The Bewilderness

The Chimera Controversy

The Department of Health dropped the ball; or, there are elements of the civil service who hoped to reverse the liberal humanist approach to genetics adopted by the government. This is one of the few admirable stances that the Blair government has undertaken, consistent with its contempt for religious closure, and attraction to 'the new'.

Chimera are embryos that include a small amount of non-human DNA, usually sourced from pigs or cows. Such chimera are claimed to provide more efficient resources in studying diseases. When a white paper was published last year prohibiting the production of chimera, a campaign was soon introduced to reverse this policy. The Human Genetics Commission, an advisory body, recommended that chimera should fall under the regulatory authority of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Since there is no other body that regulates human genetic science in the United Kingdom, this was a circumlocution for government policy to replace prohibition with regulation. Such matters woudl always have been regulated, anyway.

A public seminar held by the Science and Technology Committee heard that both the Government's chief scientific officer and the chairman of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority's ethics committee were in favour of research on hybrids.

Stressing that such "cytoplasmic hybrid" research should be tightly regulated, Sir David [King]said: "We want to see that suitable controls are in place. But I am also very keen to see that the UK continues at the forefront of stem cell research and maintains its reputation as an attractive place to do research in this area.

"My view is that cytoplasmic hybrid research should be enabled. I don't think we want to see a blockage on that. I do think that scientists who wish to explore this avenue should be able to do so."

This is an important development for genetic science. Where regulatory permissions have pushed against the 'yuck' factor, governments hold consultation exercises and assess the popularity of the proposed research. For chimera, the consultation exercise developed a healthy majority in favour of prohibition from a self-selecting religious minority, motivated by belief to submit moral denunciations. The Department of Health assumed that a minority spoke for the majority. Following a swift campaign, they found a suitable path to retreat. Consultations will no longer govern policy decisions as pro-genetic interest groups are more activist. Moreover, the government and civil service may no longer consider the 'yuck factor' to be a sufficient precondition for prohibition. The result of the 'chimera controversy' could be a more considered and rational policy for genetic research and stem cells, maintaining research centres in this country. 

Afghanistan: An Unwinnable War

You cannot shoot your way to victory in Afghanistan, but do you need to tell your enemy that? The politicians have created a politically correct war:

In a significant shift in tactics, senior British officials have stopped talking about winning a war. "We do not use the word 'win'," one said. "We can't kill our way out of this problem."

They do have some useful foundations for their policy. The Taliban is recognised as a disaffected coalition of  disparate elements, some of whom can be won over through redress of their economic circumstances.

British officials are worried about the consequences of US proposals to eradicate Afghanistan's opium poppy harvest, which include spraying the crops from the air, a policy it adopted in Colombia.

The fear is that tough anti-narcotic measures now would alienate poor farmers who have no alternative livelihood and drive more Afghans into the hands of the Taliban. Such a policy would further endanger British troops, military commanders say. "The Americans are more impatient than we are," said one official, adding that the immediate priority should be to target and disrupt "convoys and laboratories and medium value drugs traffickers".

Counter-insurgency operations take years to win. The 'war on drugs' and the eradication policies favoured, are a huge handicap to ISAF in Afghanistan.

However, British diplomats are also guilty of developing reconstruction in Afghanistan through the structures of Karzai's Presidency, taking a top-down approach to the provinces. The huge corruption, the lack of district elections and the sidelining of the legislature, all indicate that diplomats believe they know best how to spend money in the country through a favoured administration ignoring the constitution established and the people actually voted in to scrutinise  budgets.

Afghanistan is a western backed elective dictatorship now, since it is far easier to deal with an executive than a messy democratic structure. This will also cause significant problems over the medium term.

Falklands: Argentina recognises its imperialist ways

The Argentinian ambassador has refused to attend a commemoration service on the 25th anniversary of the Falklands War. Nevertheless, a soft ray of sunshine flows....

"They have given it the character of a victory celebration and, given that, we cannot take part," Mr Taiana said during a visit to South Africa. "We consider the Malvinas to be an archaic colonial situation and in the 21st Century the persistence of this situation is difficult to explain."

The Argentinian government understands that attempting to conquer territories against the wishes of the native population is wrong and they have agreed to purge their culture of this imperialist chip that afflicts them. They really need to move on from their "archaic colonial" mindset.

How Long can Iraq Go On?

The reduction of British troops in Iraq to 5,500 does not bring our occupation of Basra to a standstill. This alone was not sufficient to stimulate the shrill voices of the Dardanelles, such as Simon Jenkins. For any mention of the war is inflected through the priapic honour of our Tone during his purported final  days in office.

With the collapse of parliamentary scrutiny the prime minister answers for his actions only in press interviews. Last week’s encounter with the BBC’s John Humphrys was another eerie voyage to planet Blair. The response to any bad news was, “Well, Saddam was a murderous, bloody tyrant”, and to any criticism, “Well, yunno, I disagree.” Blair regards the laws of cause and effect as inoperable in his case. Remove the framework of government from a nation and the consequence is “not my fault”. If the ensuing mayhem leads to tens of thousands of deaths it is “not my fault”.

If too few troops are sent to restore order and thousands more are killed, responsibility is still denied. Blair no longer seems to believe that conquering, in his war on terror, is about governing, at least when the news is bad. Responsibility is a will-o’-the-wisp, to be grasped for a soundbite and then set free. Criticism is a job delegated to history.

Does this mean that the Iraqi war is now purgative and purgatory, with honourable withdrawal or looming disaster the only outcomes? Raymond Whitaker of the Independent describes how expectations have lowered to fit the reduced resources of the armed forces and predicts even further overstretch.

All this contributes to frustration among many soldiers. Rather than resources being fitted to the mission, the mission has constantly been redefined to fit the resources. In January 2003, Britain's vision for postwar Iraq was "a stable, united and law-abiding state" that would pose no threat to its neighbours or to the world, "and providing effective representative government to its own people".

This month, the Ministry of Defence set out less ambitious conditions for withdrawal, including "a manageable level of threat from insurgents" and "effective local government", as well as the ability of Iraqi forces to deal with the terror threat and coalition forces to back them up. As Michael Knights and Ed Williams, two Iraq experts, pointed out in a paper for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "even these goals are far from being achieved".

How long can this go on?

British Council is EUNIC, but no longer unique

The British Council announced that ten offices in Europe would shut so that funds could be diverted to the Middle East and Asia. Part of this diversion is admirable: an attempt to undermine the attraction of the Salafist ideology for impressionable youths. Scepticism rises over the small sums allocated in comparison to the rich charities that fund madressehs in all Muslim countries.

Martin Davidson, director general designate of the British Council, said it was "time to tackle the new challenges the world faces."

These included "building trust with the Islamic states and China," Davidson told the Press Association.

The council would scrap "traditional arts activities" in Europe, such as orchestral tours and artistic commissions, in favour of projects "designed to prevent Muslim youths from being indoctrinated by extremists sympathetic to al-Qaeda," the Times said.

This project is coordinated by a new leader of the British Council, who also stated that they would be working with their  European partners to promote common values. The British Council belongs to EUNIC, the European Union National Institutes for Culture, and this new organisation was launched on the 21st February 2007 (pdf file). Is it any coincidence that, as soon as the British Council is submerged within a pan-European body, its focus is aimed at the Middle East and China? Even the small details begin to back up Mark Steyn.

Tit twitch at designer babies

The government has accepted that embryos may be modified for genetic research, with the possibility of germ-line alteration further down the road, if safe and efficacious.

A draft Bill for legislation to replace the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is being prepared with the intention of including a full Bill in the Queen's Speech next November. But Mr King called on the Government to "draw the line" at GM embryos.

Although the White Paper says genetic alterations of eggs, sperm and embryos "should not be permitted for reproductive purposes" it adds that this is only "for the foreseeable future, and until such time as safety and efficacy are assured".

The paper says the Government "is not, however, convinced of the need to preclude research activities that would involve altering the genetic structure of the embryo".

Dr Michael Antoniou, a gene therapist at Guy's Hospital, London, was concerned that even though germ-line therapy was too dangerous to attempt, the White Paper signalled the acceptance of safe germ-line modification of embryos.

Dr Richard Nicholson, the editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, said: "Every country that has legislated on this subject has banned it.

"Thus the British Government's decision breaks ranks with the international community, and may lead to the perception that Britain is a haven for irresponsible and profit-driven scientists."

The Greens, masquerading under the banner of ethics, cannot stand even the possibility that such options may be explored. Any development in a science that they consider unethical and unnatural must be prohibited. No doubt, millions of irresponsible scientists, driven by profit, are planning to immigrate into the United Kingdom and turn our children into Midwich cuckoos. These people are tits.

Counter-Terror: MI8 or MIA?

Counter-terrorism policy in the United Kingdom has become intensely politicised. The centralised role that Dr Reid intends to fill with a new Secretary of State for National Security presents another step into the fantastical world of V for Vendetta. Labour is so divorced from Orwell that they are unable to view the authoritarian discourse that they habitually extend to everyday life. Reid has run into opposition from other Departments who view the step as an ejection seat at escape velocity from the Home Office debacle and robbing the robes of Cameron's Homeland Security policy. It is not Reid a' robbing from the Etonian to the poor ex-communist, as Homeland is not National.

The police are also unable to agree whether there should be a national co-ordinator for counter-terrorism, fingered as the current co-ordinator at the Met: Peter Clarke, Deputy Assistant Commissioner at the Met in charge of counter-terrorist policy. The new institution would be composed of three hubs has run into opposition from the Chief Constables in England and Wales. There is also no question over how Scotland would fit into this structure, giving the lie to devolution at work. Surely this issue is too important to leave Scotland or Northern Ireland out of the loop?

On a day when we learn that the United Kingdom is facing the greatest terrorist threat ever according to the nameless ones, our counter-terrorist strategy is politicised, hostage to the career of John Reid and conducted on a devolved basis. This is not MI8, but MIA.

How to Lose Recruits and Destroy Honour

If you die on active service in defence of your country, don't ask for flowers or refreshments at your funeral, since they will not be paid for the MOD. One grieving family got the bill, for one of the victims of the Nimrod crash.

Flt Sgt Andrews's parents, Peter and Joyce, both 74 from Nottingham, learned that the RAF was refusing to settle the bill after receiving a letter from the funeral director. The letter said that while the RAF were prepared to pay funeral costs of £3,249 they were not prepared to pay a £425 bill for flowers or £606 for tea and biscuits consumed by the 300 people who attended the funeral in November last year.

The Ministry of Defence were quite clear about their stance:

A spokesman for the MoD said: "The cost of flowers and a wake are regarded by the MoD as personal expressions of sympathy and cannot be paid for by public funds."

Since when were tea and biscuits considered part of a wake, rather then the customary hospitality afforded to all guests at a funeral, especially a well-attended one. Payment of such costs are discretionary, but refusal can be a PR disaster.

Defending Desperate Straits

The concerns over conflict with Iran have risen on to the front pages over the last few days, as two US carrier groups move into strategic positions in the Mediterranean and the Gulf. Forceful language has been translated as aggression in certain quarters, or marking redlines for the Iranian regime. British naval forces have been part of this deployment:

Royal Navy commanders insist the build-up in the Gulf has not been ordered by the Ministry of Defence in direct response to Teheran’s pursuit of an atomic weapons programme in defiance of a United Nations Security Council resolution.

But there are hopes that additional vessels will intensify pressure on the regime in Tehran to abandon its nuclear activities.

The additional Royal Navy vessels sent to the Gulf include HMS Cornwall, a type 22 frigate, two mine sweepers, HMS Ramsey and HMS Blythe, and a vessel from the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

The British ships will work in an American-led coalition of naval vessels, which has expanded rapidly in recent weeks with the arrival of a second aircraft carrier battle group, led by USS Stennis.

The ships are training in the Gulf and can covert to battle-ready status, if required. If a hot war commenced, British forces would be involved from the word go, protecting strategic resources such as the oil routes and the Sunni desert kingdoms.

Working within a terrorist target zone

The Sunday Telegraph reports from "secret intelligence documents" that the threat of Al-Qaeda action has reached new heights. The numbers of potential operatives has risen to 2,000 and they are focussed on bombing targets with the greatest possible harm to Britain. Harm is defined as injuring as many people as possible and destroying their prosperity.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the director general of MI5, warned recently that there were more than 1,600 "identified individuals" actively engaged in plotting terrorist attacks. There were 200 known networks involved in at least 30 terrorist plots. It is thought that the number of British citizens involved in plots could be well in excess of 2,000.

MI5 believes that soft targets, such as the transport system and economic targets such as the City of London and Canary Wharf, are most at risk.

The situation has been described as "particularly bleak". This is a depressing headline. The problems that the British face when they view a homegrown terrorist threat, linked to the worldwide hydra of Al-Qaeda, is not helped by a  government increasing its powers by making political capital from the dangers. Many undertake political discounting, allowing suspicion of New Labour to downplay the potential of terrorists to strike at us. Yet disinformation and the failure of any further terrorist attacks have encouraged this 'comfort zone'.

Terrorism scares me and has done since the 7th July 2005. What may been an alertness to potential dangers has now subsided into the stoical anticipation of the target. Many developments are out of my hands such as the inability of the emergency services to communicate with each other. Incompetence and Negligence are the watchwords of this government. If there are more bombs on the underground, some people may die needlessly.

My own route in the mornings and evenings uses the Waterloo and City line. This crowded route is a death rattle on wheels and the lack of security is shocking. That would be one of the worst places for a hit: deep, no intervening stations, and a long walk in either direction to exit the tunnel. One would assume that they had contingency plans to allow additional exit routes along the track, as part of last year's refurbishment. Working in one of the terrorist targets leaves one pausing for breath if you think about it, which you usually do not.

To combat fear, one should not cower, but prepare. An attack may never happen, or the windows of your office may blow in on you without warning, as terrorists attempt to convert London into Iraq. The website that the government provides is of little assistance: a riff on stay put and wait for help. Help which may never come or comes too late. A fine example of an emergency preparedness kit for the office can be found on the American Red Cross website.

Self-reliance, mutual co-operation and a sense of humour are the best defences that we can muster if the bombs strike