antibodies may need to be complemented by T-cell responses, the focus of Professor Hanke’s research. There is no doubt that T cells contribute in an important way to anti-HIV immunity, whereby CD8 T cells known as ‘killer cells’ directly kill virus-infected cells, the virus factories, and CD4 T cells or ‘helper cells’ assist and co-ordinate antibody and T-cell induction. ‘The trick is to induce not just any, but protective killer T cells that can slow or stop HIV,’ explains Professor Hanke.

The first clinically tested vaccine that Professor Hanke and his colleagues developed was called HIVA. It was derived from an African clade A strain of HIV and was tested in over a dozen clinical trials. Following the field’s full appreciation of the HIV’s enormous ability to change, Professor Hanke improved his approach by focusing vaccine-elicited T cells on the functionally conserved regions of HIV, which are common to most HIV strains and essential for virus survival. If successful, such a vaccine could be deployed universally in all global regions.

The prototype conserved immunogen was called HIVconsv (to emphasise conserved in addition to consensus sequences) and assembled highly conserved HIV regions into a chimeric protein alternating the global major HIV strains. This vaccine showed encouraging results in initial small clinical trials and informed the design of the second-generation conserved vaccines called HIVconsvX. Notable HIVconsvX improvements include the use of bioinformatics to redefine conserved regions and increase the vaccine match to the global HIV variants by using a so-called ‘mosaic’ design. The HIVconsvX vaccines entered clinical evaluation in 2019 with further trials in the pipeline.

The importance of vaccine vectors

The quality of vaccine-elicited T-cell responses is strongly influenced by the way HIV immunogens are introduced into the body. The utmost priority is safety and Professor Hanke and his colleagues test all potential vaccine vectors intended for human use in mice and macaques first. The three most promising modalities that progressed in combination to human studies were 1) plasmid DNA, 2) engineered adenovirus of chimpanzee origin, the parent of which causes a common cold-like disease in monkeys, and 3) a poxvirus modified vaccinia virus Ankara (MVA), an attenuated smallpox vaccine used safely in many people during the smallpox eradication campaign. None of these three vaccines is replication-competent and can grow in the vaccinees’ body or spread to the environment; they are safe.

The HIVA vaccine was delivered by a combination of DNA and MVA and induced only weak T-cell responses mainly because of the inefficient DNA prime. Induction of T cells by the HIVconsv vaccines was greatly improved by the addition of the chimpanzee adenovirus. However, the adenovirus-MVA combination without DNA was as good as all the three vectors together and was therefore chosen for further studies.

HIVconsv vaccination-induced strong T cells that recognised multiple sites on the HIV. Vaccine-elicited T cells in HIV-negative volunteers in Nairobi, Kenya, were capable of a broad cross-clade inhibition of HIV under laboratory conditions. The HIVconsv vaccines were also tested in ‘kick-and-kill’ studies in early treated HIV-positive individuals. During infection, HIV integrates into the host chromosome, stops expressing its proteins (‘falls asleep’) and becomes invisible to the immune system, but regularly reactivates. This means that to eliminate HIV from the body, all sleeping HIV first needs to be awakened, or ‘kicked’ before it can be killed by the vaccine-induced killer T cells.

In a small pilot ‘kick-and-kick’ study in Barcelona, Spain, the HIVconsv vaccines together with an HIV-reactivating drug provided a signal of sustained suppression of HIV replication after stopping cART. Although a marginal result, it was very encouraging and warranted further testing of the ‘kick-and-kill’ strategy with these vaccines as an HIV cure.

Understanding the consequences of HIV variability

A successful vaccine needs to elicit killer T cells capable of reaching HIV-infected cells and killing them to stop virus growth. To be safe and effective, the killer T-cell assault must be sufficiently specific and efficiently target vulnerable parts of the HIV from the very first exposure to the virus. However, HIV is extremely variable and this makes it very good at avoiding the T-cell attack and escaping. There is lots of supporting evidence that people’s genetic makeup, the sites on HIV that killer T cells target and HIV escape are the major determinants of how well individuals fight HIV and scientists need to understand these processes in great detail.

Some T-cell responses are better at protecting than others. In the past, attempts to understand which parts of HIV should be targeted for protection often looked at responses to the whole virus and/or full-length virus proteins as units. This blurred the analysis because within each protein there are both stable and variable regions and these are not equally protective. Professor Hanke’s strategy exploits the stable and therefore vulnerable parts on HIV proteins.

This idea was supported by studies of Professor Hanke’s colleagues at Kumamoto and Tokyo Universities. HIV-infected patients, who never received any cART, controlled HIV better and were healthier (had more CD4 cells in the blood) if they targeted the same regions as used in the vaccine. This is an important observation endorsing this vaccine approach.

The quest for improvement

Although Professor Hanke’s strategy is rational and, so far, supported by good experimental results, many challenges remain on the road to an effective T-cell vaccine.

To be efficient, T-cell responses must, upon HIV exposure/reactivation, rapidly reach the sites of HIV growth within the patient’s body, kill infected cells and produce anti-HIV chemicals, be in sufficient numbers, and recognise multiple vulnerable regions at the same time to make escape difficult. It is plausible that if any one aspect of these T-cell properties is suboptimal, the vaccine may fail.

Professor Hanke and his colleagues study T-cell responses induced by HIV infection and vaccination in order to further refine the vaccine immunogens and their vector delivery. Novel and sometimes small but significant step-by-step improvements are tested in pre-clinical investigations and human trials. ‘Iterative improvements are best informed by human data, the only species that ultimately matters,’ says Professor Hanke.

Finally, new-born babies, children and adolescents, some of whom have acquired HIV perinatally, that is, via mother-to-child transmission, or babies who are exposed to HIV through mother’s milk, remain somewhat unique populations because of their young and, if treated soon after birth, relatively preserved immune system. To date, there have been several hundred HIV vaccine trials in humans, but only a very few tested candidate HIV vaccines in these age groups. Yet, childhood vaccines are the biggest success of vaccinology. Professor Hanke and his colleagues tested the HIVA vaccine in African neonates as the first step towards preventing mother-to-child transmission through breastfeeding and are planning to revisit these age groups using the conserved mosaic vaccines.

Satellite images of the earth’s surface are familiar. From Google Earth to estate agents’ websites, space age technology is used to bring us images of the world in which we live. And there has been regular exciting news from archaeologists about an entire new city or settlement discovered in the desert or on a remote hilltop, lost to generations, found thanks to satellite imaging.  

There are pictures of almost every country on Earth, from space. But there has been one key area which it has not been possible accurately to view with satellites, frustrating archaeologists keen to study the region. That area is Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) - a region packed with the history of ages and civilisation, where feet really did walk in ancient times.  

There has been one key area which it has not been possible accurately to view with satellites, frustrating archaeologists keen to study the region. That area is Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) - a region packed with the history of ages and civilisation, where feet really did walk in ancient times

A long-standing prohibition in the United States, known as the Kyl-Bingaman Amendment, meant that archaeologists studying the region could not use US satellite technology – which was the main source for many years, although Israel itself put good quality images of its territory on its own mapping agency website.  

Two Oxford archaeologists, Dr Michael Fradley and Dr Andrea Zerbini, decided to do something about it. And recently, following concerted effort over several years, reform of the prohibition was allowed. Restrictions over the sale of US high-resolution satellite imagery over the region was reduced on the Federal Register on 21 July. It was a significant victory.  

Dr Fradley maintains, ‘This ruling opens up many opportunities for research for archaeologists and many other disciplines which use Earth observation, such as for monitoring evidence of climate change and water exploitation. And it is a big win for science...

‘A century ago, the Cambridge botanist Hugh Hamshaw Thomas, who served as an RFC/RAF intelligence officer on the Palestine front during the First World War, highlighted the value of aerial photography for scientific study in the Levant in a paper in the journal Nature. But this potential has rarely been achieved. Hopefully, this long-overdue reform will help reverse that trend with regards to more recent satellite imagery’. 

This ruling opens up many opportunities for research for archaeologists and many other disciplines which use Earth observation, such as for monitoring evidence of climate change and water exploitation. And it is a big win for science

This reform success has been hard-fought. It all started because the Oxford pair came up against the barrier. Their work was part of the Arcadia-funded, Endangered Archaeology of the Middle East and North Africa (EAMENA) project. It uses satellite imagery to identify and monitor archaeological sites across the MENA region.  

Three years ago, they found most archaeological sites in the OPT were not visible on the available low-resolution imagery. According to Dr Fradley, ‘It was a major barrier to our work. The imagery available was very low resolution – because of the US restrictions. We decided to find a way around it.’ 

They did find a way. The Kyl-Bingaman Amendment contained a reform mechanism that meant restrictions would be lowered, if companies outside the US were selling their own satellite imagery at a higher resolution than the level set by the US restrictions. And things had changed.The US was no longer the only supplier; Airbus provided imagery.  The archaeologists found the French company had been producing sub-2m resolution of Israel from at least 2012. But nobody in the US had been effectively monitoring the situation. Since that time, several other companies outside the US had also surpassed the 2m level, including the South Korean company Kompsat. But, from an academic perspective, US satellite imagery offered the potential for open-source free access – essential for academic uses.  

The Oxford pair tried to argue their case, with little response – although no one in the scientific community argued that the restriction should be retained. But they persevered, publishing an agenda-setting paper on the restrictions in the journal Space Policy and working with the Washington-based policy group al-Shabaka. Finally, the US regulator relented, lowering to the restricted level to 0.4m as the archaeologists had argued, a level achieved by the Kompsat K3A satellite.

The decision to lift the prohibition has ‘huge implications', according to  Dr Fradley. ‘We haven’t been able to access some areas in occupied territories and this will make an enormous difference. 

‘We will be able to record archaeology of the region on a granular level and have a much more objective view. We will be able to see if there has been damage to sites and, potentially, [if they secure access to retrospective imagery] identify where sites have been lost.’ 

The decision to lift the prohibition has ‘huge implications’, according to Dr Fradley. ‘We haven’t been able to access some areas in occupied territories and this will make an enormous difference. 

Dr Fradley explains, ‘Israel has its own mapping of the entire country and a well-developed and well financed antiquities authority...but we haven’t had accurate imagery for the OPT. More data is of more benefit.’ 

Commenting on the news, Dr Jack Green, Associate Director of the American Centre for Oriental Research, based in Amman, Jordan, says, ‘The release of this more detailed satellite imagery will help provide many archaeologists and cultural heritage professionals with the vital additional tools needed to document and monitor sites and landscapes under their care from continual threats of urban encroachment, agricultural development, looting, vandalism, and other unauthorized activities. This is especially important for monitoring areas which are difficult or impossible to gain access to for security reasons.’ 

Dr Carol Palmor, Director of the Council for British Research in the Levant, also based in Amman says, ‘This represents an essential step for the protection of heritage in Israel and Palestine, with profound implications for many years to come. Furthermore, it is a brilliant example of the impact of research on policy and international legislation.’

This represents an essential step for the protection of heritage in Israel and Palestine, with profound implications for many years to come. Furthermore, it is a brilliant example of the impact of research on policy and international legislation

This successful reform has been bittersweet. In July last year, Dr Andrea Zerbini passed away of a rare cancer at the age of 34, when it still appeared that the restrictions would not be lifted. The present reform would have delighted him, and the decision is a lasting tribute to the research in Space Policy, in which he was a prime mover.