Letter: Museum plans
You report (This Week, 12 May) on the scientific plans of the Natural
History Museum. I should like to explain what these plans involve, and suggest
how the concerns of our scientific colleagues in other institutions can
be channelled most effectively to help the museum.
The museum is undoubtedly one of the world’s greatest centres for taxonomic
research. Its scientific work has three main components: curation of the
collections, a worldwide advisory service, including identification and
loans, and taxonomic research based on the collections. There is not the
slightest suggestion under the museum’s new plan that the museum will depart
from these areas, contrary to what has been assumed by some of the critics
to whom you refer in your article. The issues that face our museum are the
same as those facing virtually every other publicly-funded scientific institution
in this country, namely priorities and focus. The museum has for many years
recognised that it cannot actively research all of the animal and plant
groups, minerals and fossils represented in its collection. It is crucial
that we continue to be selective in our research, rather than spreading
ourselves too thinly.
We intend, therefore, to focus our taxonomic research into those areas
where we currently have the greatest strength, and where we see the greatest
need for our work. We have identified six such areas, where we already carry
out a great deal of distinguished taxonomic research and where we intend
to make a still greater taxonomic contribution. These are human evolution,
human health, environmental quality, mineral resources, biodiversity and
agriculture.
We certainly do not intend to compete with, copy or duplicate the work
of universities. On the contrary, we recognise that our unique resources
and skills complement those of many biology and earth sciences departments.
The need to focus our research into broad programmes is sharpened by
the museum’s financial position. In our corporate plan we present an urgent
case for additional funding from the government. I hope that the many scientists
who value our museum and recognise it as the unique treasure house that
it is will give us their support as we press our case.
Neil Chalmers Director Natural History Museum London
Letter: Technical fix
Susan Watts’s story (Technology, 5 May) had the headline ‘A technical
fix for the greenhouse effect’. However, it reported suggestions of the
Watt Committee on Energy for methods to reduce human carbon dioxide production.
These are not technical fixes for the effect. They are a set of difficult
and expensive methods to avoid a possible future problem.
A true fix would correct global warming if it were detected and before
it became a problem. Such fixes warrant consideration. For example, one
is suggested by vulcanism. Erupting volcanoes are known to blow reflective
compounds into the upper atmosphere with resulting immediate global cooling
which lasts for years. If global warming were detected then similar shielding
could be artificially generated while causes of the warming were corrected.
Note that global warming is an unproven hypothesis which derives from
very imperfect computer models. Evidence for or against the hypothesis is
at best inconclusive. In these circumstances, activities to detect global
warming and ideas to fix it if it became detectable are preferable to massive
industrial changes with reduced standards for all.
Richard Courtney Cheltenham Gloucestershire
Letter: Tidal chance
I read with some concern your statement in Comment, 21 April, that the
Thames Barrier will be obsolete by the year 2050 if sea levels rise by only
30 centimetres.
The Thames Barrier and other associated river works were designed to
withstand a ‘1-in-1000’ year flood in the year 2030 allowing for a rise
in sea level of 30 centimetres. This will allow the Thames to rise 1.7 metres
above the highest recorded level it has ever previously reached.
Should sea levels rise by more than 30 centimetres, this will only reduce
the ‘1-in-1000′ year chance of the Thames’ flood defences being overtopped,
not make the Barrier obsolete.
Ian Fallon National Rivers Authority Thames Barrier, London
Letter: Clinical research
Your article on the closure of the Clinical Research Centre (28 April)
is very fair in its report of recent history and the wide range of opinions
relating to recent events. Unfortunately, the title ‘The slimming of clinical
research’ neither reflects the content of the article nor the Medical Research
Council’s plans. The slimming of clinical research is very definitely not
what will result from closure of the CRC. The MRC has already agreed with
the Advisory Board for the Research Council that the resources which are
at present committed to the CRC will be reserved for the new clinical research
initiatives at Hammersmith and a number of other university centres. These
resources will be put to better use by strengthening clinical research through
the university system and in a way which will complement other major MRC
initiatives (for example, in clinical genetics, clinical neuroscience, human
physiology).
We are optimistic that the MRC will receive supplementary funding to
meet a significant part of the capital costs and the one-off constructing
costs associated with these new developments. At the end of the day, while
we may not have won the argument for a major new national centre, we shall
have achieved a major strengthening of clinical research in this country.
D. A. Rees Secretary Medical Research Council London
Letter: Eating words
The resolute optimism expressed by Roland Hirsch in his letter ‘Thought
for food’ (28 April) should entitle him to consideration for a high post
in the US government, if indeed he does not already hold one.
He would counter the adverse effects of climate instability on world
food production with (assumed) beneficial effects of governmental instabilities
in Eastern Europe. But very little nutritive value is to be found in a ‘list
of possibilities for increasing the world’s food supply’, however ‘endless’.
Warren Rayle Olmsted Township Ohio, US
Letter: Fume factor
The Brazilian pump attendant (This Week, 12 May) is being sadly misled
by her employer. The main hazard in the fuel mixture comes from methanol
vapour, and neither the gloves nor the goggles are going to prevent her
from inhaling it. There is not much point in wearing those enormous heavy
gloves, either: skin absorption is not a problem.
Tom Nash Sherborne Dorset
Letter: Wriggle in time
I was fascinated by Ian Redmount’s article, ‘Wormholes, time travel
and quantum gravity’ (28 April), but was surprised to see no mention of
the ‘many worlds’ interpretation of quantum mechanics.
With the many worlds interpretation there is no need for the ‘principle
of consistency’. If I were to travel backwards in time and kill my parents
before I had been born, this would not alter the fact that I have already
been born in my own personal history. But there will ‘now’ be a whole set
of universes in which I can never be born.
According to the article, the universe would somehow conspire to prevent
me from killing my parents, but if I was a decent shot, I reckon I would
stand a pretty good chance. However, probably some less drastic experiment
would be in order!
Ian Abbott Manchester
Letter: Fallout studies
Four years after the Chernobyl accident the media still confuse fact
with fallacy. It is incorrect that researchers ‘have just started field
trials to see if adding minerals to land could reduce the amount of radiocaesium
taken up by vegetation’ (This Week, 28 April). In July and August 1987 the
Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (ITE) at Merlewood conducted a field study
on the effects on the caesium-137 concentration in sheep of spreading bentonite
onto fell grassland. The results were presented at national and international
meetings and subsequently published in scientific journals.
In June 1987, Associated Nuclear Services (ANS) initiated a series of
studies in both glasshouse and field conditions on the effects of potassium,
calcium, rubidium and various fertiliser combinations on the transfer of
radiocaesium from upland soils to vegetation. The report was deposited in
the British Library and the results presented at international meetings
concerned with the impact of Chernobyl.
Both the ITE and ANS studies were funded by the UK Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food, and took account of work that was then in hand funded
by British Nuclear Fuels. Four years after the events at Chernobyl is an
appropriate time to acquaint the readers of New 杏吧原创 with the facts.
One fact is that scientists throughout Europe have learnt a great deal more
about the behaviour of radiocaesium in the environment than could have been
learnt from operating discharges or weapons-testing fallout.
P. J. Coughtrey Associated Nuclear Services Epsom, Surrey
We welcome short communications and reserve the right to edit the longer
ones. Write to: Letters to the Editor, New 杏吧原创, King’s Reach Tower,
Stamford Street, London SE1 9LS. We regret that we cannot acknowledge all
letters.