MARGARET THATCHER and I had an intriguing exchange at the end of the 1970s.
At a Prime Minister鈥檚 Question Time, I asked her if she could persuade her Dutch
counterpart to explain a mystery of the day: how crucial secrets were stolen
from the world鈥檚 most advanced enriched-uranium enterprise at Almelo in the
Netherlands, only to turn up in Pakistan. It could, I suggested, prove more
damaging to world peace than anything done by the earlier 鈥渁tom
spies鈥濃�攊ncluding even the notorious Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Americans
who passed on nuclear weapons secrets to the Russians.
Thatcher was on the ball and replied that Britain had already protested about
this matter. She implied that 鈥渁 person鈥� who had worked at the Urenco plant at
Almelo had smuggled out secrets of the enriched-uranium process and gone to work
in Pakistan. The government, she said, would attempt to ensure that nuclear
weapons did not proliferate in Pakistan.
The 鈥減erson鈥� was soon identified as a Pakistani, Abdul Qadeer Khan. During a
debate in the House of Commons on nuclear weapons in the early 1980s I told MPs
that if I had nightmares, they were about a Libyan or Pakistani bomb. But now we
were being told that Iraq had also been making nuclear weapons for some years,
so I could add that.
Advertisement
What, I wonder, is likely to happen in the wake of the American bombing of
Afghanistan? Khan, who became the architect of Pakistan鈥檚 nuclear programme, has
retired. What if his dreadful work gets into irresponsible hands?
The nightmares of two decades ago are back to haunt me. It is not in my
character to say 鈥淚 told you so鈥�, but watch out.
SHOULD parents have the right to choose whether their child will be a boy or
a girl, or even what colour eyes they have? Should companies be able to recruit
staff on the basis of their genetic makeup, and should insurers be able to
refuse cover if you have a particular gene? These are just some of the many
complex issues that must be considered if 鈥済enetic labelling鈥� of people is ever
allowed to become a reality.
Sandy McCall Smith鈥攑rofessor of medical law at the University of
Edinburgh and vice-chairman of the government鈥檚 Human Genetics
Commission鈥攈as declared that he is deeply concerned about the moral
implications of genetic labelling. He asserts, and many scientists will agree,
that it could soon become a reality. Pre-implantation diagnosis would certainly
make it possible to select embryos that have characteristics desired by the
prospective parents. The House of Commons should at least debate such
issues.
The commission is giving the government advice that Parliament and the public
are certain to find reasonable and helpful. My fear is that these issues, along
with so many other important matters, will fall by the parliamentary wayside
because of the time needed to discuss the implications of 11 September and the
war in Afghanistan.
I AM ONE of a number of MPs who have received a cri de coeur from Ian
Halliday, chief executive of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research
Council. Parliament must sit up and pay attention to this call. If British
physicists are to deliver life-enhancing benefits, world-leading skills and
stimulate innovation and economic competitiveness, the government must continue
to give the PPARC generous financial support.
The PPARC has played important roles in unexpected fields. For example, in
health matters it has funded technologies leading to major breakthroughs in
diagnosis, such as magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography.
Moreover, it has contributed to developments in the treatment of cancer and
provided real-time X-rays for use in dental surgery. A well-funded council is
certain to bring further significant benefits.