men blindfolded by turns, and then enquired of them,

if they heard the rapid motions of the Aurora. Tey

soon became sensible they did not, and yet so powerful
was the Illusion of the eye on the ear, that they still
believed they heard the Aurora. What is the cause that
this place seems to be in the centre of the most vivid
brightness and extension of the Aurora: from whence
this immense extent of electric fuid, how is it formed,
whither does it go. Questions without an answer.
With the onset of the heroic age of British Arctic
exploration in 1818, the Admiralty made it a high
priority to provide answers to these questions.
Te scientifc members of John Franklins Arctic
land expedition of 1819-22, however, could not
distinguish its rustling noise, of which, however,
such strong testimony has been given to us, that no
doubt can remain of the fact. On occasions they came
tantalisingly close to this perception: we imagined,
more than once, that we heard a rustling noise like
that of autumnal leaves stirred by the wind; but after
two hours of attentive listening, we were not entirely
convinced of the fact. Unable to hear them, they did
receive testimony of auroral sounds from a credible
source. At Fort Chipewyan in 1821, a fur trader from
the North West Company told them of an aurora so
powerful that the Canadians fell on their faces and
began praying and crying, fearing they should be
killed; he himself threw away his gun and knife that
they might not attract the fashes, for they were within
two feet of the earth [...] and made a rustling noise,
like the waving of a fag in a strong breeze.
In most scientifc accounts of aurorae in the 19
th

century there was a distinct tension between describing
the wondrous spectacle of the Northern Lights while
disciplining the emotions and avoiding superstition.
Whereas British expeditioners could not hear the
Northern Lights, they continued to collect strange
stories from sources they generally trusted. For
example, even a prominent sceptic like Captain George
Lyon could describe the air of magic during one
stormy night in the Arctic and write how he had never
contemplated the aurora without experiencing the
most awful sensations, and can readily excuse the poor
untutored Indians for supposing that in the restless
motions of the Northern Lights, they beheld the spirits
of their fathers roaming in freedom through the land
of souls.
Given that scientifc experts continued to profess
profound uncertainties about the nature of aurorae
up to the 1940s, why did testimony on auroral
audibility not force a change in approach? Partly, this
was due to the wider disciplining of the heavens that
was associated with the rise of meteorology and the
decline of folk weather knowledge and prognostication
during the Enlightenment. But it was also because
most reports came from permanent inhabitants of
Arctic Canada: fur traders and indigenous inhabitants.
Tinking about the Northern Lights, therefore, has
historically involved assessing who is best qualifed to
observe them. Tis continues to play out nowadays
in conversations between seasoned feld scientists and
aurora watchers who all know of someone who heard
the Northern Lights.
Yet, recent data from Finland has reignited the debate
on whether the Northern Lights can make sounds. In
2012, researchers from Aalto University recorded a
series of cracking or whipping noises during an auroral
manifestation. Tese, they claimed, were formed
about 70 metres above ground level (rather than in
the atmosphere) and were caused in some way by the
geomagnetic disturbances associated with the aurora
borealis. Te researchers noted that auroral audibility
was a rare phenomenon and that details about how the
auroral sounds are created are still a mystery.
As 2013 heralds a period of solar maximum, it
behoves travellers and scientists in the Arctic to
remember what the fur traders said and continue to keep
their ears, as well as their eyes, open.
Shane McCorristine is a Marie Curie/Irish Research
Council postdoctoral fellow at NUI Maynooth and
the Scott Polar Research Institute
Have You Heard the Northern Lights? 7 Easter 2013
P
U
B
L
IC
The aurora
borealis is a natural
light phenonmenon,
sometimes visible
at northern polar
latitudes
A CENTURY AFTER Gregor Mendel proposed
the idea of inheritance and nearly fve decades
since the structure of DNA was deduced, we have
come to realise that many human diseases are
linked directly to our genes. From infections to
heart disease, scientists have revealed associations
between many debilitating illnesses and the diferent
versions of genes, known as alleles, that people
carry. Understanding the genetic basis of disease has
revolutionised the way we diagnose, monitor and
treat illness, but it has also raised the question of
whether the scientists who discovered these genes and
their disease associations own their discovery, and to
what extent should they be rewarded for their work.
Te idea of patenting human genes is one that has
been the subject of much contention and controversy.
Pharmaceutical companies, as well as many academic
scientists, have carried out the majority of the research
into the molecular basis of disease in the hope of
generating a proft from their discoveries. Scientifc
research is an expensive business, and patenting can
give labs fnancial security in promoting innovation
and funding future projects. But, many scientists,
medical professionals and non-proft organisations
argue that it is unethical to charge a fee to those who
seek to know if they carry a disease-causing allele, and
that such information should be freely available to
prevent unnecessary human sufering.
Gene patenting is once again in the spotlight as
the United States Supreme Court is set to rule on
a lawsuit that has dominated the debate on human
gene patenting and decide whether the molecular
diagnostic company Myriad Genetics can patent
the BRCA1 and BRCA2 (Breast cancer type 1/2
susceptibility proteins) genes, giving them the sole
right to perform diagnostic tests.
BRCA1 and BRCA2 were discovered and sequenced
in the early nineties, from a woman with a strong
family history of breast and ovarian cancer. Normally,
BRCA proteins repair DNA when damage is detected.
However, a small number of people have a form of the
BRCA gene that is unable to reverse the DNA damage
causing genetic material to accumulate within a cell
leading to the development of cancer. Carrying an
abnormal copy of either BRCA1 or BRCA2 increases
the risk of breast and ovarian cancer development by
up to 60 per cent. Te discovery of the BRCA genes
was a major scientifc advance in genetics, enabling
screening of high-risk women for susceptibility alleles
and therefore allowing early medical intervention and
ultimately saving many lives.
Myriad, a company founded by one of the
scientists who initially discovered BRCA, was granted
a patent in 1997 and holds the rights for detecting
gene mutations to diagnose cancer, as well as using
the genes to identify novel drugs directly targeting the
BRCA proteins. Te controversy surrounding gene
patenting stems from the refusal of Myriad to licence
its genes to labs wishing to use BRCAs for clinical
testing. Although Myriad will allow other researchers
to study the genes for free, it is the sole provider of
BRCA1 and BRCA2 diagnostic testing in the US,
allowing them to set a market price of around $3000
for a full analysis of the genes.
Te company relies solely on the patents to
generate its proft. However, its patent is due to
run out in 2014 although they hope to extend it
as in the US a patent has a 20 year term from the
Kevin C-C Chen explores the implications of a Supreme Court ruling on BRCA cancer gene patents
8 The Myriad Genes Easter 2013
C
h
r
is
T
o
s

P
A
N
A
Y
i
d
u
l
l
h
u
N
K
The cycle path from
Addenbrookes
Hospital to
Great Shelfold in
Cambridgeshire
features the BRCA2
gene sequence.
The Myriad Genes
fling date, but can be extended if it relates to a
human or animal drug product. Te American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-proft organisation
that advocates individuals rights, together with
the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), has
challenged whether the patent should stand and
have brought a lawsuit against Myriad. Te outcome
of the judgement will determine the fate of genetic
research and every one of us who may seek medical
attention for diseases in the future.
In the US, like most other countries, patenting
natural law is not allowed. For example, the law of
gravity can be observed anywhere in the world, and
the usage of such law is not (and cannot possibly be)
restricted by a simple patent. Te patent for genes
is a more complicated issue. Although patent law
cannot protect natural phenomena, DNA historically
has been regarded as a sequence of chemicals
determined by humans, and therefore not seen to be
natural. Tis is because as recently as the 1990s, to
sequence just one gene was considered a mammoth
task. Te frst complete human genome sequence was
published in 2003 at a cost of billions of dollars and
joint efort across the globe. As protection for their
efort and fnancial investment, many companies and
academics fled patents for the genes they discovered,
so they could secure the fnancial benefts the genes
might bring. Tis was the case for Myriad, who beat
their European competitors to patent the BRCA
genes and as a result enjoyed great success through
the sale of diagnostic tests.
Biotech companies argue that having the patents
does not just reward their hard work but also
allows their labs to focus solely on mutations
that might occur in the patented genes. Myriad
suggested that their company studied the mutations
more thoroughly before publishing them, in
comparison with other laboratories that simply
reported the mutation without showing how it
causes cancer. Tey claimed that the company had
invested in building their facility to constantly
improve and maintain the quality of their testing
kit. Furthermore, most biotech companies only
pursue litigation for those who seek to proft, not
the majority of scientists who work on the general
studies of the genes.
Te ACLU, however, argued that the patents
have slowed the progress of understanding BRCA
mutations. Although there are currently 8000
publications on the genes, according to the journal
Nature, Myriad had prevented at least fve researchers
from testing women directly following the studies.
Moreover, a study carried out by Professor Mary-
Claire King of the University of Washington, whose
group was involved in the initial studies of the BRCA
genes linkage with cancer, suggested that Myriads
test kit, Comprehensive BRCAnalysis, did not pick
up a number of mutations that are signifcant in
the development of cancer. Additionally, Myriads
fgures show that the company made $402 million
in revenue, of which 90 per cent was directly from
the test kit, in the fscal year ending June 2011.
ACLU argued that Myriad has already been rewarded
fnancially for the discovery of the BRCA genes. If
the restriction imposed by the patent had been lifted,
progress in the understanding of how diferent BRCA
alleles lead to cancer could have improved signifcantly.
Critics of Myriad believe that patients are losing
out as a result of the patent. For many people
in Europe, health care is provided freely. More
importantly, the BRCA patents in Europe are held
by Cancer Research UK, a charity, which ofers a
diferent diagnostic kit than that from Myriad and
free licensing to any reputable laboratory that wants
to use it. For US citizens, however, the expensive
price tag will have prevented many from accessing
the test for BRCA alleles and any early disease
intervention. More worryingly, Myriads own testing
has suggested that for Latino women, an entire 20
per cent of all mutations can only be detected by its
supplementary test, costing an additional $700 and
not covered by many insurers in the US.
Since 2009, the journal Nature has been following
the progress of the lawsuit between Myriad and
ACLU. In March 2012, the federal court ruled in
Myriads favour. Te Supreme Court then requested
the court to reconsider, but in August the court ruled
in Myriads favour once more. Since then, ACLU
and the PUBPAT have asked the Supreme Court
to reconsider certain aspects of the case. On 30
th

November 2012, the court decided to answer the
question of whether the human genes are patentable.
Te ruling is expected later this year. Whatever
the decision, the Supreme Court will not just be
deciding on the fate of one biotech company, it will
be deciding on the future of gene patenting, and the
implication it has for patients around the world and
the scientifc community as a whole.
Kevin C-C Chen is a 2
nd
year PhD student at the
Department of Medicine
The Myriad Genes 9 Easter 2013
M
iK
E

M
iT
C
h
E
l
l
Purifed dNA,
fuorescing orange
under UV light,
can be isolated
and used for
sequencing.
IM DOING A FREE operating system (just a hobby,
wont be big and professional)... announced a young
Finnish PhD student to an internet message board
on the 25
th
of August 1991. In the two decades
since Linus Torvalds made this announcement, what
started as a small and amateur operating system has
revolutionised the IT world. Linux, as it is known,
now runs over 60 per cent of the worlds internet
servers, powers over 90 per cent of the worlds
supercomputers and holds a signifcant share of the
smartphone market through Android.
At the time of Linuxs conception there were several
similar projects developing experimental operating
systems for research purposeseither to directly
research operating system design or as a platform for
other research. However, Linux stood out from the
crowd because it was made open-source. Tis means
that as well as being given a copy of the compiled
machine code that the computer understands, users
are also given the human readable source code
that they are free to modify and improve. Tese
modifcations are then submitted back to maintainers
who test the changes and incorporate them into the
ofcial release. Tis model is very similar to the one
used by projects such as Wikipedia, where anyone is
free to edit and improve the content.
Torvalds found that this model for software
development worked very wella community of
academics from other universities throughout the
world could freely collaborate on his project through
the internet. In particular, this meant that each
contributor could work on the particular area that
most interested them, and in which they were most
highly skilled. People worked on Linux because they
enjoyed doing so and because improving Linux would
beneft their own work and the work of others across
the globe.
Another pioneer of the open-source movement is
Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software
Foundation, the FSF. Although Stallman shared
Torvalds opinions as to the pragmatic benefts of the
open-source development model, he had his own
more philosophical reasons for despising the classical
closed source development model.
In the early 1980s, Stallman worked at MITs
Artifcial Intelligence Lab, where something of a
hacker culture existed. In its true meaning, hacking is
the digital equivalent of the car enthusiast tinkering
with their engine to improve performance, so
this wasnt hacking in the popular sense, but was
more about having a thorough understanding of a
system in order to improve it. Tis geek culture was
challenged when in 1980 the lab upgraded to the
top-of-the-range Xerox 9700, the frst commercially
available laser printer and a technological
breakthrough according to the manufacturer.
However, the new printer proved to be a step
backwards as far as the MIT lab was concerned. In
an efort to improve the usability of their previous
printer, the group had modifed it so that it would
message the job owner when their print job was
done or if an error had occurred. However, Xerox
refused to make the source code available for the
new printer, believing that doing so would put their
intellectual property at risk. Tis made it impossible
to edit the software of Xerox products and efectively
made the process of technological development a
sealed box.
Stallman was infuriated. He felt that as the owner,
he should be able to do whatever he pleased with
the printer, including modifying its source code. So,
in 1984 he initiated the GNU project to develop
an operating system that would put its end users in
control, allowing them to modify their system as they
pleased. Although the GNU project itself has not
released a fully working operating system, its freely
available suite of utility programs can be combined
with the Linux kernel, the central core of the
10 Open for Everyone Easter 2013
Haydn King describes the open-source software movement and two of its most striking characters
Linus Torvalds is
the creator of what
has become one of
the most important
computer operating
systems

L
in
u
x
m
a
g
.c
O
m
Ja
m
E
s

c
O
n
a
n

B
a
K
E
r
Open for Everyone
operating system, to create what is often referred to as
GNU-Linux, or just Linux.
In a video to mark the 25
th
anniversary of the GNU
project in 2009, Stephen Fry publicly supported the
project, saying why cant the community at large
alter and improve [an operating system] and share it,
thats how science works after allall knowledge is
free and all knowledge is shared in good science. If it
isnt, then its bad science and its a kind of tyranny.
So, how did a loosely knit group of academics
with lofty ideals put together an operating system in
their spare time to rival that of Microsoft and Apple?
Linuxs decentralised and ad-hoc methodology made
contributing to the project straightforward and
allowed each part of the system to be written by an
expert. But even this cannot explain how such an
outft has won 60 per cent of the server market given
the vast resources of its competitors.
Te truth is that Linux is no longer only worked
on by academics in their free time. Although Linux
continues to rely upon the work of its community
of users, over 70 per cent of the work is now carried
out by paid developers. Some of these developers are
paid by hardware giants such as Intel who see that the
improvements made to Linux software will in turn
improve the operation of their products and services,
which rely on the Linux operating system.
Other companies that pay their workers to
improve the Linux operating system include Red
Hat and Novell, both of which make money by
selling accredited Linux distributions and support
contracts. Tis may seem strange; why would anyone
be willing to pay for something they can get for free?
Furthermore, neither company is allowed to keep any
of their modifcations secret. Tis means that they
are essentially selling exactly the same thing as can be
obtained from any of several entirely free distributions.
When asked why companies come to him and
pay for what they could get for free, Red Hat co-
founder Bob Young likened the question to one about
ketchup: Ketchup is nothing more than favoured
tomato paste. Something that looks a lot like Heinz
ketchup can be made in your kitchen sink without so
much as bending a copyright rule... so why dont we,
as consumers, make ketchup in our kitchen sink?
Te answer is obvious: it is cheaper and more
convenient to buy ketchup from the local Sainsburys
than to make it yourself, in the same way as it is
cheaper to pay Red Had or Novel to fne-comb and
provide technical support for Linux distributions.
Reliability is key when companies and organisations
buy software, and you cannot guarantee the security
of a piece of software unless you can see exactly how
it works. NASA even have an expression that says:
software is not software without the source code.
However, despite numerous attempts, Linux has
never broken into the mainstream PC market. Tere
are several reasons for this. Linux still struggles with
its image of being too complicated and difcult
for the average user, even though user-friendly
distributions such as Ubuntu are as simple to use
as the alternatives in most cases. Competitors have
been able to establish complete dominance by using
aggressive marketing techniques such that even with
our current competition laws, buying a new PC
without also having to buy a Windows licence is
practically impossible.
An area in which Linux has been gaining ground
quickly in recent years is in the software that is
available on it. While Linux itself is still the largest
single open-source software project, there are a
number of other projects that have thrived under the
open-source model. Te Mozilla Firefox and Google
Chrome internet browsers now have nearly 80 per
cent of the browser market share between them, and
both are entirely open-source and cross-platform
projects. An entire ecosystem of applications has
been built using the model, from ofce suites such
as LibreOfce to music players like Amarok, many
of which are also available on multiple platforms
besides Linux.
Just as the free software movement is bigger
than Linux, the open-source ideals extend beyond
software. From the ideas of Stallman and his
contemporaries came the notion of the copyleft
licence, the most famous of which are the Creative
Commons licences. Tese licences can be applied
not just to software, but to all forms of creativity
writing, media, art and scientifc worksand allow
authors to share their work with others, who can
build on it without fear of copyright infringement.
Open-source focuses on making applications as
good as they possibly can be rather than on selling as
many units as possible, and so the software produced
is often far more fexible than closed alternatives.
Tat is the open-source ethos.
Haydn King is a 4
th
year undergraduate at the
Department of Engineering
Easter 2013
Linux-based
operating
systems are used
to run most
of the worlds
supercomputers,
such as Blue
Gene/P
a
r
g
O
n
n
E

n
a
T
iO
n
a
L

L
a
B
O
r
a
T
O
r
y
B
E
a
T
r
ic
E

m
u
r
c

H
richard stallman,
promoter of the
free software
movement. and
founder of the
Free Software
Foundation
2013 marks the 100
th
anniversary of the Medical
Research Council (MRC). Many have heard of this
iconic institution, but few might realise the impact
its research has had on our daily lives. Tis year,
the MRC will be opening its doors to members
of the public to reveal some of the life-changing
research programmes that it funds. An emphasis
on collaboration is a running theme, with many
of their most recent discoveries being carried out
in collaboration with the Welcome Trust, Cancer
Research UK, or with one of the many other
funding bodies in the UK. But it hasnt always been
this way.
Te MRC grew out of the Royal Commission
to research the most pressing medical problem in
the UK in the early 20
th
century: Tuberculosis.
Funds came from the 1911 National Insurance
Act. Te money was to be spent on research carried
out by investigators in approved institutions, the
frst science institutes in the UK. Te frst of these
continues today in North London as the National
Institute of Medical Research. In 1913, 100 years
ago, the Medical Research Committee and Advisory
Council was established. Tis was the single research
organisation for the UK, developing and funding
their own research programmes and providing
funding for research by other individuals or
institutions that complemented their own.
Today, the MRC is a non-departmental public
body funded through the governments science and
research budget. Tere are 56 MRC units, centres
and institutes across the UK and in Africa. Te
MRC supports research in all areas of medicine. Last
year alone, the MRC funded 1,100 grants totalling
over 309.9 million. In Cambridge, the MRC is
currently committed to awards totalling over 130
million. It provides around 700 jobs in Cambridge
at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology and
its other units and many more through the grants
held in the University of Cambridge, and other local
research institutes.
Te MRC has a long history in Cambridge. In
1944, the MRC set up the Applied Psychology
Research unit with Cambridge Universitys
Department of Psychology. Te unit made advances
in the feld of service personnel research, such as the
selection of aircrews, pilot fatigue and the design
of aircraft controls and instruments. After the war
it made a number of major contributions to our
understanding of such psychological processes as
attention and memory and continued to tackle
practical problems. For example, the unit was
responsible for the heptagonal shape of our 20p
and 50p coins. Research into the lives of the blind
or partially sighted revealed that a range of entirely
circular coins were incredibly difcult to tell apart by
touch, leading to much frustration for the partially
sighted. Te introduction of the heptagonal coins
removed much of the difculty, as each British coin is
now distinctively diferent to both sight and touch. In
due course, it was renamed the the MRC Cognition
and Brain Sciences Unit. Tis more modern
counterpart is engaged in active collaborations with
many other research institutes, and uses a range of
brain imaging techniques.
Other major contributions in Cambridge by MRC
units over the years span such felds as nutrition,
protein engineering and cancer, covering topics
12 Commemorating a Commission Easter 2013
Felicity Davies celebrates the centenary of the Medical Research Council
James Watson
(middle) and
Francis Crick (right)
discovered the
structure of DNA
in what is now
called the MRC
Laboratory of
Molecular Biology
M
a
r
Jo
r
ie

M
C
C
a
r
t
y
Commemorating a
Commission
J o
s
e
p
h
i n
e

B
i r
C
h
the heptagonal
shape of our 20p
and 50p coins was
introduced to make
the coins more
deistinguishable
Jo
h
n
W
o
B
e
r
t
as diverse as the biology of mitochondria, and the
contribution of genes and lifestyle to the incidence
of diabetes across Europe. One of the most exciting
breakthroughs was the discovery of the helical
structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953
in what is now called the MRC Laboratory of
Molecular Biology (LMB). With the invention of
DNA sequencing techniques by Fred Sanger, also at
the LMB, the stage was set for the human genome
project, with the Cambridge contribution led by
John Sulston who moved from the LMB to found the
Wellcome Trust supported Sanger Institute, where
much of the UK efort was undertaken.
To coincide with the centenary, change is
happening for the MRC. In Cambridge, the new
building for the LMB is complete, and research
groups have been moving in since February 2013.
Te previous building was opened by the MRC
in 1962, and was home to 9 Nobel Prizes, shared
between 13 scientists at the LMB. As a result, the
institute was nicknamed Te Nobel Prize Factory.
Te new building is the fagship building for the
extension of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and
the MRC hopes that it will continue to provide frst
class facilities to some of the worlds leading scientists.
Te laboratory will have cost 212 million, and will
provide space for more than 400 researchers. Te
overall structure of the new building is evocative
of paired chromosomes, with two long laboratory
areas joined by a large entrance hall, containing
seminar rooms and a lecture theatre. In keeping
with the concept of partnership, the University have
contributed towards the cost of the building, which
will also house several University research groups.
Some may argue that not much has changed
since the Royal Commission; the aim of the MRC
remains frst and foremost the furthering of medical
knowledge and understanding through scientifc
research. Te biggest change in the last 100 years has
been an increase in collaborations between research
bodies. Te MRC was founded as the frst research
body of its kind, but today, there is a wealth of
research funding institutions, including sister research
councils to the MRC. In Cambridge, the MRC works
very closely with Cancer Research UK, the British
Heart Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Adrian
Penrose, Regional Communications Manager for
Cambridge and the Midlands has described it as a
catalytic coming together of scientifc expertise.
With the complexity of the research questions to be
addressed, and the need to bring together scientists
from across the biological, physical and social sciences,
collaborations have become invaluable. Expertise and
experience are now found in a wide range of locations,
and it is only by pooling knowledge and fnancial
resources that research can be done efectively.
Te MRCs centenary year will be a way of
emphasising these collaborations. As it moves
into its next 100 years, the MRC is embarked
in a new form of collaboration, the university
units, to strengthen the ties between the MRC
and their academic research colleagues. As well as
collaborations with universities, the MRC is also
developing more collaborations with industry. Te
latter has had less money to spend on research,
which has spurred on partnerships between industry
and research bodies. Tis is particularly the case in
the feld of pharmacology, not least as a number of
the expensive drugs are starting to come of patent.
Late in 2012, the MRC announced a deal with
AstraZeneca, a large UK pharmaceutical company.
Te company agreed to allow scientists access to
certain compounds that did not go all of the way to
becoming patented drugs. Tese compounds might
nevertheless be useful for a diferent research area.
Access to data from the pharmaceutical industry can,
if shared, save valuable time and money, and allow
scientists to make new discoveries.
Te centenary year will be used by the MRC to
extend their reach to a wider community. Te MRC
units regularly take part in the Cambridge Science
Festival, and in June they will open their doors in
the frst MRC open week. More than 40 units and
centres will be open to the public, some for the
frst time, so that members of the public can see for
themselves the work carried out by the MRC.

Felicity Davies is an MPhil student at the Faculty of
Philosophy
Easter 2013
D
a
v
iD
-
p
-
h
o
W
a
r
D
the new building
for the MRC
Laboratory of
Molecular Biology
was completed in
2013
RECENTLY, A DEAD carrier pigeon with a secret
message from World War II was found during
renovation of the chimney of a house in Surrey. It
is believed that the message was sent from Nazi-
occupied Normandy in June 1944. Te encrypted
message has been sent to the UK Government
Communications Headquarters to be deciphered, so
far without success. Te amount of press surrounding
this incident is uncommon for a subjects that usually
stays out of the limelight: cryptography. Te purpose
of cryptography is to alter a message in such a way
that it makes no sense to anyone except for the
intended recipient. In the past it was only used by
governments and the military, but nowadays everyone
who surfs the internet uses it, whether they know it
or not.
Cryptography started with simple methods: Caesar
is known to have used an encryption in which each
letter of the alphabet is shifted by a fxed distance (for
example, message turns into nfttbhf by replacing
each letter by its successor). Te distance by which
the letters are shifted is called the key. If the recipient
knows the key, then he can easily decipher the
message. Te idea is that anyone who doesnt have
access to the key has no chance of understanding the
coded text. However, Caesars code could be easily
broken if his enemy knew the method of encryption.
For this reason it was necessary to invent more
complex codes to ensure the security of the message.
Tis was the beginning of the battle between friends
and enemies, governments and criminals, code
makers and code breakers.
By World War II, the encryption techniques had
developed signifcantly. Te Germans enciphered
their messages with a mechanical coding machine
called Enigma, which they thought was unbreakable.
But some machines and encryption keys fell into the
hands of the British forces, and so British military
intelligence, frst and foremost Alan Turing, were able
to decipher the code and thus change the course of
the war. Teir efort drove the development of the frst
programmable electronic computer, the Colossus.
Tere is a method of encoding messages that is
provably unbreakable: it uses a random sequence of
numbers (the key) to turn the message into a string
of letters which looks entirely random. Decoding the
message is easy for the recipient who has access to the
key, but it is impossible for anyone who doesnt know
it. Each key can only be used oncehence the name:
one-time pad.
However, the one-time pad isnt widely used.
Te problem that this method shares with all other
encryption techniques developed before the 1970s
is the distribution of keys. It was thought that
encryption and decryption is a symmetric process:
that the same key is needed to encrypt a message and
to reverse the encryption. For this to work, both the
sender and the recipient of the message have to be
in possession of the same key. But as the Germans
experienced in World War II, this is a risky business;
keys can be lost by accident, corruption, or blackmail.
A breakthrough came with the inception of public
key cryptography. Before its invention, enciphering
a text was essentially a mechanical procedure
designed to muddle up the letters. However, using
mathematical techniques, it is possible to design
codes that are asymmetric. Every person has a pair of
keys, a private key and a public key. Te private key
is kept secret and the public key is made available
to everyone. If two people, Alice and Bill, want to
have a secure conversation, they dont have to meet
in order to agree on a key. Alice just sends a message
to Bill by encrypting it with Bills public key, and Bill
uses his private key to decrypt it. Te asymmetry of
the mathematics working in the background ensures
that the message cannot be decoded except with Bills
secret private key.
Te asymmetry behind public key cryptography
is obtained by mathematical operations whose
computation is easy in one direction, but very
time-consuming in the other. For instance, the RSA
algorithm, named after its inventers Ron Rivest,
14 Cracking Codes Easter 2013
Philipp Kleppmann deciphers the advance of cryptography throughout the centuries
D
a
n
ie
l

K
u
P
e
r
m
a
n
enigma, the
machine used
by the Germans
to encipher
messages
Cracking Codes
e
m
il
y

P
iC
r
o
f
t