Letter: Safety in science
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: It was misleading of your Science Correspondent Tom Wilkie to include, in a front-page article (4 February) on a lapse of good laboratory practice in handling a genetically modified pathogen, a reference to recommendations for deregulation in a report by a House of Lords committee which I chaired on the regulation of the UK biotechnology industry.
Taking account of evidence from the Health and Safety Executive, among others, we explicitly recommended against deregulation where pathogens were concerned. Your leading article calls for strict regulation; our report called for regulation on scientific principles, rather than the irrational basis adopted hitherto; I hope Mr Wilkie is not suggesting that these two approaches are incompatible.
Yours faithfully,
WILL HOWIE
Select Committee on Science and Technology
Committee Office
House of Lords
London, SW1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments