Listen to the opponents of immigration and you find that their arguments are couched in terms of it being a zero sum game. "Immigrants are taking our jobs". "Immigrants are a drain on our society". Refugees and asylum seekers receive the worst of it being labelled "bogus" or associated with terrorism and disease. At worst these people are treated in dehumanising, unfair and inhumane ways.
The truth is that very rarely is it a zero sum game. However, this belief that there are finite resources and finite opportunities appears to be deeply ingrained and may be blamed for the rise of the likes of UKIP and for the outcome of the Brexit referendum.
How do we change these attitudes? It is certainly not easy - just telling people that immigrants are not taking vital resources appears simply to backfire in many cases, reinforcing deeply embedded antipathy. (After all, the people have "had enough of experts", haven't they?).
Immigration and asylum-seeking are not going away so we need to find some means of lessening these tensions. Countries that integrate immigrants successfully are less likely to be subject to inter-group tension (stating the bleedin' obvious, that) and much more likely to reap the benefits. Slamming shut the door ain't going to work.
Wednesday, 20 September 2017
Saturday, 16 September 2017
Neonatal Gene Sequencing - Brave New World?
Both my daughters-in-law are currently pregnant and going through the routine scans etc. that are in the gift of the NHS. There's nothing unusual in that. However, across the Atlantic something unusual is happening.
In Boston the BabySeq Project is under way in which 240 healthy babies and 240 babies born in intensive care will have their whole genomes sequenced. The team undertaking the research will be looking for a series of protein-coding genes that are strongly associated with diseases that begin in childhood and also for mutations linked to diseases that occur in later life.
It is possible that some physical interventions, or enhanced check-ups, could follow this analysis. And all the subjects will be monitored for at least five years.
Perhaps all of the above is not particularly controversial and the approach being taken by the investigating team certainly appears to be well thought through and careful. But it does start to open up a whole gamut of ethical questions.
The babies have not given their consent to sequencing. To what extent should parents then be able to agree to medical interventions based on this new knowledge? When the child reaches adulthood who will own the data? Will the subject be able to ask for it to be destroyed?
And looking further ahead - it will become easier for pre-natal testing to be done. What decisions may that prompt? What are the ethics of gene therapy at this stage?
We face a brave new world here. The Boston trial is a good first step but we must be vigilant that future moves are equally well founded.
In Boston the BabySeq Project is under way in which 240 healthy babies and 240 babies born in intensive care will have their whole genomes sequenced. The team undertaking the research will be looking for a series of protein-coding genes that are strongly associated with diseases that begin in childhood and also for mutations linked to diseases that occur in later life.
It is possible that some physical interventions, or enhanced check-ups, could follow this analysis. And all the subjects will be monitored for at least five years.
Perhaps all of the above is not particularly controversial and the approach being taken by the investigating team certainly appears to be well thought through and careful. But it does start to open up a whole gamut of ethical questions.
The babies have not given their consent to sequencing. To what extent should parents then be able to agree to medical interventions based on this new knowledge? When the child reaches adulthood who will own the data? Will the subject be able to ask for it to be destroyed?
And looking further ahead - it will become easier for pre-natal testing to be done. What decisions may that prompt? What are the ethics of gene therapy at this stage?
We face a brave new world here. The Boston trial is a good first step but we must be vigilant that future moves are equally well founded.
Friday, 15 September 2017
Wednesday, 13 September 2017
More on Scrappage and EVs
It's London bus time - announcements rolling in one after another.
We have a long-range Nissan EV announced.
Jaguar Land Rover are going fully EV or hybrid by 2020.
And Uber are aiming to transition all drivers to EVs by 2022.
Things are really hotting up. Perhaps it's time to cash in those oil and gas company shares you own before there's a nasty crash. And ask your pension fund to do the same!
We have a long-range Nissan EV announced.
Jaguar Land Rover are going fully EV or hybrid by 2020.
And Uber are aiming to transition all drivers to EVs by 2022.
Things are really hotting up. Perhaps it's time to cash in those oil and gas company shares you own before there's a nasty crash. And ask your pension fund to do the same!
More car makers pile onto diesel scrappage bandwagon
This from Edie details schemes from VW, Nissan and Toyota. It would appear that diesel scrappage schemes have some legs in the market and that no-one wants to miss out on the associated new sales. As with previously announced schemes it is essentially Euro 1 to 4 vehicles that are being targetted (Looks as though I'll be running my Euro 5 car for some time yet!).
As a number of the replacement options are all electric or hybrids this places more pressure on the greening of the electricity supply sector - an area where successive governments have what can at best be described as a patchy record.
As a number of the replacement options are all electric or hybrids this places more pressure on the greening of the electricity supply sector - an area where successive governments have what can at best be described as a patchy record.
Tuesday, 12 September 2017
Brexit and my MP - Part 16
Another pathetic response:
Dear
Richard
Many
thanks for getting in touch with me about the European Union Withdrawal Bill.
I appreciate your concerns about the programme motion for the Withdrawal Bill and it is an issue that is not uncommonly raised when we examine legislation.
However, I am satisfied that there will be sufficient time. Parliament has already debated many of the issues around Brexit and I have no doubt that this will continue.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me, and please do let me know if you feel there is ever anything I can do to help.
I appreciate your concerns about the programme motion for the Withdrawal Bill and it is an issue that is not uncommonly raised when we examine legislation.
However, I am satisfied that there will be sufficient time. Parliament has already debated many of the issues around Brexit and I have no doubt that this will continue.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me, and please do let me know if you feel there is ever anything I can do to help.
The
Rt Hon Anne Milton MP
Member
of Parliament for Guildford
Minister
of State for Apprenticeships and Skills, Minister for Women
Tel:
020 7219 8392/0017
Friday, 8 September 2017
Brexit and My MP - Part 15
8 September 2017
Dear Mrs Milton,
I am writing to you as a constituent to ask you to vote against the
Programme Motion for the Withdrawal Bill on Monday evening.
It appears to me that the proposed timetable for this Bill is one of unseemly haste. This is one of the most important bills in British parliamentary history and I am concerned that eight days does not provide you and your fellow elected representatives sufficient time to debate, scrutinise and amend such a significant piece of legislation. I note that previous debates on European treaties have been allocated far more time in Parliament.
A big part of the Leave campaign was based on parliamentary sovereignty but the timetable makes it look very much as though the Government is trying to avoid democratic scrutiny and railroad this bill through the House of Commons.
As my elected representative, I am urging you to vote against the Programme Motion to ensure that you get the opportunity to properly examine the EU Withdrawal Bill.
It appears to me that the proposed timetable for this Bill is one of unseemly haste. This is one of the most important bills in British parliamentary history and I am concerned that eight days does not provide you and your fellow elected representatives sufficient time to debate, scrutinise and amend such a significant piece of legislation. I note that previous debates on European treaties have been allocated far more time in Parliament.
A big part of the Leave campaign was based on parliamentary sovereignty but the timetable makes it look very much as though the Government is trying to avoid democratic scrutiny and railroad this bill through the House of Commons.
As my elected representative, I am urging you to vote against the Programme Motion to ensure that you get the opportunity to properly examine the EU Withdrawal Bill.
Yours sincerely
Richard Bawden
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)