Hurricane Francis 13 Aug 2004

Climate Change in Southampton

Naveed Naz

On the 3 November 2005 Southampton Friends of the Earth held a meeting at the University to raise awareness of Climate Change and promote further action.

At the beginning of 2004 The Observer received a leaked report from the Pentagon [1] warning the president of the United States that climate change is a bigger threat than international terrorism. The picture painted was of dystopia less than 20 years away in which famine, droughts and dwindling resources have forced countries into armed struggle and brought the world to the brink of "anarchy". Fast-forward one and a half years and one finds that the president still hasn't made any moves to tackle the issue.

It should come as no surprise that some people take the issue of climate change very seriously and the audience at the meeting demonstrated this well. The meeting started with Caroline Lucas (Green MEP for SE England) talking first, followed by Kirsty Hill (Southampton Environment Centre). As usual Caroline Lucas was spectacular in her speech; the staple of her talk was full of information and scientific facts. She emphasised the Green Party line that the free market alone won't solve the problem of CC nor would putting all our faith in some far seen technology. As she puts it, "we will go down as the geospecies which monitored its own extinction, but did nothing about it". She emphasised substantial changes: "Domestic carbon rationing" is proposed, where citizens are only allowed to use up x amount of carbon per month (including automobile fuel); the introduction of heavy taxation on aircraft fuel to curb the cheap flight era; and finally the mass government investment in renewable energy supplies (wind power being the emphasis). She also talked about ending the "vicious cycle" of job cuts and under funding in public services which results in poorer services and people migrating to private alternatives (e.g. the mass movement from buses to cars).

But by far the bigger challenge would be changing people's attitudes. As Caroline points out, happiness is not directly proportional to wealth; rather it is a law of diminishing returns. At the heart of the environmental disaster is the consumer culture which is predominately responsible for using up the finite resources of the earth. She calls out to make environmentalism "more sexy" and to get the Saatchi and Saatchi of advertisers working for the environmental cause.

The second speaker was Kirsty Hall. She quoted climate change statistics, particularly the need for Kyoto to be extended from a 12% to 70% reduction in CO₂ emissions. She also emphasised the need for community involvement to tackle climate change.

After the two main speakers there were announcements from local groups. Noteworthy were Southampton University's Crisis-Forum (www.crisis-forum.org.uk) and Media Lens (www.medialens.org). Concerns about the local airport expansion were raised by activists. The city council is to meet on 7 November to discuss the master plan for airport expansion. Members of the public are allowed to speak during the meeting within a set interval. It was strongly urged by all activists that people attend and raise their concern. Indeed speaking at these public meeting was emphasised as a major tool for activism in general. Other concerns included bi-weekly recycling, the local incinerator, and air quality.

The Climate Change demo [2] is scheduled for the 3rd December, starting at 12pm near Holloway Tube St (Central London). Coach tickets can be booked from local activists by contacting Chris Bluemel (Friends of the Earth), at chrisbluemel@yahoo.co.uk
[1] http://www.climate.org/topics/ climate/pentagon.shtml
[2] http://www.campaigncc.org/

The reality and urgency of human-created climate change

A spectre is haunting the entire world: but it is not that of communism. If we were not aware of the spectre's import or what it signals for the future, then 2005's unprecedented hurricane sequence in the Gulf of Mexico — including two successive category-five hurricanes, Katrina, and Rita — should be our most firm, recent guides. Climate change — no more, no less than nature's payback for what we are doing to our precious planet — is day by day now revealing itself. Not only in a welter of devastating scientific data and analysis but in the repeated extreme weather conditions to which we are all, directly or indirectly, regular observers, and, increasingly, victims.¹

Yet, bizarrely, the majority of us, academics included, seem to remain in a state of denial. Or, hardly better, in a peculiar limbo of 'disconnect'. Surely all this talk of impending apocalypse is scare-mongering of the very worst kind? Freak weather conditions and natural catastrophes do happen, do they not? What anyway, can you, or I, do about it? This is something for scientists, the boffins, the ones with the expertise and know-how: the people who can find 'the' technical fix, 'the' solution to the problem. Or if not them, the politicians; those to whom we have entrusted the security and wellbeing of our societies, and broader international community. To argue that we are involved in a struggle for our very survival, and that we must all respond accordingly, is, surely, not simply to invite unwarranted and unnecessary disruption, bordering on panic and hysteria, but carries with it implicit challenges to the wisdoms upon which our very 'civilisation' is founded.

This manifesto begins, thus, by affirming the indisputable nature of anthropogenic climate change as stated by climate scientists worldwide. The simplest most observable evidence for this — over and beyond what is being measured and quantified in the Arctic, Antarctic, Amazonia and elsewhere — lies in the accumulation, on the one hand, of none too dramatic but significantly incremental seasonal shifts which we can all see and feel around us, and, on the other, of an accelerated frequency of truly extreme weather conditions. It is true that because our climate is complex, and dependent on so many variables, that the scientists cannot predict an exact outcome. The impact, for instance, of temperature rises in the polar regions on currently moderating weather systems, such as the Gulf Stream, remains uncertain. To some extent our destiny will depend on whether the more conservative or more radical computer scenarios turn out to be correct. Indeed, with most recent estimates in the order of between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees ² overall warming by the end of this century, many questions remain. Even supposing the lower end of this range, the scientific opinion is agreed that mass species' extinctions will be inevitable. However, current further evidence from sub-Arctic Siberia suggesting a permafrost thaw which is likely to release billions of tons of methane gas previously trapped beneath it, points to an even more accelerated warming process. With satellite picture now confirming a year by year degradation of the polar icesheets, the scientific talk now is all of tipping points having been reached and of an 'ecological landslide that is probably irreversible.' ³ Or, as Mike Davis, arguably one of the most perspicacious commentators on the relationship between the geospecies physical science and human consequence, has put it, reporting on other recent evidence of an abrupt non-linear shift in climate patterns: 'we are living on the climate equivalent of a runaway train that is picking up speed.'⁴

Climate change, thus, whatever the exact trajectory, represents the most serious and potentially lethal challenge to humankind in its history, and indeed existence. Unless, we can achieve the cuts in carbon and other greenhouse emissions which the scientists ask of us in a matter of a few decades — and even then it may be too late — global warming will necessarily turn ever larger areas of the planet into uninhabitable desert, cause droughts, flood, famine, pestilence, refugee flows, and death through repeated heat or cold surges on an unprecedented scale, while whole, currently heavily populated deltaic, estuarine, coastal and other regions on all continents will be harried by storm and/or inundated. This situation, then, is much more serious — not to say inevitable — than, for example, the threat of nuclear war, not least because with the former, we had, at least in theory, the ability to put the genie back into the bottle. Once out of control, the forces of nature, by contrast, will be uncontainable. It does not require too much to imagine not only the environmental consequences, most keenly in terms of the collapse of bio-diversity, but the much more immediate social, economic, epidemiological and political impact on ourselves. For some peoples of the world, atoll nations, such as Tuvalu in the Pacific, or indigenous communities in the Arctic, the catastrophe and its consequences are literally, already upon them. For the rest of us, the relationship between climate change and the potentiality of conflict, at all social and political levels — including at the nuclear level — will become all that much greater as the struggle for remaining natural and food resources, not to say habitable territory intensifies, and, thereafter, as despair over our collective inability to halt this trajectory becomes apparent, giving way in its place to an entirely social darwinian, zero-sum competition.

Historians and other academic animals: what is our role?

What then can students of a diverse human past, of its history, archaeology, geography, literatures, philosophy, religions and cultures, offer, either to understanding, or positively responding to this dread prospect? Contemporary society, as a rule, prefers to put its faith in science for answers. But is there not a role, perhaps even more than ever, now, for prescience, too? In other words, for a reformulated process of plotting the past with the foreknowledge that if we do not come to understand how we arrived at this point, how indeed we got into this utter cul-de-sac, there will be no historical future? By the same token, historians, archaeologists, human geographers and demographers, religious scholars and indeed many others students of past societies, are perfectly aware that in many respects we have been here before: that humanity has been the prey to many vicissitudes, including climate change, and that through thousands and thousands of such crises, there have always been enough survivors to weather the storm and bring us through. Now, though, it is different: not just quantitatively, in the scale of the disaster awaiting us, but in what should be our awareness that we, ourselves, are utterly responsible for this, and that if we fail to understand the process by which we arrived here, and from that refuse to learn to respond in our own best interests — as part of a common humanity — we will, quite literally, go over the abyss.

Are historians, and other scholars of the humanities, prepared to sleep walk into that long night? And in so doing abnegate all responsibility for the future? How will our children and our children's children — to say nothing of perhaps a very last generation of scholars — look on us from their increasingly woeful vantage point, at our abject and craven failure? Climate change may still be in humanity's gift to moderate. The alternative is to let it run amok. For all students of human beings on this planet, indeed, it should be instantly recognisable for what it is: our last best chance to put our communities and societies on the road to survival and sustainability. Instead, we are faced with the mechanisms and juggernaut-like trajectory of an international political economy which seems almost wilfully bent on doing exactly the opposite. It is more than just a little sad that so many of us — the scholars — have consciously, inadvertently, or by default, both in large and trivial ways, become so complicit with its bankrupt imperatives. Certainly, this is not the appropriate moment for either accusation or condemnation. Nor even to challenge the redundancy of much contemporary historiography when history itself could well be coming to its final, bitter end. Instead, the way we have approached our subject, in the blithe complacency that there would be an ongoing present and future to which we could bequeath our knowledge and wisdom, is surely something we have a duty to urgently and intensely discuss.

The point of this manifesto and appeal, therefore, in the light of what we now know about climate change, is not simply to urge a rethink as to the terms of reference by which we study the past, but to make a clarion call for a new imperative. It is time we started being purposeful and useful, not just for ourselves and for our professional interests but genuinely, seriously, for the commonweal. We must now literally rescue!history for the challenge ahead. Like the practice of rescue archaeology the task before our proposition has to be founded on sound theory and good tools. However, its outcomes have also to be geared towards what is tangible and grounded. Yet because time clearly is not on our side, the exclamation mark in the midst of rescue!history is there to emphasise the extreme urgency of the undertaking.

Developing an agenda

What then is rescue!history's immediate agenda? On one of the second wave London CND marches in 1980, at that time against the introduction of a new generation of nuclear weapons into Europe — and with it of an impending threat of global Armageddon, — a banner was to be seen which read 'Historians for the right to work: We demand a continuing supply of history.' (Significantly marching in front of it, were Edward and Dorothy Thompson, the former having recently written his famous pamphlet Protest and Survive). Rescue!history's purpose is effectively the same as that of the banner. If humankind's future is actually threatened with foreclosure, and students of the past (like everyone else) have a vested interest in preventing that, then surely we now have to approach that past with, at the very least, a recognition of the possibility of terminus, and — as a consequence either ask old questions anew but in a more forceful register, or perhaps alongside them add an entirely reformulated, if disturbing set of others:

How did we get into this situation, this mess? Was there some fatal wrong turning, associated, for instance, with the rise of the West, or a predatory and globalising capitalism, or something we call modernity? Or is this itself to take on too many modernist and Western-centric assumptions; the inherent issue of man's relationship to nature demanding a much more long-term and more geographically diffuse approach? If so, have humans always been their own worst enemy, the aspirations for food, light, warmth, comfort and, ultimately, conspicuous consumption, demanding relentless efforts to achieve a perpetual control of the environment, and of its resource base, against the reality of what it can actually offer? Or is there historical experience which suggests otherwise; that societies can exist, even prosper, 'in harmony' with an even limited natural world, and that our purpose should be to 'learn' from deep human experience, garnered not just from archaeological but more contemporary anthropological and ethnographic studies on how this can be done? Is it not the case that human societies have always operated close to the limits of the possible? And if so, what such resonances from the deep, or more recent, past are inscribed in our present situation?

Or again, is it the case that human profligacy and overreach in the historical record has led to the repeated destruction of polities and civilisations and that for all their ingenuity it was the repeated failure to heed what actually was staring them in the face which is what critically matters? Should we now, then, be paying more attention to those who, at the time, made the dread warnings, even though these usually entirely marginalised and despised prophets and visionaries sometimes bequeathed to us longstanding and durable worldsystems? Or should 'lessons' on averting our own Nemesis lead to historical consideration of much more instrumental efforts aimed at technological breakthroughs, or forms of political and social restructuring, which arguably have also been responses to resource depletion, environmental degradation and, indeed, past climate change? What human 'collateral damage', however, has been the by-product of such often Herculean efforts? Have not attempts to overcome limitations on what was humanly possible simply led to ever more lethal tendencies towards destruction and selfdestruction, exacerbating into the bargain not only fraught power relationships between man and nature but also between man and man? Are indeed, our own worst tendencies in recent times, imperial and colonial subjugation, total war, Auschwitz, genocide, ethnic cleansing, Hiroshima and the 'exterminist' thrust of the nuclear arms race, not to say contemporary efforts by hegemonic powers, lesser states and corporate cartels to monopolistically control and determine the remaining, dwindling hydrocarbon reserves and other key resources worldwide, been simply harbingers of where we are heading? Is it not, indeed, in the very nature of over-complex, urbanfocused, essentially consumerist yet nearly always grossly unequal polities and societies over time and space, founded repeatedly on the non-sustainable asset-stripping of everything around them, wherein lies our fatal Achilles heel? If this is the final end of all such 'civilisations' what is there, actually, in this retrospectively alltoo- brief historical record to commemorate, celebrate and cherish? Or, is it, in fact, pointless, if we are already at the point of no return? Can anything be garnered from recent critical scholarly trends and discourses, post-modernism, post-structuralism, post-colonialism, post-Marxism, gender studies, and the rest, which can shed light on our plight? Or is the best thing that scholars of human polities, societies, religions, and cultures can do in the circumstances is carry on as before, as if the crisis never existed and as if there were nothing we could offer anyway!

Quo vadis?

This manifesto has been founded on the premise that students of the past have a role, and an important one, in responding to this ultimate challenge of our time. Not to use our best endeavours to shed light on its unravelling would be an abnegation of responsibility of the most monumental kind. Certainly, as in all such moments where there is a time-lag between the emergence of the problem and the full crystallisation of public awareness of its fundamental import, all manner of rationalisations, legitimate and otherwise, will be utilised and sometimes articulated to avoid, excuse, or perhaps even prevent a rush to the barricades. But for those who can, and will, this is an appeal to all scholars of the past, indeed all academics within the humanities, social sciences, and other disciplines, teachers, students (embracing postgraduates, undergraduates, and those at other colleges and schools) independent researchers, journalists and other professionals, as well as members of a broader public who are concerned with how we arrived at this point, to join in the pursuit of rescue!history. The initial aim may be simply to develop a conference to air the issues and to see where we can, if anywhere, go. The litany of questions above may be a starting point for a research agenda or, simply, the launching pad for a debate leading to entirely different directions. A conference along rescue!history lines should aim to be international, though clearly it will have to be built on a communications premise such as video-conferencing which seeks to avoids overstepping our collective ecological footprint and keeping our carbon emissions to a minimum. That said, from this initial baseline of one — but with the principled support of a wider Crisis Forum network (see below) — an invitation is extended to all those who feel they may be able to contribute ideas, research interests, administrative and organisational skills, contacts, and sources of funding, in what must of necessity, as well as good intention, involve a development of objectives through an open, exploratory collaboration.

Contact Mark Levene, Reader in Comparative History, University of Southampton, UK.
m.levene@soton.ac.uk
''The Forum for the Study of Crisis in the 21st Century' (Crisis Forum) http://www.crisis-forum.org.uk Notes
1. Acknowledged most recently, at the international level, in a World Bank environmental report. See John Vidal, 'Climate change and pollution are killing millions' says study'. The Guardian, October 6 2005.
2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projections, 2001. Quoted in Mayer Hillman, How We Can Save the Planet (London, Penguin, 2004).
3. Prof. Sergei Kirpotin, permafrost researcher, Tomsk State University, Western Siberia. Quoted in Ian Sample, 'Warming hits 'tipping point,' The Guardian, August 11 2005.
4. Mike Davis, 'Melting Away,' The Nation, October 7 2005. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20 051024/davis

If you need convincing of media influence on public opinion, try conducting a random lay survey with the question, What do you understand by 'cloning'? The following verbatim responses constitute a representative sampling of public perception:

'When something is the same.' / 'Making a copy of, say, a person, or cloning two species???' / 'When something is a copy of something else. Like Dolly the sheep.' / 'An exact copy of something........ Recently a copy of DNA...' / 'Making one of the same, a repeat, identical, replica.' / 'Copying something, re-copying. Copying genes, a person.' / 'Identical copy of....... anything: people, animals, living objects.' / 'Two from one.' / 'Creating something that is the same as the original.' / 'Make an exact copy of something. Doesn't have to be humans; any animal.' / 'An identical reproduction of DNA.' / 'A DNA representation of an animal, without it being the same animal because it gets old quicker.'

In the wake of news that patient-specific embryonic stem (ES) cell lines have been derived in South Korea, and a Newcastle research team is the first in the UK to 'clone a human embryo', it is increasingly pertinent to consider public reaction to such announcements. The Newcastle advance was achieved under the first license awarded by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, since therapeutic cloning was legalised here in 2001. This license, also recently granted to one of Dolly's 'creators', Professor Ian Wilmut, permits the 'cloning of human embryos to generate stem cells for medical research'. For many, this poses little or no ethical dilemma. Indeed, what could be less unethical than the progression of research that saves and prolongs lives, alleviates suffering and restores dignity? It is imperative, however, for science to address the concerns of those who deem this issue morally repugnant. Is it the material that is used, the experimentation, or the outcome?

Summarily, the ethical controversy is embodied in two words: the much maligned and misinterpreted 'cloning'; and, for implying the deliberate destruction of a potential human life, 'embryonic', as in ES cell. Whilst antipathy based on adherence to a particular belief system is understandable, less acceptable is reactionary objection, borne of factual insufficiencies. Thus, consideration of terminology is justified, not necessarily to dissuade, but to facilitate a more informed synopsis.

'Cloning' is derived from klon, the Greek for shoot or twig, reflecting the asexual capacity of plants, which enables the production of new individuals by taking cuttings from a mature specimen. Derivative plants are genetically identical to their 'parent'; hence 'cloning' as a moniker for genetic copying. Cloning is widespread in nature. It is how bacteria usually reproduce: one cell divides into two after replication of its DNA. This property is routinely exploited by molecular biologists in order to obtain high copy number of random or specific pieces of human DNA, by combining them with bacterial DNA and encouraging the host cell to do the work.

Sexual reproduction, however, is not concerned with identicalness [sic], but with variation. Single sets of chromosomes, carried respectively by father's sperm and mother's egg, are prepared by shuffling the genetic pack and brought together at fertilisation. Consequently, as we develop from a single fertilised egg, two sets of chromosomes are housed in the nucleus of most of our cells. In coupling DNA from separate individuals, the sexual process ensures offspring of unique genetic composition. Exceptions occur, of course, manifest as multiple births arising from the fission of a single early embryo. Identical twins, natures own reproductive clones, constitute around 0.8% of the population.

Because its purpose is not the artificial production of new individuals, but to facilitate the derivation of individual-specific ES cells, 'therapeutic cloning' is distinct from 'reproductive cloning', but the initial technology is the same for both. Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) entails taking the nucleus of a somatic cell (that is, a cell of the soma, or body) and transferring it to a donated egg cell, from which the nucleus has been removed. And this is the crux: there are important differences between the two cell types, a distinction that can be summarised in a word — potential. The fertilised egg (and, for a limited time, certain cells of the early embryo) has the potential to become every cell type in the body. During development, cells differentiate in response to genetic and environmental cues that orchestrate the location and timing of expression of specific sets of genes. Somatic cells become committed to particular fates, maintained by the programming of their DNA. This is concomitant with lost or reduced potential, despite retaining (in most cases) the same genetic information — the same set of chromosomes, containing the same quota of genes — present in the original fertilised egg. Transferring a somatic cell nucleus into an egg cell, however, exposes that nucleus to a differing environment, containing factors which can effectively 'reprogram' its DNA and restore its developmental potential. The chief ethical consideration here is the requirement for donated eggs. And an egg in a laboratory is a cell, pure and simple. It has no aura; it does, however, contain factors that make it extremely useful, scientifically. And here a crucial cell component can be brought into the argument.

Mitochondria ('thread-like granules') are cell organelles, located outside the nucleus in high number, typically from hundreds to thousands, but varying between cell types. They are the cells energy generators; think of them as tiny batteries, essential for cell function and normal development. Of often overlooked relevance in the cloning debate, mitochondria contain their own DNA. This mitochondrial DNA is not idle: it comprises genes that encode for proteins crucial to the maintenance of energy levels, without which, cells degenerate and die. We all age as these batteries wear out. Mitochondria tend to be present in larger number in cell types with higher energy requirements, such as those of the nervous system or muscle. Moreover, mitochondrial gene defects can give rise to disease conditions, which tend to afflict those same tissues, being more dependent upon mitochondrial function.

Although a single mitochondrial DNA molecule is relatively tiny — sixteen and a half thousand base pairs versus the three billion base pairs of one set of chromosomes — it is present in multiple copies (2-10) per single mitochondrium. Thus, a single cell may contain several thousand mitochondrial DNA molecules. In contrast to the equiparental inheritance of the chromosomes, mitochondrial DNA is inherited solely from the mother. So the egg provides half of the chromosomes, but all of the starting mitochondria of the next generation. (The sperm carry only a few mitochondria to power their long swim.) In readiness, the maturating egg cell significantly increases its mitochondrial DNA quota, amassing in excess of one hundred thousand copies, which, collectively, constitute around one-third of the eggs total DNA complement.

During SCNT, then, a nucleus operating in a somatic cell, with an associated mitochondrial set, is transferred to an enucleated egg cell containing a foreign set in substantially higher copy number. Because the transferred somatic nucleus contains two sets of chromosomes, this adjusts the ratio of chromosomal to mitochondrial DNA in the reconstructed cell, yet the mitochondrial moiety is still significant at over 20%. This SCNT generated combination of complete donor chromosomal DNA and recipient egg mitochondrial DNA is a unique mix of genetic material, which could not occur by any other mechanism. It is possessed by neither of the 'parents' and so does not, by definition, constitute a clone of anybody. (And neither did Dolly.)

Now consider 'embryonic'. Human development requires, in due course, implantation into the wall of a uterus; otherwise the embryo cannot develop into a new individual. Over a fifth of natural conceptions spontaneously miscarry because they fail to implant. Forget 'Brave New World'; laboratory development of embryo to baby is not possible. The moot question of precisely when human life begins is subjective. Human life is generated and maintained in laboratories around the world in the form of continuous cell lines, and primary cell cultures derived directly from tissue samples. The product of nuclear transfer between human cells is reasonably considered human life (although terming them 'embryos' is somewhat tenuous, considering that they do not arise from a sexual process). But to develop into a human being, an embryo must attach to a womb, otherwise it cannot be. Consequently, an embryo in the laboratory (unless subsequently implanted) is better defined as a 'quasi-embryo'.

This is the first point about ES cells: they are not derived from embryos, but from laboratory quasiembryos, whether surplus to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedures, or generated by SCNT. But, a further point can be made, concerning the nature of the ES cells themselves. Although logical, implying relationship to, or derivation from, the embryo, the adjective 'embryonic' is somewhat misleading. This is because ES cells have no true equivalent in the (quasi-)embryo and it is, in this regard, unfortunate that they have been so named.

Stem cells are our natural source of tissue renewal, continuously replacing dying cells of the skin, gut, blood, etc. Such stem cells divide asymmetrically, yielding two different progeny: a differentiated cell (eg, a skin stem cell will give rise to a functional skin cell), and a copy of itself to repeat the process. However, the cells from which ES cells are derived in the laboratory do not divide asymmetrically, either in the embryo, or in the lab. During normal embryonic development (dependent, remember, upon implantation) they exist as precursors, ultimately differentiating into all the different cell types of the body (including the tissue-renewing stem cells). They do not continuously maintain their undifferentiated state and, therefore, do not constitute a stem cell population. It is only in the laboratory, under certain rigorously maintained conditions, that they acquire their remarkable dual capacity: continuous undifferentiated growth, and retention of their potential (akin to the fertilised egg) to differentiate into any cell type. ES cells can therefore be cultured to high numbers because they divide symmetrically. However, under altered conditions they instead differentiate towards programmed cell fates.

ES cells arise from the chance property of being able to proliferate under conditions they would never meet in the natural course of events. They are, in effect, a laboratory artefact and are derived from, but not of, quasi-embryos.

Why bother with a semasiological argument? Because misinformation creates misunderstanding, which, in turn, engenders prejudice. This is compounded by political pointscoring that panders to ignorance and ideology, effectively hindering progress (eg the Bush administration's restriction of public funds for ES cell research in the USA). Sensationalism of human cloning vilifies scientists responsibly manipulating cells derived from laboratory-generated quasi-embryos. Yet, as I have argued, SCNT, which couples nuclear and mtDNA from separate individuals, neither produces 'clones', nor 'creates embryos'. It does, however, subsequently yield ES cells directly related to the donor of the nucleus, which gives it its potential power.

Despite great progress, animal studies cannot fully extrapolate to human development and disease. The benefits of working directly with human cells are myriad, the most publicised being the promise of resources of cells for transplantation. SCNT-generation of individualspecific ES cells carries several enormous advantages. They are the necessary material with which to dissect the molecular mechanisms of differentiation into specific cell types, and determine how these processes go awry in disease. For example, through SCNT technology using patient's somatic cell nuclei, Ian Wilmut and collaborators at Kings College, London, will study the progression of motor neurone disease. Cellular therapies generated directly from affected individuals could negate the burden of antirejection drugs, as being addressed in South Korea. Importantly, cells can be used to test drugs for efficacy and safety, evaluating affects on disease progression, without detriment to cell function and viability (a substantial number of deaths result from adverse reaction to prescribed medicines).

We must move towards a knowledge base wherein people are not alarmed by the word cloning, as has been the case for too long. History and science fiction have imbued this word with fearful connotations. Its misuse is lazy, for which scientists are partly to blame. Accordingly, the International Society for Stem Cell Research (www.isscr.org) recommends 'nuclear transfer' nomenclature in obviation of 'therapeutic cloning'. Further, we must circumvent the often hysterical reaction to research involving the use of embryonic material. Phraseology to the effect that 'embryos will be destroyed after experimentation' may actually be counter to reassurance. Although adult-derived stem cells have application to some medical problems, they are not a collective cure-all that negates the need for research into the properties of early cells. The realisation of the potential of SCNT and ES cells can be expedited by informed debate, fostered by improved dissemination of information via the public-science interface: the media.

[This topic is also addressed by the author in the latest issue of Biologist, the Institute of Biology magazine Issue 52 No 5. Ed.] Lee Turnpenny
Human Genetics Division

It is now widely accepted that working parents can carry out their duties effectively, when they are confident that their children are in a high quality and caring environment, the childcare is affordable, and matches their working day and calendar. A good childcare policy is a well-recognised and important tool in retaining and recruiting highly qualified women, as well as men, with family responsibilities.

For this reason, we conducted a survey of University staff with the aim of identifying their childcare needs. Our research among University staff, in particular academic staff, identified certain themes. In particular, the following three general goals have been highlighted: identifying the most effective childcare money saving scheme, achieving a better work/life balance for "University parents" and exploring how to extend the range of high quality childcare

Based on our research, in May 2004 WiSET made the following recommendations for change to be adopted at the University:

1. Childcare voucher scheme, which would allow substantial savings to be made both by parents and the University by claiming tax and National Insurance on childcare costs. This is the most effective childcare money-saving scheme, as it could be used by parents with children at the University Day Nursery, another registered/approved nursery, or childminder.

2. Further improvements in care offered by the University Nursery to be implemented. In particular, apply a discount (10–20%) for siblings attending the nursery. Moreover, consider, in future plans the need for care for the under-two age group, particularly for academic staff.

3. Additional flexibility in childcare provision to be available at the University Nursery.
• Flexibility in choosing a calendar, such that every parent at the University Nursery could choose to pay for either 42 weeks, a school year weeks or full 50 weeks childcare, rather than the present, mandatory 50 weeks per year.
• If two weeks' notice is given of a planned absence of a child from the University Nursery, there is no charge for that time. Such provisions are already available in other nurseries — both in Southampton as well as other universities' nurseries.

4. Facilitate the operation of a highquality and flexible holiday club for school-age children.

In September 2004 WiSET met with the Vice-Chancellor and in March 2005 with representatives from Business and Community Services and Human Resources to put forward the report and its recommendations. Following the discussions, the outcome of WiSET proposal on childcare provision received the following feedback and actions:

1. Human Resources are actively committed to introducing childcare vouchers as soon as possible and have identified Busy Bees as the best voucher provider in the marketplace. "We are currently in discussion with Busy Bees with the aim of implementing a childcare voucher scheme in early 2006".

2. Business and Community Services considered the second recommendation and are happy to offer a 10% discount to siblings who attend the Nursery as of the next financial year i.e. 1st August 2005

3. The third recommendation received no support. The flexibility in childcare calendars (42 or 50 weeks), and no payment for planned missed attendance, could have cost implications. The potential additional funding that may be needed can not be accommodated from the current budget of the Nursery. Furthermore, the University will not, at this present time, support any recommendations for childcare provisions for its staff which may require additional funding

4. Together with Human Resources and Business Services, WiSET will investigate the options regarding contracting-out holiday and half-term clubs for the children of University staff and students. In particular, organisations that can offer clubs focusing on sport, drama and music will be approached.

We believe that with the current importance put on work/life balance, both in academia and industry, University of Southampton could set an example of putting in place innovative and much needed provisions for working parents among its staff.

Report prepared by WiSET commitee members: Malgosia Kaczmarek, Janet Bonar, Tanya Monro.

The prize goes to Dave Doulton of ISS, for providing a hugely detailed, precise and accurate set of solutions. Special mention goes to Anne Brazier of the Research Support Office for her masterly alternative explanation of why question eight's connection was "apples".

1. Mozart; Potassium; The Trial
2. Alfred Hitchcock; Hamlet; 337.5 degrees
3. Clive Sinclair; Upper Clapton; Tornados; San Ysidro to Blaine; Trailing Trojan orbit; First variable geometry aircraft
4. Felix II; Boniface VII; John XVI; Benedict X; Alexander V
5. Surface acceleration of the Earth; Silver; musical style; crossdressing; snooker player; mythical lizard; mounted cavalry
6. handwarmer; Government department for farming; poor-quality; ingénue; neglected child; pause; pappilloma; male deer; injure; throw; curve
7. Millenium; Gonhorroea; Cincinatti
8. "King of France" during the First Republic; Karl Friedrich Gauss' gravestone — nearly; ante diem XIV Kalends October; Batignolles, Monceaux, Ternes, Courcelles; Swan Nebula

The concert will include two popular pieces by Gershwin. His Rhapsody in Blue will be performed in the original version for jazz band and piano, complete with saxophones and other instruments omitted from the better-known version. An American in Paris, originally composed for the concert hall, was reused for part of the soundtrack of the Gene Kelly film. It is an impressionistic sound painting of Paris by day and by night, drawing on influences from French composers, jazz and the blues.

2005 is the centenary of English composer Constant Lambert. His The Rio Grande sets a poem about a fantasy Latin American land where "they dance in the city down the public squares". The exuberant and evocative music is inspired by jazz, with Latin American rhythms and percussion, brass and stunning piano solos.

In a more serious vein, are Copland's well-known Fanfare for the Common Man for brass and percussion, written for American troops during the Second World War, and his Canticle of Freedom, a tuneful and resounding setting of a 14th century Scottish poem.

Bernstein's Chichester Psalms had its UK premiere in Chichester Cathedral in 1965, with our conductor David Gibson, then thirteen years old, singing the boy treble solo — and the composer sitting in the front row of the audience! Words from the Hebrew Psalms are set to an eclectic mix of musical styles, with more than a hint of West Side Story and Broadway.

The concert has been adopted by Councillor Edwina Cooke, the Mayor of Southampton. Afterwards there will be a collection on behalf of the Mayor's charities, in particular Leukaemia Busters, which funds important research into a cure for leukaemia.

The concert begins at 7.30pm. Tickets are available from the Guildhall box office (023 8063 2601) or visit www.southamptonguildhall. com for tickets and full concert details.

For further details:
Southampton Philharmonic Choir
Web site: http://www.southamptonphil.org/

Programme
Saturday 3rd December 2005 at 7.30pm
Southampton Guildhall
Southampton Philharmonic Choir and Southampton University Phil
New London Sinfonia, conductor David Gibson, pianist Tanya Gabrielian

Gershwin "Rhapsody in Blue", "An American in Paris"
Lambert "The Rio Grande"
Copland "Fanfare for the Common Man", "Canticle of Freedom"
Bernstein "Chichester Psalms"

Letters

Dear Editor,
Alec Samuels should have thought twice before putting into print his opinion that 'the quality of councillors generally is disappointing' (Viewpoint, issue 446). This is an extremely disrespectful statement to make about councillors past and present, and very discouraging for those who may be considering putting themselves forward as candidates in future elections. As the daughter of former City Councillor, County Councillor and Mayor of Southampton, Brian Welch, I know very well that councillors spend a good deal of time and energy on the thankless and unpaid task of serving the community.

I should be interested to know what the current group of councillors — of all political persuasions — think about Councillor Samuels' disparaging comments.

Linda Welch
PA to Senior Programme Managers NCCHTA and daughter of former City Councillor, County Councillor and Mayor Brian Welch

Back to Contents

Web of intrigue

Dear Editor
I'm concerned about the increasingly common practice, at both School and University level, of putting committee minutes up on the Web not more than a week before the following meeting (I notice that the minutes of the Senate meeting of 22 June have still not been posted).

One effect of the reorganization of the University has been to reduce the part taken by most of its members in the decision-making process; why not at least mitigate the potential impact on morale by keeping them up-to-date with its results?

Anon