Closing the Fleming Fund-a bad day for antibiotics

One of the few certain things in life, apart from death and taxes, is to go to the bar of the Dog and Duck and there eavesdrop on opinions on the question of the UK Foreign Aid budget. “We got omeless on ahr streets, an dere sendin billions abrawd!” “We’re taxed to the ilt, an’ they’re givin it away!” are some of the politer opinions we dare repeat here. How ironic for them to see a hated Labour Government make the very cuts they so long for. But our pleasure is short lived..

For the Government seems ready to abolish The Fleming Fund. [1] A body set up in 2015 and named after the the illustrious pioneer of penicillin, the fund states its purpose as a

UK aid programme supporting up to 25 countries across Africa and Asia to tackle antimicrobial resistance. The Fund is managed by the Department of Health and Social Care and invests in strengthening surveillance systems through a portfolio of country and regional grants, global projects and fellowship schemes.

But-what goes around comes around, as the old saying has it. Antibiotic resistant superorganisms know no national boundaries. If they evolve in the third world, they will be here soon. This decision appears to be very short sighted.

We sympathise with a government caught in a hard place between the obdurate creed that says taxes must never rise, and the urgent need for spending to achieve at least a minimal defence capacity. Perhaps the real problem is not economic, or biological, but philosophical. For if the world is divided into competing nation states, what choice does each government have but to look after its own immediate interests? And if nations arm, each in mutual fear of its neighbours, what hope for spending on international co-operative efforts like the Fleming Fund? Perhaps the trick for LSS and its readers is not to develop more antibiotics, but to persuade millions of the sorts of people who go to the Dog and Duck to realise this simple truth.

_{thanks to J Read}

[1]https://bsac.org.uk/closure-of-the-fleming-fund-risks-undermining-uk-leadership-on-amr/

[2]https://www.flemingfund.org/about-us/

#fleming fund #overseas aid #antibiotic resistance #health #medicine #microorganisims

G7 v BRICS: is this how the sides will line up for World War Three?

We know we started out as a science based blog, mainly devoted to the encouragement of more research into antibiotics. If our brief has widened a little, it is because we cannot ignore the wider world around us. If that world decides to spend more on weapons of mass destruction, and less on antibiotic research, it impinges directly on us and our readers. Which is why this pair of articles from the Guardian caught our eye. They strongly suggest that the sides for the next world war are lining up. And the outcome is by no means certain.

On the one hand are the G7 group of countries, led by the USA.[1] Thirty years ago they had the game in their hands. Immensely rich, accounting for an enormous slice of the global pie, their triumph over the Communist bloc had seemed to set them apart . They were the world’s bankers, the world’s policemen, the world’s shop keepers. Since when, hubris seemed to set in and it has been downhill all the way. Iraq, financial crash, tariffs, Brexit…………These words are shorthand, metanymies if you will, for a deep moral rot that is grounded in an almost childlike reverence for the supremacy of financial markets and the sorts of people who work in them. Now as the admirable Joseph Stiglitz and his colleagues observe, the once mighty G7 is in danger of being little more than a front organisation for the interests of large American multinationals. A position sure to alienate many around the world.

Among the alienated are a group which starting out as the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa)[2] has expanded to include rising stars such as Indonesia. It may not be morally perfect either(its stance on Ukraine, and the fact that many members are autocracies cannot be overlooked). But its members are united on one thing: they are tired of the whims and policy lurches of the US, particularly under such a nakedly self-serving President as the current one. They are ready to have done with the traditional instruments of US domination such as the Reserve Dollar. And they are developing the economic resources to make these ambitions feasible.

History has two lessons. The decline of one hegemonic power and the rise of another is usually a signal of impending war. Another is the formation of alliance blocks; as one small event triggers a chain reaction of consequences. Think Europe 1914 as the case example for both. And don’t expect the supply of antibiotics to go up any time soon.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/02/the-g7-has-once-again-put-multinationals-profits-over-the-interests-of-people?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/13/the-guardian-view-on-brics-growing-up-a-new-bloc-seeks-autonomy-and-eyes-a-post-western-order?CMP=Share_iOSAp

#G7 #BRICS #China #USA #IMF #dollar #geopolitics #brasil #russia #indonesia

Calling all Billionaires: Please read this blog

John Caudwell[1] is no fool. Anyone who has started a company like Phones4U and turned it into a multibillion pound company must be pretty well endowed in the brains department. Yet he has one particularly intriguing belief. He believes in meritocracy: he is deeply suspicious of the idea of inherited wealth. If you want to know more about why you can hear home talking to Tony Hawks in this podcast [2] Tony Hawks is Giving Nothing Away on the BBC. But essentially Caudwell thinks that in the long run his children will lead healthier, happier lives if they have to make their own way. Like he did.

We don’t know about individuals. But we know societies function better if the follow Caudwell’s prescriptions. Old LSS hands will recall our long time advocacy of the works of Thomas Piketty [3] and Wilkinson and Pickett. [4]Who show that societies with more equal economic structures have better health outcomes, lower crime, more scientific innovation and much higher social mobility, than less equal peers. One of their key findings was that wealth hoarded into family dynasties is one of the key blockers of healthily mobile societies.

Which is why Caudwell has joined the Giving Pledge. [5]No it’s not a marxist commie plot: it’s run by some of the richest people on the planet. In the words of the organisation’s own website:

Pledgers support a wide array of issues in every corner of the globe and give in a multitude of ways. What unites them is a shared promise and a commitment to creating an impact.

Wealth can be spent in two ways. It can be wasted in endless competitions as to who drinks the best bottle of wine, drives the fastest Rolls Royce or has the biggest yacht. Or it can be re invested like this creating a healthier better world, with-who knows?-maybe even enough antibiotics. if you really want to spend your money to make your children safe, this is the way to do it. If you are a billionaire, thank you for reading. If you are not-find one gentle readers, and press the works of the Giving Pledge into their hands.

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Caudwell

[2]https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/m002fj92

[3] Thomas Piketty Capital in the 21st Century Harvard University Press 2014

[4] Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett The Spirit Level Penguin 2009

[5]https://www.givingpledge.org/pledger/john-caudwell/

#john caudwell #the giving pledge #economics #philanthropy # equality #social mobility

Why a falling population will solve most of our problems

Photo by Kostiantyn Stupak on Pexels.com

Back in the 1970s we used to worry about rising population the way we worry about antibiotics now. Problems like pollution, energy shortages and even climate change were being discussed in the better pubs in the area where we grew up. Birth rates were soaring around the world. Everyone agreed that by 2010 there were going to be far,far too many people for the planet to support (and you wondered why you weren’t invited to more parties?-ed)Since when the situation has changed. Rulers, particularly of the more authoritarian sort, are fretting that their populations are actually starting to fall. The reason this keeps them awake at night, they asseverate, is that thereby there will not be enough young workers to keep pensioners in the style of living to which they have become accustomed (although we privately suspect they have darker motives) “Make women have more children!” is their cry. How about “the pram is the tank of the Home Front!” Or has that one been used already?

The reality is rather different as Larry Elliott points out so limpidly in this short piece for The Guardian [1] A falling population means less pressure on oceans, air and land. Less need for antibiotics! More seats in cinemas and restaurants! And, quite quickly, a rising GDP per head of population. As for the economic thing: a single modern worker produces and consumes far more GDP and products than a hundred medieval farm hands. To keep the economy growing you just need to raise the standard of living, you don’t need more workers

But as committed feminists we have another sort of worry. If you really want women to have more children, you will have to take them out of universities and higher education generally. Re- structure the wage market so men are again the main breadwinners. Recreate ideologies of patriarchy and submission, a bit like those currently popular in Afghanistan. is that what you really want?

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jul/02/britain-falling-birthrate-economy-politics

#feminism #pollution #population #economics #ecology

Is Donald Trump a Socialist? #2: some readers responses

A few months ago(LSS 7 4 25) we published a blog called Is Donald Trump a Socialist? It was one of those end-of -the -day tired pieces which we expected to be soon forgotten, by ourselves and everybody else. Instead it turned out to be one of the most read, and remarked-upon pieces we have put out in months. Sadly, much more so than our ones on antibiotic resistance ones which was what this blog is supposed to be all about.

The essence of the piece boiled down to this. Capitalists, Liberals, Neo-liberals, call them what you will, believe that individual liberty is the only true basis of a healthy society and a prosperous economy. People making their own choices on how to spend their money, whom to hire and whom to fire, where to live, etc will allow the optimum possible outcome in the supply of Capital, Goods and Labour. The essence of socialist belief is that people cannot be trusted to make those decisions and that the state must often step in to ensure the best possible social and economic outcomes. In that sense, Mr Trump’s attempts to control the supply of Labour by immigration controls, and of Goods by tariff controls are socialist policies, not capitalist ones. The responses have been coming ever since. Here are a few which are broadly representative . (We protect the respondents anonymity for all sorts of reasons)

MC from Edinburgh pointed out that if a Communist like Mr Xi could run a capitalist economy in China, why shouldn’t a Capitalist like Trump run a socialist one in America? (intriguing!)

DG from Texas said that Mr Trump’s policies were not Socialist, they we Nationalist (that doesn’t make them Capitalist, we thought)

JS from Massachusetts said he had studied economics at Princeton. And that essentially we had “placed Trump on a New Deal continuum, with fewer unions and more nationalisation” (We are still struggling to understand this)

V. from Mumbai wondered “if all leaders become Socialist when it comes to steel and swing states”

As we write an actual self-proclaimed Socialist called Zohran Mamdami is running for Mayor of New York, that Holy Ground Zero of Capitalism. If we are right, he and Mr Trump may find more in common than they realise. Maybe it’s all about what you do, not what you call yourself, that counts.

But we feel exceedingly grateful for your reactions. Keep ’em coming.

#Donald Trump #Xi Jinping #Capitalist #communist #socialist #liberal #neo liberal #free market #tariff #immigration control

Why Keir Starmer can never be Clement Attlee

We apologise to overseas readers for the parochial references in this blog: but are our problems so different from yours?

As we write BBC Radio 4 is running a series about the 1945 General Election and the marvellously successful Labour Government that followed it.[1] For six years the United Kingdom had the most serendipitously achieving administration it had experienced since Elizabeth I. As he listens (assuming he has time) our current Prime Minister must ask himself “Why can’t I do what Clement Attlee did? Why is the concatenation of problems-defence, economy, social policy- so absolutely, stupendously overwhelming that even my own backbenchers are in such overwhelming revolt? [2]

No one doubts Starmer’s intelligence. Or courage. Or good intentions. However,the problems run too deep, and in our opinion are insoluble if the nation state is the means chosen to solve them. Clement Attlee inherited a world where companies, and the financial structures that supported them essentially existed at a national level (or within the imperial frameworks those nations had created) So the writ of Westminster really did run, and no one could afford to ignore it. Legislation passed by a British Government really did have the power to shape lives. Improve them sometimes,even, as the creation of the NHS and NATO so admirably demonstrated.

If Starmer’s government fails it will fall to Reform UK to make the necessary budgetary adjustments which Labour could not. A hint of the difficulties they may face comes from Warwickshire where a brave 18 year old has bravely taken the reigns of their new Council.[3] He states his belief as “Brexit, sovereignty and a strong and united family unit”.

Perfectly admirable and defensible beliefs, even if one disagrees with one or more of them intellectually. Unfortunately his manifesto raises many questions. Like : what is sovereignty? How far can it be sustained in a world where almost half of all available investment capital is in private hands? Can a country the size of the UK create and sustain its own industries against production runs in the power of giant corporations, or countries the size of China and India? How long did City States like Milan and Florence sustain their sovereignties against giant antagonists like Spain and France? Your Renaissance history will help here, but don’t worry: you won’t have to read it for long.

Antagonists they may seem, but both Starmer and Reform are two of a kind. A national government may have some power to alleviate, sometimes, if enough of its supporters let it. Its days of initiative and creation are long gone. Keir Starmer will never be Clement Attlee. And no one will be Winston Churchill either.

[1]https://www.bing.com/search?q=bbc+radio+series+1945+election&form=ANNTH1&refig=6F075FD8E25341758E4FFB72C8969982&pc=HCTS

[2]https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/26/no-10-government-talks-labour-rebels-attempt-quash-welfare-bill-revolt

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/26/reform-warwickshire-council-head-rob-howard-quits-after-five-weeks-leaving-18-year-old-in-charge

#Labour #Reform UK #politics #economic #nationalism #finance #trade #economics

No that last blog does not make us a bunch of Communists

Every so often one of our blogs engenders some intriguing feedback . Alongside the usual welcome comments with all their nods and frowns, we occasionally get one that is a little-uh- longer, yet expresses its views with passionate clarity, to push euphemism to its limits. Such was the case today, when a reader alleged that our criticism of fossil fuel and tobacco companies was a sure sign that we were under the influence of Communists, who aim to tear down the free market system and replace it with a “nightmare of bureaucratic state socialism” of the sort found in places like Venezuela and North Korea. In particular the reader observed:

“What you’ve got to remember is that markets not governments are best at allocating resources. Intervening in fossil fuel markets is crypto socialism- it will only distort price signals, stifle innovation and lead to unintended consequences”

When we asked if this was true for immigration control as well, they replied

“Absolutely! Free markets mean the free movement of labour. Anything else is protectionism in disguise.

So, where does that leave us at LSS? Having worked for many years in the Government Employ and thereby known the ways of Civil Servants, we can more and more share the view that Free Markets really do work better. No, it’s the “unintended consequences” that pulls us up. Free markets can have those too. Totally unregulated sales of tobacco produced an epidemic of cancer. We suspect that over enthusiastic marketing of certain foods and drinks will one day produce an epidemic of obesity. As for gushing out vast quantities of poisonous mineral oil and burning it with heedless abandon-well we wish people had been better informed before this was started. To call for better product information, and to ask that consequences of free markets are cleaned up, or at least controlled, does not make one a Communist. Or anything like it.

Thanks for the feedback, and we appreciate that in view of this respondent’s employment, they must remain anonymous

#climate change #free markets # global warming #immigration #communism #socialism #capitalism #hayek #marx

Climate Change denial: latest round in a long war of deception

First deny there’s a problem. Then do all you can to delay a solution. Buy up politicians, scientists, bloggers, and bots. The tactics of the fossil fuel industry and outriding nations as they seek above all to protect their comfy lifestyles and exorbitant profits. It’s not just made abundantly clear in this report by Damien Carrington in the Guardian: it nails down every last nail to be had into the coffin lid. [1]

But we’ve seen it all before gentle readers. We recall walking down an alley in London in 1971 with a close relative who assured us there was no definite, provable link between smoking and cancer, OK!? (he died of the latter) Why was he able to state this? Because for decades the tobacco industry had managed a huge campaign of deception, obfuscation and general misinformation designed to give him and his peers every excuse they needed to continue their tragic addiction. Using exactly the same techniques now employed by climate change deniers, funnily enough.. The only difference was that they didn’t have the Interweb to turbocharge their propaganda and illusioning. This rather depressing link to the WHO explains the ghastly details to anyone who may want to know more about the fundamentals of human nature [2]

And what are these fundamentals, by the way? We don’t know them all But we can hazard a guess at some, provisional though we may well be

1 Some people will do anything to make some quick cash, Anything at all.

2 Many people will do anything to avoid facing the consequences of the vile little habits which they have acquired in the course of a lifetime of self indulgence and self deception.

3 Just because you are educated and slightly more far seeing than others around you does not give you tactical superiority in the current wars between the intelligent and our enemies They are incredibly cunning and well funded

4 This ain’t over yet. Keep a close eye on rising sea levels, if you want to live

We will be ready with further insights. inspirations and bons motifs in future blogs. Keep reading. And thanks for all the recent sigh ups and likes. Keep ’em coming.

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jun/19/climate-misinformation-turning-crisis-into-catastrophe-ipie-report

[2]https://www.who.int/news/item/16-11-2023-new-who-campaign-highlights-tobacco-industry-tactics-to-influence-public-health-policies

#climate change #global warming #ecology #fossil fuels #tobacco #cancer

Forensic Science shows why privatisation doesn’t work

Being an employee of the UK Forensic Science Service used to open doors back in the year 2000. Even if you you were too lowly to personally know the top people, you worked for them,: you saw them in corridors and said good morning. People as far away as San Francisco wanted to know about their pioneering DNA techniques, excellence in evidence handling and preservation, in new intellectual approaches like Bayesian statistics. It was like playing for Manchester United (then popular and successful exponents of the game of Association Football)

But lurking in the background was a disease that would kill this particular goose and the golden eggs it laid. “Private sector good, public sector bad” It was a mantra that had taken deadly root in the Thatcher years. The private sector, it held, was full of hard working go getting, sharp- suit- wearing entrepreneurs who cut through the red tape and got things done. Civil servants(the FSS and its predecessors were Civil Service bodies) were lazy, hidebound, slow, risk averse pen pushers who needed nothing so much as a good kick up the backside The result was that anything and everything (except police and armed forces) was sold to private investors. Eventually even the Forensic Science Service went under the hammer. The results are made clear in this story by Hannah Devlin of the Guardian [1] We cannot begin to do justice to the wasteland of failed justice, loss of expertise and collapsing confidence which has resulted. All we can do is quote this extract-and beg you to read the whole thing

Forensic science in England and Wales as currently configured isn’t working for anyone – not for the police, not for the lawyers or for the courts, not for the scientists themselves, and not for the general public who get caught up in the criminal justice system,” said Prof Angela Gallop, co-chair of the Westminster Commission on Forensic Science.

“Like a plane hurtling downwards in what has become known as a ‘graveyard spiral’, with the pilot in desperation making increasingly erratic decisions, it can only be a short time now before it impacts the ground.”

Perhaps the Manchester United metaphor was not so facile. Things sort of function- but at laughable shadow of their former glory.

This is what happens when a country is seized and held by a single doctrine. When the lazy self interested opinions of journalists and the gin sodden flies who hang around golf club bars are substituted for rational policy No one would deny that Forensic Science under the Government had its inefficiencies, or the odd passenger. It contained more than a few fools who loudly praised the tax cuts and bought the gas shares that Thatcherism created. Its even arguable that some industries did benefit from the injection of private capital and techniques (water is not one of them) But like water, the whole sorry mess now needs clearing up. And none of it ,none of it , needed to have happened. That’s the biggest injustice of all.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2025/jun/09/forensic-science-crisis-miscarriages-of-justice-england-and-wales-report

#forensic science #justice #police #courts #evidence #economics #privatisation #thames water

AIDS breakthrough shows what science can do

We now live in an age when science (and the rational habits of mind it depends upon) is under attack. Heirs to the rational tradition have always had to live with religious fundamentalists who deny inconvenient truths like evolution. But nowadays attacks come thick and fast from those who wish to deny climate change, the dangers of smoking, the efficacy of vaccines and much besides. From people who nevertheless cheerfully accept other scientific findings which suit them. So, just to redress the balance we thought we’d showcase this breathtaking new advance in AIDS research which, for the first time, holds out the hope of a permanent cure.

It comes from Kat Lay of the Guardian,[1] reporting the work of the Peter Doherty Institute in Australia.[2] The background will be familiar: the great evolutionary survival trick of the HIV was to bury itself deep in certain white blood cells of the immune system, where it was immune to our attack. In the words of Kat:

In a paper published in Nature Communications, the researchers have shown for the first time that mRNA can be delivered into the cells where HIV is hiding, by encasing it in a tiny, specially formulated fat bubble. The mRNA then instructs the cells to reveal the virus. First AIDS was a death sentence: then it could be slowed with drugs. Now at last comes hope of a real cure for its 40 million or so sufferers

Science itself is a process, not a monolithic entity. It evolves, refines, and corrects itself over time. But when people selectively accept only the parts that align with their worldview, they undermine the very foundation of rational inquiry This kind of cherry-picking often stems from cognitive biases, ideological commitments, or economic incentives. Climate change denial, for example, is frequently tied to political or financial interests, while opposition to vaccines or smoking regulations can be fuelled by misinformation or personal convenience. But the deniers should remember one thing: if they do decide to overthrow the rationalists, will they put anything better in our place?

Truth is compared in Scripture to a streaming fountain; if her waters flow not in a perpetual progression, they sicken into a muddy pool of conformity and tradition.”

Milton: Areopagitica

[1]https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jun/05/breakthrough-in-search-for-hiv-cure-leaves-researchers-overwhelmed?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

[2]https://www.doherty.edu.au/

#HIV #AIDS #disease #mRNA #medicine #science #climate change #smoking