SYNCHROTRON accelerators produce hugely powerful X-rays, essential for
probing the structure of matter at the atomic level. They play a vital role in
the search for new medicines, plastics, textiles and the like. Recently, the
government announced that a new 拢200 million synchrotron was to be built
at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory near Oxford
(快猫短视频, 18 March, p 5).
Far from whooping with joy, MPs and community leaders across the political
spectrum are genuinely angry. This is especially so in north-west England, as it
means that the focus for synchrotron research will move away from Daresbury,
near Manchester, which is home to the current synchrotron source. And now top
scientists working at Daresbury have been told they will have to move to the
鈥済olden triangle鈥� of Oxfordshire. Some of them tell me they fear that the
upheaval of moving from Daresbury to the congested and expensive environs of
southern England could prove too much for their families. Must everything at the
cutting edge of science and technology go to the affluent south, they ask?
Their views carry some weight, but nowadays the crucial question when it
comes to siting a major scientific project is: 鈥淲here is it most likely to
succeed in its objectives?鈥� Britain鈥檚 partners in the synchrotron project claim
that it will have the best chance of success if it is close to the Rutherford
Appleton Laboratory. The French went so far as to threaten to withdraw from the
project if it was set up elsewhere. The Wellcome Foundation, which will be a
major financial contributor to the project, is just as anxious that it should be
sited in Oxfordshire.
Advertisement
I, for one, trust the Wellcome鈥檚 judgement when it comes to matters of
funding. It has stood by the University of Dundee鈥檚 vast biotechnology project
and has shown that it is not geared to support 鈥渟outh鈥� against 鈥渘orth鈥�, but
rather to support the very best science.
WHEN it comes to thwarting the producers of hard drugs, Britain follows UN
and European Commission guidelines covering the export of 鈥減recursor chemicals鈥�
both within the European Union and to countries such as Peru and Colombia. Many
of these are common substances in perfectly legal use, but they can be diverted
to the production of illegal narcotic and mind-altering drugs.
According to the Home Office, the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs is now
proposing to add a whole new range of chemicals to the list of controlled
substances. These are specific chemicals that can be substituted for scheduled
ones in the illegal manufacture of hard drugs. EU countries will be obliged to
make 鈥渧oluntary agreements鈥� with the chemicals industry to prohibit any
transaction of the chemicals if they suspect that they are to be used
illegally.
The idea that there might be further restrictions has got Britain鈥檚 chemical
industry very hot and bothered. It claims that such measures could well prove
counterproductive, and that in any case a system of voluntary cooperation
already exists here, extending to non-scheduled chemicals. The Home Office says
that the government has no objections to the UN proposals because the
obligations regarding these chemicals are already being met here.
