IT was a hot summer day, but I was chilled to the bone to read this
subheading: “No lab on Earth can cope with what might be lurking in Martian soil”
(91av, 9 June, p 10).
If NASA scientists bring back
samples of soil from Mars that are contaminated with alien life, we could all be
seriously affected. I wrote to Lord Sainsbury, the science minister, suggesting
that although Britain can do little about it, we should at least be talking with
our American colleagues about how they intend to safeguard us Earthlings.
Sainsbury said that he takes the danger posed by Martian soil most seriously.
However, NASA’s plans for dealing with the soil samples are becoming more
plausible, especially in initially limiting the samples to one of the few
high-level biosafe laboratories used to handling highly dangerous pathogens.
Britain and its European colleagues are also considering an independent
programme. He added that there had been similar fears of contamination when the
NASA Apollo programme planned to bring back samples from the Moon in the late
1960s. In the end, such concerns proved groundless.
Most scientists accept that Mars could once have harboured life and it is not
inconceivable that it still does, said Sainsbury. So it is essential to adopt
stringent precautions for handling samples when they are eventually brought back
to Earth. Britain has expertise in handling deadly viruses and
bacteria—for instance, at Porton Down, the government’s research facility
in Wiltshire—so it is well placed to advise on the handling of Martian
samples. The returned samples could well go first to places like Porton Down.
There they can be investigated under strict quarantine conditions to see if they
need sterilising before they are distributed to the scientific community, said
the minister.
Advertisement
I hear the issue is likely to be hotly debated by the International Mars
Exploration Working Group, which includes NASA and the British National Space
Centre.
IN MAY, the European Union’s ministerial Energy and Industry Council held
important discussions on the European Commission’s White Paper on Chemicals
Strategy. The main aims of this piece of EU policy are to safeguard human health
and the environment against the hazards of the many chemicals on the market in
Europe. But with the country in the throes of a general election, no British
ministers made it to the meeting. Clearly, though, from what new energy minister
Brian Wilson told MPs in a House of Commons written answer (Hansard, 28
June, p 151W), Britain ought to have been there.
Wilson said that the council stressed the need to maintain competitiveness in
a global industry and to protect public health and the environment, and called
for a “cost-effective, transparent and flexible regime”. It went on to emphasise
the need for the policy to strengthen Europe’s internal market, to comply with
the rules of the World Trade Organization and to promote innovation.
Anyone involved in the chemicals industry would do well to alert their
company to just what is being decided for them in Europe. “Compliance with WTO
rules” is a highly elastic concept, and some of Britain’s Continental
competitors are stretching it to extremes. However, at the same time, WTO rules
sometimes don’t stretch nearly as far as they should.
