Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

FROM ALL I hear on the Scottish grapevine, the costs of reorganising
the Nature Conservancy Council into three separate bodies are horrendous,
and have embarrassed even those who were in favour of the proposals to break
up the council. In the absence of government figures, however, there is
inevitably much speculation about the real costs involved.

Unfortunately, the NCC refuses to publish a key document, ‘Strategic
roll-forward submission 1991-92′, which it submitted to environmental ministers
early in May. The estimates contained in the document represent the first
thorough, informed and official assessment of the financial and staffing
implications of reorganising the council.

I gather that the document shows that not only are the government’s
proposals scientifically regressive and administratively inefficient, but
financially indefensible. They involve the additional expenditure of vast
sums of taxpayers’ money, with no commensurate benefit.

One bombshell for ministers is that if the new English, Scottish and
Welsh organisations are to ‘begin life successfully carrying out their statutory
obligations’, they will require more than 600 additional permanent staff,
a 75 per cent increase. To deliver ‘the enhanced conservation which it is
believed will be essential to tackle issues within the decade to come’ –
in other words, what is needed to do the job properly – will involve more
than a 100 per cent increase in staff, from 810 to 1652.

Unless the report is made public, legislators cannot make informed judgements.
The secrecy and security of the nation are hardly at stake; as usual, it’s
a matter of political embarrassment.

* * *

REPRESENTATIVES of British Å®ÉúСÊÓƵs Abroad, headed by Michael Duff,
have now met with Robert Jackson. Duff wanted to hear the reaction of the
science minister to the petition signed by 1600 expatriate scientists earlier
this year. The BSA says that British research is being ‘starved of the necessary
funding, with consequent emigration of many scientists’ (‘Home thoughts
from abroad’, 10 February).

I asked Jackson for his version of events. After pointing out that no
country can afford first-class facilities in every branch of science, he
outlined how the government is ‘actively promoting the development of first-class
research facilities in selected areas’.

With regard to the ‘brain drain’, this ‘is a field in which anecdotes
are drawn upon for lobbying purposes, but in which facts are hard to come
by. The only overall statistics which are available are those collected
by the universities, and published in the Universities’ Statistical Record
(USR). These show that a) there has been a net inflow of academic staff
into British universities from abroad in every year since 1983; and b) that
there tends to be a net inflow at the professional level indicating a net
gain in quality.’

The government, he wrote, accepts that the USR data may not provide
a complete picture, and last year he asked the Committee of Vice-Chancellors
and Principals to conduct a review. In the meantime, Jackson believes that
it is better to make use of such information as is available.

His next point was that ‘Not all British postdoctoral scientists can,
or should, expect to find jobs in British higher education. At least a third
of those whose council-funded research studentships ended in 1988 proceeded
to work in British industry and public service – and more should do so.
Meanwhile, the proportion of postdocs going abroad has fallen from 35 per
cent in 1963 to 12 per cent in 1988.’

His final point to the BSA was ‘that they should reflect on the implications
of their statements for the image and self-image of British science. International
comparisons of scientific publications suggest that Britain remains second
only to the US in world sciences – a position it has maintained throughout
the 1980s. I suggested that there is something profoundly wrong with a style
of lobbying for public expenditure that leads self-appointed spokesmen for
British science to run down their country’s scientific achievements and
±è°ù´Ç²õ±è±ð³¦³Ù²õ.’

* * *

I ASKED agricultural ministers about their role in saving the National
Fruit Collection. David Curry, an undersecretary, said that his ‘first concern
has always been to provide a secure and stable home for the National Fruit
°ä´Ç±ô±ô±ð³¦³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô’.

This, he says, was the basis for the decision last year to transfer
the collection to Wye College. Wye, as part of the University of London,
‘offers the scientific and academic expertise fully to develop and utilise
the collection for educational and scientific purposes’. Last month the
Duchy of Cornwall expressed interest in buying the Brogdale site. Curry
reports that the ‘Duchy’s involvement offers the degree of stability which
such a collection demands’. He has instructed his officials to look at the
possibility of keeping the collection at Brogdale under Wye’s management.

I am relieved that Curry has taken over responsibility from Baroness
Trumpington.

* * *

THE NEW controls on the release of genetically modified organisms envisaged
in the Environmental Protection Bill will require an expanded corps of specialist
inspectors. I asked: Where are the inspectors to come from? Who are they
to be? What’s the price? David Heathcoat-Amory, a junior envi ronmental
minister, says his department is discussing an agency agreement with the
Health and Safety Executive, whereby HSE’s inspectors would take on the
task. ‘Inspectors with appropriate qualifications and experience will be
recruited, and given training by the HSE and guidance by my department for
the enforcement of human and safety controls over genetically modified organisms.
There would thus be a unified system of enforcement.’

As to costs, these ‘cannot be determined accurately at present but are
likely to be of the order of Pounds sterling 100 000 per annum at current
prices’. This sum will nothing like suffice. Treble it, and multiply it
by 10, and then we might have an effective organisation to carry out an
increasingly important task.