THE editorial 鈥淪urfing for a Satan bug鈥� (快猫短视频, 20 July, p 5) provided a truly chilling read. It questioned whether putting huge quantities of genetic information on public databases gives bioterrorists an easy route to construct hideous bugs. Science minister David Sainsbury tells me that it鈥檚 an area ministers and government officials are now monitoring closely.
And so they should, for as the article pointed out, the genome sequence for deadly Ebola is no more difficult to download than that for the peanut mottle. If no action is taken, the complete genome of the deadly 1918 influenza virus could soon be available, and I shudder to think what bioterrorists might do with it. Equally worrying is the fact that scientists reported in January that they had made Ebola using 鈥渞everse genetics鈥�.
Fortunately, Britain has the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) legislation, due to come into operation in November, though the Department of Trade and Industry is considering some changes. Among them is a 鈥渞equirement to keep confidential information which the Secretary of State [for Trade and Industry] determines should not be disclosed in the interests of national security鈥�.
Advertisement
But a balance is needed to ensure that this aspect of the regulations does not hinder the communication of bona fide academic or commercial research. Ministers see a need to tackle the thorny issue of confidentiality. It is a new and difficult concept for most scientists that handle these deadly bugs.
Clearly, in the wake of 11 September 2001, there can be a real conflict between national security and the desire for academic freedom. The Health and Safety Executive will need time to draw up the necessary guidelines on confidentiality in sensitive matters. Research scientists will also need time to assimilate and act upon them. But at least the law has the area covered.
FOLLOWING on from my recent note on fuel cell technology (快猫短视频, 14 September, p 53) I was interested to learn from energy minister Brian Wilson the breadth of the government鈥檚 support for fuel cells and hydrogen research. He says current expenditure under the Department of Trade and Industry Advanced Fuel Cells Programme stands at about 拢2 million. There have been three LINK projects, to encourage cooperation between industry and academia in this area.
The DTI also supports R&D through SMART awards, grants to young companies for innovative technological projects. A typical example is the 拢45,000 to Greenheart Millennium Transport to develop an ultra-light fuel-cell micro cab in London. The project now has funding to test a fleet of the cabs. Another example is an award of 拢35,000 to Nottingham-based Ion Scientific which will use atomic force microscopy to investigate fuel-cell performance.
The Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) also helps fund a range of fundamental research into topics related to fuel cell/hydrogen research at universities. This rose from 拢51,415 in 1988-1989 to 拢2.75 million in 2001-2002, giving a total of 拢13.29 million between 1988 and 2003. On hydrogen research, the EPSRC鈥檚 funding for 1992-1993 was 拢68,013 and this is due to rise to 拢1.15 million for 2002-2003, giving a total of 拢2.43 million between 1992 and 2003.
For all these sums, large enough or not, I can鈥檛 help but think Britain should be further ahead in energy production and transport systems using this important technology.
