THE government can be fairly prompt and decisive on issues that fall within the remit of a single ministerial department. But when a whole host of powerful departments are involved such as the Home Office, the Foreign Office, the department of Health and the Ministry of Defence, are all involved, the response tends to be much slower.
So it was with the government鈥檚 response to the International Red Cross鈥� call last year to clamp down on work that could lead to the development of bioweapons. That was the first time since 1918 that the IRC had taken such an initiative in response to the threat of bioweapons. The problem is that it is virtually impossible to predict what work might lead to weapons. This, as Hans Blix and his team of UN weapons inspectors are finding in Iraq, is inherent in the 鈥渄ual use鈥� of many biological agents. Clearly, legitimate work on dangerous pathogens and toxins should be allowed provided there is a concerted effort to keep such substances secure.
Britain鈥檚 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act of 2001 creates a new legal framework to ensure the security of stocks of dangerous pathogens and toxins. Research laboratories are required to notify the Home Office of any stocks of specific pathogens and toxins that they hold, and to allow the police to make security checks.
Advertisement
I am not sure what else can be done other than to hope that scientists will meet one of the IRC鈥檚 recommendations 鈥� creating a code of conduct for their work.
THE Parliamentary and Scientific Committee is one of the most respected committes at Westminster. It ensures that both Houses of Parliament are informed about scientific methods in relation to policy and public affairs. The committee has over 200 members 鈥� MPs, members of the House of Lords, and representatives of scientific bodies, science-based industry and academia. The press is not invited to its meetings and views can鈥檛 be attributed to individuals.
Recently, under the chairmanship of Ian Gibson, MP for Norwich and former dean of biology at the University of East Anglia, the PSC held a meeting on hydrogen fuel cells. I sent a digest to transport ministers to get their views.
John Spellar, the transport minister, replied that recent work commissioned by the Department for Transport showed that internal combustion technologies could be made twice as fuel-efficient. However, that is likely to be the ceiling for improvements. Further progress on fuel efficiency will require a switch to carbon-free hydrogen or other fuels with equivalent carbon efficiency, such as biomass-based liquid fuels.
The minister added that the automobile industry expects it will be around 2020 before hydrogen fuel-cell cars are mass-produced. If current technological and cost barriers can be overcome, using hydrogen for transport would cut carbon emissions considerably. The government supports research and development programmes looking into ways of overcoming the initial barriers and setting up a hydrogen-technology vehicle and fuelling infrastructure.
This year Transport for London will be testing buses that run on hydrogen fuel cells, and fuel giant BP will support this by installing a hydrogen refuelling station. The Department of Trade and Industry is backing fuel-cell research under its New and Renewable Energy Programme, said Spellar.
Hydrogen cells are not just another good idea: they are an imperative for the second quarter of the 21st century.
