THE fate of the tiny island of Gruinard, just off the Scottish mainland between Ullapool and Gairloch in the Highlands, has long been an interest of mine. During the Second World War it was the site of an anthrax test on sheep to investigate the possibility of using the bacterium as a biological weapon. So I read with interest a recent letter in the London Review of Books (24 January, p 4), from Bill Gilmour of Ullapool. In it he claims that an outbreak of anthrax occurred on the mainland in 1943 that 鈥渁lmost killed off a good part of the naval forces that were holding onto the North Atlantic by their frozen fingertips鈥�. I decided to ask Lewis Moonie, the minister for veterans鈥� affairs, for a comment.
Moonie said that archives now in the public domain show that following the tests there was an anthrax outbreak on the mainland which was said to be caused by an infected sheep being washed ashore from Gruinard. Between September 1942 and March 1943, seven cattle, two horses, three cats and between 30 and 50 sheep died on the nearby mainland, he added. However, the then Ministry of Agriculture said that only two of these deaths were caused by anthrax. The trials were not responsible for any deaths or illnesses among the naval forces.
In the years following the anthrax trials, scientists from Porton Down visited Gruinard regularly to assess how badly contaminated it was, Moonie said. Surveys between 1979 and 1985 revealed that contamination was less widespread than previously thought.
Advertisement
In 1986 the island was decontamined with formaldehyde and seawater. Soil samples taken in October 1986 and July 1987 showed residual pockets of anthrax spores, but tests in October 1987 found no trace of the disease. A flock of sheep set to graze on the island flourished, and the treated land was reseeded and produced luxuriant growths of grass. An independent panel said: 鈥淭he chances of persons or animals contracting anthrax on Gruinard Island are so remote that the island can be returned to civil use.鈥� It was returned to its previous owner鈥檚 heirs in 1990. The transfer deed included a warrant that the island was fit for habitation and free from anthrax contamination. However, said Moonie, the owner insisted that the deeds include an indemnity clause to provide cover against any loss due to anthrax in the 150 years after transfer.
TOM WATSON, MP for West Bromwich East, is to be commended for introducing a 10-minute-rule bill, albeit only as a kite-flying exercise, to update the law on organ donation. He is in favour of 鈥渟oft, presumed consent鈥�. Under this, the law would assume that adults are willing to donate organs after their death unless they opt out.
Given that it would still be important to be sensitive to the needs of family members and to discuss donation with them, Watson said that organs should not be taken if doing so would cause major distress to a close relative or long-term partner. This, he suggested, would relieve relatives of the burden of making the decision and would also be a general shift of emphasis in favour of donation. Donation would be seen as the norm rather than the exception, but clinicians would still be required to consult relatives in all cases. Watson said the change would only apply to adults, so parental consent would still be sought for donations from children.
Crucially, Watson has the support of the British Medical Association in this matter. I didn鈥檛, back in the 1970s, when I tried to introduce similar legislation. Now, in 2002, the NHS is desperate for more donors, and more people on the Organ Donor Register. In England, for every organ that becomes available, there are three or four patients waiting for it. That is why Watson鈥檚 campaign deserves to succeed.