Will Porton Down government science labs actually move?
The National Audit Office reported the cost of the whole project is estimated to be £3.2bn, a figure more than 500% higher than the initial forecast of £530m.
When it was officially announced in 2015 that the labs would move to Harlow, Essex, the MP there at the time said he was pleased and it would "bring thousands of jobs".Speaking to the BBC this week, Mr Glen said the new build would be "dressed up" as a world-class hub."But Porton Down already is world-class," he said."We've already got the world's best scientists doing amazing collaborative work."
He added staff get paid to do work for other countries, including the US, and when unions asked workers there several years ago, most did not want to move.He said: "There's an established pattern of activity there. We do need more investment but not the extent of building and refurbishing an unsuitable lab in Harlow."Scientific work has been going on at Porton Down for 100 years, but much the infrastructure is old.However, Mr Glen said there had been "additional investment" because of the Covid-19 pandemic, so the government needs to "be realistic"."This is an opportunity to save money, to reverse George Osborne's ambitious decision but still invest in science and an established rhythm of work," he said.
No construction work has started at the Harlow site, which is being maintained by staff to keep it secure.The government said it had been considering options and whether building a new facility is still viable.It estimates if the Harlow centre is built, it will not open before 2036 - some 15 years behind schedule.When Health Secretary Wes Streeting was asked about the possible move in March, he said: "[This] has been running around the system so long that it is now used in a case study for senior civil servant recruitment," he said."The worst decision is indecision."It has plagued us for too long and I hope we can soon report back to the house with a decision on that for everyone's benefit."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Why antibiotics are like fossil fuels
In 1954, just a few years after the widespread introduction of antibiotics, doctors were already aware of the problem of resistance. Natural selection meant that using these new medicines gave an advantage to the microbes that could survive the assault – and a treatment that worked today could become ineffective tomorrow. A British doctor put the challenge in military terms: 'We may run clean out of effective ammunition. Then how the bacteria and moulds will lord it.' More than 70 years later, that concern looks prescient. The UN has called antibiotic resistance 'one of the most urgent global health threats'. Researchers estimate that resistance already kills more than a million people a year, with that number forecast to grow. And new antibiotics are not being discovered fast enough; many that are essential today were discovered more than 60 years ago. The thing to remember is that antibiotics are quite unlike other medicines. Most drugs work by manipulating human biology: paracetamol relieves your headache by dampening the chemical signals of pain; caffeine blocks adenosine receptors and as a result prevents drowsiness taking hold. Antibiotics, meanwhile, target bacteria. And, because bacteria spread between people, the challenge of resistance is social: it's as if every time you took a painkiller for your headache, you increased the chance that somebody else might have to undergo an operation without anaesthetic. That makes resistance more than simply a technological problem. But like that British doctor in 1954, we still often talk as if it is: we need to invent new 'weapons' to better defend ourselves. What this framing overlooks is that the extraordinary power of antibiotics is not due to human ingenuity. In fact, the majority of them derive from substances originally made by bacteria and fungi, evolved millions of years ago in a process of microbial competition. This is where I can't help thinking about another natural resource that helped create the modern world but has also been dangerously overused: fossil fuels. Just as Earth's geological forces turned dead plants from the Carboniferous era into layers of coal and oil that we could burn for energy, so evolution created molecules that scientists in the 20th century were able to recruit to keep us alive. Both have offered an illusory promise of cheap, miraculous and never-ending power over nature – a promise that is now coming to an end. If we thought of antibiotics as the 'fossil fuels' of modern medicine, might that change how we use them? And could it help us think of ways to make the fight against life-threatening infections more sustainable? The antibiotic era is less than a century old. Alexander Fleming first noticed the activity of a strange mould against bacteria in 1928, but it wasn't until the late 1930s that the active ingredient – penicillin – was isolated. A daily dose was just 60mg, about the same as a pinch of salt. For several years it was so scarce it was worth more than gold. But after production was scaled up during the second world war, it ended up costing less than the bottle it came in. This abundance did more than tackle infectious diseases. Just as the energy from fossil fuels transformed society, antibiotics allowed the entire edifice of modern medicine to be built. Consider surgery: cutting people open and breaking the protective barrier of the skin gives bacteria the chance to swarm into the body's internal tissues. Before antibiotics, even the simplest procedures frequently resulted in fatal blood poisoning. After them, so much more became possible: heart surgery, intestinal surgery, transplantation. Then there's cancer: chemotherapy suppresses the immune system, making bacterial infections one of the most widespread complications of treatment. The effects of antibiotics have rippled out even further: they made factory farming possible, both by reducing disease among animals kept in close quarters, and by increasing their weight through complex effects on metabolism. They're one of the reasons for the huge increase in meat consumption since the 1950s, with all its concomitant welfare and environmental effects. Despite the crisis of resistance, antibiotics remain cheap compared with other medicines. Partly – as with fossil fuels – this is because the negative consequences of their use (so-called externalities) are not priced in. And like coal, oil and gas, antibiotics lead to pollution. One recent study estimated that 31% of the 40 most used antibiotics worldwide enter rivers. Once they're out there, they increase levels of resistance in environmental bacteria: one study of soil from the Netherlands showed that the incidence of some antibiotic-resistant genes had increased by more than 15 times since the 1970s. Another source of pollution is manufacturing, particularly in countries such as India. In Hyderabad, where factories produce huge amounts of antibiotics for the global market, scientists have found that the wastewater contains levels of some antibiotics that are a million times higher than elsewhere. Like the climate crisis, antibiotic resistance has laid global inequalities bare. Some high-income countries have taken steps to decrease antibiotic use, but only after benefiting from their abundance in the past. That makes it hard for them to take a moral stand against their use in other places, a dilemma that mirrors the situation faced by post-industrial nations urging developing nations to forgo the economic benefits of cheap energy. This may be where the similarities end. While we look forward to the day when fossil fuels are phased out completely, that's clearly not the case with antibiotics, which are always going to be part of medicine's 'energy mix'. After all, most deaths from bacterial disease worldwide are due to lack of access to antibiotics, not resistance. What we are going to need to do is make our approach to development and use much more sustainable. Currently, many pharmaceutical companies have abandoned the search for new antibiotics: it's hard to imagine a more perfect anti-capitalist commodity than a product whose value depletes every time you use it. That means we need alternative models. One proposal is for governments to fund an international institute that develops publicly owned antibiotics, rather than relying on the private sector; another is to incentivise development with generously funded prizes for antibiotic discovery. And to address the issue of overuse, economists have suggested that health authorities could run 'subscription' models that remove the incentive to sell lots of antibiotics. In one pilot scheme in England, two companies are being paid a set amount per year by the NHS, regardless of how much of their product is actually used. Finally, we have to remember that antibiotics aren't the only game in town. Supporting other, 'renewable' approaches means we get to use the ones we do have for longer. Vaccines are vital to disease prevention – with every meningitis, diphtheria or whooping cough vaccine meaning a potential course of antibiotics forgone. And the 20th century's largest reductions in infectious disease occurred not because of antibiotics, but thanks to better sanitation and public health. (Even in the 2000s, the threat of MRSA was addressed with tried-and-tested methods such as handwashing and cleaning protocols – not new antibiotics.) Given that antibiotics themselves emerged unexpectedly, we should also be investing more in blue-skies research. Just as we no longer burn coal without a thought for the consequences, the era of carefree antibiotic use is now firmly in the past. In both cases, the idea that there wouldn't be a reckoning was always an illusion. But as with our slow waking up to the reality of the climate crisis, coming to appreciate the limits of our love affair with antibiotics may ultimately be no bad thing. Liam Shaw is a biologist at the University of Oxford, and author of Dangerous Miracle (Bodley Head). Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End by Atul Gawande (Profile, £11.99) Infectious: Pathogens and How We Fight Them by John S Tregoning (Oneworld, £10.99) Deadly Companions: How Microbes Shaped our History by Dorothy H Crawford (Oxford, £12.49)
The Sun
29 minutes ago
- The Sun
DWP confirms exactly when it will launch huge benefits crackdown that means banks can identify fraudsters
THE Government has confirmed when it's planning to bring in controversial new powers aimed at cracking down on benefits fraudsters. Banks will be drafted in to help identify benefits cheats and convicted fraudsters could be stripped of their driving licences under the new Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) plans. 1 New Government documents have revealed it's planning to bring the measures under the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill in April 2026. The DWP has said it will be the "biggest fraud crackdown in a generation". It's estimated the new powers could save taxpayers £1.5billion over five years. Last year, an estimated £7.4billion was lost to benefits fraud - around 2.8% of total welfare spending. A further £1.6bn (0.6%) was overpaid due to unintentional errors by claimants, while £0.8bn (0.3%) was overpaid because of errors by the DWP. Chancellor Rachel Reeves has been trying to boost the public purse after it was revealed she needs to plug a £50billion hole in public finances. The new measures mean banks will help to identify customers who might have breached benefit eligibility rules, such as exceeding the £16,000 savings limit for Universal Credit. They will share limited data with the DWP but can't provide transaction details, so officials won't be able to see how benefit claimants spend their money. The DWP also won't gain direct access to claimants' bank accounts, but it will receive cases flagged for investigation. Financial institutions face penalties if they overshare information beyond what's permitted. DWP will have access to YOUR bank accounts to tackle debt as Brits told 'get back to work' in major push on unemployed Airlines and other third-party organisations might also have to provide information to help detect benefit claims made from abroad that could violate eligibility rules. According to the Government documents, any information "will not be shared on the presumption or suspicion that anyone is guilty of any offence". However officials will gain authority to recover money directly from fraudsters' bank accounts. As well as this, persistent benefit fraudsters who fail to repay their debts could face driving bans lasting up to two years. DWP minister Liz Kendall has pledged to clamp down on benefit cheats, saying back in March: "The social security system that we inherited from the Conservatives is failing the very people that it is supposed to help and is holding our country back. "The facts speak for themselves. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Almost one million young people are not in education, employment or training - one in eight of all our young people." The DWP has said it will have strong safeguards in place, including new inspection and reporting mechanisms. DWP staff will also receive comprehensive training before using the new powers. However campaign groups have warned the powers could invade claimants' rights to financial privacy and it could also lead to legitimate claimants being wrongly investigated. In a letter to Kendall last year, the directors of Big Brother Watch and Age UK described the plans as "mass financial surveillance powers" which they said would "represent a severe and disproportionate intrusion into the nation's privacy".
The Guardian
29 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Dining across the divide: ‘It was like a communist interrogation'
Occupation Data engineer Voting record Usually Conservative, but didn't vote in the last two elections – 'The parties seem broadly the same. Nobody really stands by the manifesto' Amuse bouche This isn't Michael's first career – he started his working life as a history teacher Occupation Mainly a student, but works on social media and campaigns for the Workers party Voting record The Workers party; has also voted Green Amuse bouche Sophia can recite the full lyrics to Billy Joel's We Didn't Start the Fire. Can also sing it, but only when she's been drinking Michael She was covered in a bunch of communist pins; it came off as a little bit of an intentional caricature. My first impression was: younger than I thought and wearing her politics on her sleeve, literally. Sophia I was expecting someone more rightwing, more Reform-like, but I found him pretty interesting, in regard to his abstinence from voting and his lack of interest in any of the key parties. Michael I ate some salt and pepper squid and a cod loin. Sophia I had the sourdough margherita pizza and a couple of glasses of rather nice Romanian red wine. Michael Governments' first duty of care is to their own citizens, which means migration needs to serve the interests of the people already here. Relatively unchecked mass migration doesn't seem to do that. Being someone who went through all the legal hoops – moving to the UK from Canada – the idea that I could have simply lost my passport, shown up and not had to wait in line for anything, that's not ideal. Not being able to do anything about foreign people who take advantage of the UK's astonishing generosity isn't great. Sophia He was essentially saying, 'We need growth but how are migrants going to generate that?' He felt that it would be detrimental to the migrants' own countries, in that they'd be losing their own assets. But they're leaving because they aren't seen as assets. They're leaving because of corruption, poverty, different human rights. It's not as simple as he thinks: migrants don't necessarily have a choice. Michael The situation we're in serves large corporations and keeps everyone addicted to low-wage labour. It makes our GDP look good, but it's reducing our standard of living, and that includes the people we're importing. If we want to help the whole world thrive, are we doing anyone else any favours by saying to other countries, 'Yes, we'll have all your doctors and nurses, thanks'?Sophia He looked at everything from his individual perspective as an economic agent. I think he lacked empathy, and I said that to him. He responded that I was being overly idealistic – but he was being idealistic as well, in terms of his own capital interests and what served them. If I had a penny for every time he called me idealistic, I could repair the economic conditions he's so worried about. Michael She was very keen to talk about Gaza. I don't think either side is very nice in this case. I don't have a strong opinion, except that it is atrocious. Sophia I don't see it as a war. I see it as unjustifiable violence for nationalist aims. Having a two-state solution is completely wrong, because it's only rewarding Israel for what it's done. It should be one democratically run state. Michael Everybody should have the right to be left alone. When we start having laws around misgendering, I think: look, I prefer people to be polite, but people are allowed to be impolite, and making special rules based on someone's whim is weird. Sophia I'm a gender abolitionist. He doesn't like jargon, whereas I quite like that people use labels, because that makes it feel more real, as opposed to people thinking they're abnormal. Michael I tried to be polite and stay for the duration, while she was eating. Looking back, I berate myself for not walking away sooner. It was the most communist interrogation a guy can have without ending up with bamboo shoots under his nails. Sophia It wasn't that the conversation dried up or that we hated each other; we just said goodbye. I think it was on good terms. I was probably not the sort of person he'd choose to interact with. Additional reporting: Kitty Drake Michael and Sophia ate at Riding House, London WC1 Want to meet someone from across the divide? Find out how to take part
