¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ

NORMALLY I would be the last politician to complain about lack of publicity,
but when I tried to raise the issue of climate change during the general
election campaign, I remained unreported. The technological options for halting
the rise in greenhouse gas emissions were laid out in the latest report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation
(¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ, 10 March, p 12).

I suspect that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions
and the IPCC have got it about right. They say that known technologies can
achieve deep cuts in emissions over the next 100 years, stabilising the
concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at 550 parts per million,
without incurring large costs. However, critics of the IPCC report think that
this upbeat assessment may provide politicians with an excuse for
inaction—delaying any long-term targets for cutting greenhouse gas
emissions.

No doubt some of the members of pressure groups who sent questionnaires to
candidates about their attitudes to environmental problems such as global
warming are also ¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ readers. And 8 June—the day after
the election—may be just the time to start writing letters to successful
candidates who have made incautious promises. Never underestimate the power of
embarrassment.

IT IS wonderful how people who achieve distinction in their fields often have
appropriate names. The chairman of the Skin Forum UK is Jonathan Hadgraft, also
professor of pharmaceutical chemistry at the University of Greenwich. His aim is
to improve our understanding of skin permeability so that medicines can be
delivered through the skin more effectively. His problem is the shortage of skin
tissue, which has been made worse by publicity about keeping organs and tissue
for medical research without patients’ consent.

The rules covering the use of skin tissue are rather murky. Hadgraft says
that skin tissue is usually considered to be outside the remit of a normal
ethics committee, because researchers are not applying to conduct a specific
experiment on a volunteer. He has written to ministers telling them that there
needs to be an approved mechanism for patients to provide informed consent for
donation of their skin for research.

At a public meeting during the election, I told a questioner who was
concerned about hospitals keeping tissues that if she wanted to make a fuss, I
hoped she would not accept for herself the benefits of modern medical research.
To my surprise, I was gently clapped.

ALIEN species can have a terrible impact on native wildlife. In Britain, the
water vole has suffered a dramatic decline because of mink that escaped from fur
farms. And the American grey squirrel has ousted the native red squirrel over
much of the country. So it is good news that a meeting of the UN Biodiversity
Convention in Montreal recently agreed guidelines to clamp down on alien invaders
(¿ìè¶ÌÊÓƵ, 24 March, p 12).

The government intends to play an active part. Ministers tell me that they
recognise that British law needs revising and the DETR is reviewing what
measures can be taken to limit the impact of alien species. This review should
be finished by the end of the year. And despite this week’s general election I
fully expect the new ministers to continue this policy.