IELTS Recent Reading Passages

The History of Woodlands in Britain

The climate in Britain has been arctic for the last several million years, punctuated by relatively warm timespans, or interglacials of thousands of years, one of which we are in as of now. Since the last glaciation, British woodland history is considered quite short in terms of geological time spans, and is also closely related to the human civilization developing.

At the peak of the last glaciation (100,000–12,000 BC), the majority of Britain would have had no trees. Birch and willow scrub may have grown along the lower reaches of the ice, with pine in some areas. It’s possible that remnants of pre-glacial flora were sheltered along the western bays of Great Britain and Ireland’s coasts, but as far as the southern parts of England, the ice kept any land barren. Information regarding the development of Britain’s flora following glaciation can be found by studying the deposits of pollen and seed in peat, as well as by the use of radiocarbon dating. Tundra and moorland followed the retreating ice, which lead to phases of different tree species spreading from the south. First came birch, aspen and sallow, followed by pine and hazel continuing to spread north as of 8500 BC, replacing birch to make it less commonly found for the next few thousand years. Oak and alder came after pine, then lime, elm, beech, and maple, all spreading northwards one after the other. From the moment lime arrived, in about 7300, to about 4500 BC the climate remained stable for a length of time known as the Atlantic Period, a time in which numerous species grew to form a series of wildwood or wilderness types.

What did the wilderness or wildwood look like, before man started interfering with it? One theory holds that Britain and Western Europe in Palaeolithic times was covered from coast to coast in a wildwood of continuous trees. However, a modern theory proposed by Francis Vera holds that Western Europe wilderness was a combination of grassland, scrub, and clusters or groves of trees. It was not a dense, impassable wildwood, but instead, an area similar to a park, kept up by wild herbivores eating the plants and grass. Throughout earlier interglacial periods, this may also have been the case in Britain, as creatures of the Palaeolithic era needed to roam large areas of grassland to survive. A variety of grassland plants continued to live there in the last interglacial, as according to pollen records. However, since the last glaciation, the bison, elk and other large herbivores which persisted on mainland Europe were extinct in Britain, so Vera’s theory may not apply so well to Britain.

Meanwhile, throughout the period since it’s spread northwards after the last glaciation, the sustained growth of oak in Britain demonstrates that the wildwood was not as continual as once believed. Oak is a pioneer species, which requires vacant space to generate more of itself. Grazing animals are also present to keep areas open, so Oak regenerates in the thorny brush as a protective measure from their grazing. Archaeological evidence indicates that red deer, who graze on grass as well as browse from trees, were essential to the economy in Mesolithic Britain, with people utilizing them for meat, skins, antlers and bones.

As the Mesolithic (10,000–3000 BC) era ended, evidence of the beginnings of agriculture emerges. Agricultural weeds, such as plantain and stinging nettle, were also increasing in number. Nearly all the wildwood was cut down as the population increased rapidly. However, the falling elm population around 4,000 BC all across Europe has been attributed not to the clearing of trees, but to what’s referred to as Elm disease.

Throughout the Bronze Age (2400–750 BC), people were cutting down trees more than ever before, until the prevalence of the practice “coppicing” peaked, likely at some point during the early Iron Age. Oliver Rackham (1990) theorizes that nearly 50% of land throughout England was no longer wildwood by 500 BC. The regrowth from a stump grows more readily than the original tree, and Neolithic man had discovered this practice, known as coppicing. Much of the remaining woods were maintained by way of this method during the Bronze Age.

The Celtic peoples living in the Iron Age were able to master woodworking as an artform. Today, Celtic woodworking can be seen in houses, boats, wheels and other artifacts of the time. Coppicing as a means to manage woodland was of massive importance throughout two millennia that followed. Buildings, roads, fences, carts, and the fuel for heating, cooking, metalworking and pottery were all made possible due to wood materials gained from the vital practice of coppicing.

A clear divide has existed between wooded and non-wooded regions of Britain since the time of the Romans. As evidenced by The Domesday Book (1086), all the wood in England had an economic value and was the property of either an individual or community owner. Woods were the territories, or ‘exclaves’ of communities who lived some miles away. Even though it had to be transported over long distances, the materials which woodlands produced were of obvious value, and their ownership was long before established. Merely around 15% of land in England was represented by woodland or wood-pasture in the year 1086.

English woodlands produced mostly underwood used as fuel along with other things, with small oaks being used to construct buildings. The average wood-framed houses of the Medieval era mostly used oaks shorter than 18” in diameter. Longer pieces of timber were hard to come by, and kept only for elaborate buildings intended for the Church. Imported boards of thin oak or wainscot from Central Europe were brought in for the purpose of domestic building. Woodland cover was as low as 15% in 1086, and continued to decline from as a result of an ever-growing population to 10% by 1350. This stopped suddenly with the plague of the Black Death of 1349 wiping out some of the human population. Woods which had persisted up to 1350 mostly prospered over the next 500 years.

Succession and Ecosystems

AEcologists use the term “succession” to refer to the changes that happen in plant communities and ecosystems over time. In the early twentieth century, the American ecologist Frederic Clements pointed out that a succession of plant communities would develop after a disturbance such as a volcanic eruption, heavy flood, or forest fire. An abandoned field, for instance, will be invaded successively by herbaceous plants, shrubs, and trees, eventually becoming a forest.

BThe first community in a succession is called a pioneer community, while the established community at the end of a succession is called a climax community. Pioneer and successional plant communities are said to change over periods of 1 to 500 years. These changes—in plant numbers and the mix of species—are cumulative. Climax communities themselves change but over periods of time greater than about 500 years. The final stage of a succession is not predictable or of uniform composition. There is usually a good deal of turnover in species composition, even in a mature community. The nature of the climax community is influenced by the same factors that influence succession. Nevertheless, mature natural environments are usually in equilibrium. They change relatively little through time unless the environment itself changes. Clements and other early ecologists saw an almost lawlike regularity in the order of succession, but that has not been substantiated. A general trend can be recognized, but the details are usually unpredictable. Succession is influenced by many factors: the nature of the soil, exposure to sun and wind, regularity of precipitation, chance colonizations, and many other arbitrary processes.

CFor Clements, the climax community was a “superorganism,” an organic entity. Even some authors who accepted the climax community concept rejected Clements' characterization of it as a superorganism, and it is indeed a misleading metaphor. An ant colony may be legitimately called a superorganism because its communication system is so highly organized that the colony always works as a whole and appropriately according to the circumstances. But there is no evidence for such an interacting communicative network in a climax plant formation. Many authors prefer the term “association” to the term “community” in order to stress the looseness of the interaction.

DEven less fortunate was the extension of this type of thinking to include animals as well as plants. This resulted in the “biome,” a combination of coexisting flora and fauna. Though it is true that many animals are strictly associated with certain plants, it is misleading to speak of a “spruce-moose biome,” for example, because there is no internal cohesion to their association as it would be with an organism. The spruce community is not substantially affected by either the presence or absence of moose. Indeed, there are vast areas of spruce forest without moose. The opposition to the Clementsian concept of plant ecology was initiated by Herbert Gleason, soon joined by various other ecologists. Their major point was that the distribution of a given species was controlled by the habitat requirements of that species and that therefore the vegetation types were a simple consequence of the ecologies of individual plant species.

EWith “climax,” “biome,” “superorganism,” and various other technical terms for the association of animals and plants at a given locality being criticized, the term “ecosystem” was more and more widely adopted for the whole system of associated organisms together with the physical factors of their environment. Eventually, the energy-transforming role of such a system was emphasized. An ecologist is concerned primarily with the quantities of matter and energy that pass through a given ecosystem, and with the rates at which they do so. Today one speaks of the ecosystem when referring to a local association of animals and plants, usually without paying much attention to these energy aspects.

FAt one time, ecologists believed that species diversity made ecosystems stable. They believed that the greater the diversity the more stable the ecosystem. Support for this idea came from the observation that long-lasting climax communities usually have more complex food webs and more species diversity than pioneer communities. Ecologists concluded that the apparent stability of climax ecosystems depended on their complexity. To take an extreme example, farmlands dominated by a single crop are so unstable that one year of bad weather or the invasion of a single pest can destroy the entire crop. In contrast, a complex climax community, such as a temperate forest, will tolerate considerable damage from weather to pests.

GThe question of ecosystem stability is complicated, however. Stability can be defined as simply lack of change. In that case, the climax community would be considered the most stable, since, by definition, it changes the least over time. Alternatively, stability can be defined as the speed with which an ecosystem returns to a particular form following a major disturbance, such as a fire. This kind of stability is also called resilience. In that case, climax communities would be the most fragile and the least stable, since they can require hundreds of years to return to the climax state.

HEven the kind of stability which is defined as simple lack of change is not always associated with maximum diversity. At least in temperate zones, maximum diversity is often found in mid-successional stages, not in the climax community. Once a redwood forest matures, for example, the kinds of species and the number of individuals growing on the forest floor are reduced. In general, diversity, by itself, does not ensure stability. Mathematical models of ecosystems likewise suggest that diversity does not guarantee ecosystem stability—just the opposite, in fact.

IMany ecologists now think that the relative long-term stability of climax communities comes not from diversity but from the “patchiness” of the environment, an environment that varies from place to place supports more kinds of organisms than an environment that is uniform. A local population that goes extinct is quickly replaced by immigrants from an adjacent community. Even if the new population is of a different species, it can approximately fill the niche vacated by the extinct population and keep the food web intact.

Discoveries on the Basis of Deductive Reasoning

Could it be that the very essence of reasoning itself is found in the way we behave? Clark Hull, an acclaimed American psychologist, theorized that it was, describing that reasoning is achieved by the way two “behavior segments” are combined in new ways to achieve goals. Howard and Tracey Kendler, who were two of Hull’s followers, used Hull’s principle ideas to design a reasoning test for children. In this test, children needed to learn how to use a machine in a two-step process. The children learned each of the two steps individually, with the first being to correctly choose and press one of two buttons, and the second to place a marble into a small opening. If both steps were completed successfully, a toy would be released as rewards to the children.

From this test, the Kendlers learned that although the children were able to learn each step, they were not able to “integrate” the two tasks without intervention. In other words, the children could not successfully perform the first step, pushing the button, and then proceed to the second step, inserting the marble into the hole, by themselves. This failure to independently integrate the steps led the Kendlers to believe that children of this age were not able to use deductive reasoning.

According to the work of psychologist and professor Michael Cole and his associates, some adults from specific African tribes are also unable to successfully complete the Kendlers' two-step test of deductive reasoning. However, this finding remains questionable in light of the findings of a similar test to the Kendlers’, which revealed that the African tribes people were, in fact, able to complete the test.

In this test, Cole substituted a locked box for the machine with the buttons, and then used two matchboxes of different colors. One of the matchboxes held a key for the locked box. Just like with the Kendlers’ test, Cole’s test also involved two behavior segments, these being to first open the right matchbox to get the key, and second to use the key to open the box. However, Cole’s test differs quite a bit psychologically. Instead of subjects being presented with a strange machine, they are given familiar objects in a simpler context. Cole found the difficulty of “integration” was greatly reduced here.

It seems that the same truth which Cole discovered can be extended to explain the deductive reasoning skills of young children. Psychologist Simon Hewson believes that perhaps the task’s difficulty is not in inferential processes themselves, but is instead tied to confusing features of the test apparatus, such as the button machine, as well as the context of the procedure being tested. When these factors are adjusted in order to prevent the inferential nature of the problem being affected, five-year-old children are able to successfully complete these tests as well as college students did in the Kendlers' test.

Hewson made two essential changes to the test in order to build on this idea. First, he replaced the button-pressing mechanism with drawers that a child could slide open and shut. This removed confusion on what to do with the original button apparatus from the first stage of training. Secondly, Hewson made sure that children understood that there was nothing special or magical about the marble which was used to successfully complete the second step of the task and get the reward.

This is important because a child cannot easily comprehend a mechanism in which a marble put into a hole can open a little door. It would then be safe to say that the child will not assume that different marbles of identical size could be used the same way. But, to solve the problem, this assumption must be made. Hewson clearly demonstrated the functional equivalence of different marbles to the children by playing a “swapping game.” Hewson's two modifications to the experiment led to a rise in success rates from 30 percent to 90 percent for five-year-old children and from 35 percent to 72.5 percent for four-year-olds. Strangely enough for three-year-olds, Hewson’s changes did not lead to any improvement, and instead there was a slight drop in performance from the change. Hewson's experiments showed that children faced with the Kendler apparatus experienced difficulty not related to reasoning, but to the nature of the tasks themselves, and that difficulty cannot be taken as proof that they are incapable of deductive reasoning.

Africa Boy

In 2002, William Kamkwamba had to drop out of school, as his father, a maize and tobacco farmer, could no longer afford his school fees. But despite this setback, William was determined to get his education. He began visiting a local library that had just opened in his old primary school, where he discovered a tattered science book. With only a rudimentary grasp of English, he taught himself basic physics - mainly by studying photos and diagrams. Another book he found there featured windmills on the cover and inspired him to try and build his own.

He started by constructing a small model. Then, with the help of a cousin and friend, he spent many weeks searching scrap yards and found old tractor fans, shock absorbers, plastic pipes, and bicycle parts, which he used to build the real thing.

For windmill blades, William cut some bath pipe in two lengthwise, then heated the pieces over hot coals to press the curled edges flat. To bore holes into the blades, he stuck a nail through half a corncob, heated the metal red, and twisted it through the blades. It took three hours to repeatedly heat the nail and bore the holes. He attached the blades to a tractor fan using proper nuts and bolts and then to the back axle of a bicycle. Electricity was generated through the bicycle dynamo. When the wind blew the blades, the bike chain spun the bike wheel, which charged the dynamo and sent a current through a wire to his house.

What he had built was a crude machine that produced 12 volts and powered four lights. When it was all done, the windmill's wingspan measured more than eight feet and sat on top of a rickety tower 15 feet tall that swayed violently in strong gales. He eventually replaced the tower with a sturdier one that stands 39 feet and built a second machine that watered a family garden.

The windmill brought William Kamkwamba instant local fame, but despite his accomplishment, he was still unable to return to school. However, news of his magetsi a mphepo - electric wind - spread beyond Malawi, and eventually, things began to change. An education official, who had heard the news of the windmill, came to visit his village and was amazed to learn that William had been out of school for five years. He arranged for him to attend secondary school at the government's expense and brought journalists to the farm to see the windmill. Then a story published in the Malawi Daily Mail caught the attention of bloggers, which in turn caught the attention of organizers for the Technology Entertainment and Design conference.

In 2007, William spoke at the TED Global conference in Tanzania and got a standing ovation. Businessmen stepped forward with offers to fund his education and projects, and with money donated by them, he was able to put his cousin and several friends back into school and pay for some medical needs of his family. With the donation, he also drilled a borehole for a well and water pump in his village and installed drip irrigation in his father's fields.

The water pump has allowed his family to expand its crops. They have abandoned tobacco and now grow maize, beans, soybeans, potatoes, and peanuts. The windmills have also brought big lifestyle and health changes to the other villagers. 'The village has changed a lot,' William says. 'Now, the time that they would have spent going to fetch water, they are using for doing other things. And also the water they are drinking is clean water, so there is less disease.' The villagers have also stopped using kerosene and can use the money previously spent on fuel to buy other things.

William Kamkwamba's example has inspired other children in the village to pursue science. William says they now see that if they put their mind to something, they can achieve it. 'It has changed the way people think,' he says.

Why are Americans so angry?

Americans are generally known for having a positive outlook on life, but with the countdown for November's presidential election now well underway, polls show voters are angry. This may explain the success of non-mainstream candidates such as Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Bernie Sanders. But what is fuelling the frustration?

A CNN/ORC poll carried out in December 2015 suggests 69% of Americans are either "very angry" or "somewhat angry" about "the way things are going" in the US. And the same proportion - 69% - are angry because the political system "seems to only be working for the insiders with money and power, like those on Wall Street or in Washington," according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from November. Many people are not only angry, they are angrier than they were a year ago, according to an NBC/Esquire survey last month - particularly Republicans (61%), somewhat white people (54%), but also 42% of Democrats, 43% of Latinos and 33% of African Americans.

Candidates have sensed the mood and are adopting the rhetoric. Donald Trump, who has arguably tapped into voters' frustration better than any other candidate, says he is "very, very angry" and will "gladly accept the mantle of anger" while rival Republican Ben Carson says he has encountered "many Americans who are discouraged and angry as they watch the American dream slipping away". Democratic presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders says: "I am angry and millions of Americans are angry," while Hillary Clinton says she "understands why people get angry". Here are five reasons why some voters feel the American dream is in tatters.

1. Economy

"The failure of the economy to deliver real progress to middle-class and working-class Americans over the past 15 years is the most fundamental source of public anger and disaffection in the US," says William Galston, an expert in governance studies at the Brookings Institution think tank. Although the country may have recovered from the recession - economic output has rebounded and unemployment rates have fallen from 10% in 2009 to 5% in 2015 - Americans are still feeling the pinch in their wallets. Household incomes have, generally speaking, been stagnant for 15 years. In 2014, the median household income was $53,657, according to the US Census Bureau - compared with $57,357 in 2007 and $57,843 in 1999 (adjusted for inflation). There is also a sense that many jobs are of lower quality and opportunity is dwindling, says Galston. "The search for explanations can very quickly degenerate into the identification of villains in American politics. On the left, it is the billionaires, the banks, and Wall Street. On the right it is immigrants, other countries taking advantage of us and the international economy - they are two sides of the same political coin."

2. Immigration

America's demographics are changing - nearly 59 million immigrants have arrived in the US since 1965, not all of whom entered the country legally. Forty years ago, 84% of the American population was made up of non-Hispanic white people - by last year the figure was 62%, according to Pew Research. It projects this trend will continue, and by 2055 non-Hispanic white people will make up less than half the population. Pew expects them to account for only 46% of the population by 2065. By 2055, more Asians than any other ethnic group are expected to move to the US.

"It's been an era of huge demographic, racial, cultural, religious and generational change," says Paul Taylor, author of The Next America. "While some celebrate these changes, others deplore them. Some older, whiter voters do not recognize the country they grew up in. There is a sense of alien tribes," he says.

The US currently has 11.3 million illegal immigrants. Migrants often become a target of anger, says Roberto Suro, an immigration expert at the University of Southern California. "There is a displacement of anxiety and they become the face of larger sources of tensions, such as terrorism, jobs, and dissatisfaction. We saw that very clearly when Donald Trump switched from

3. Washington

"When asked if they trust the government, 89% of Republicans and 72% of Democrats say "only sometimes" or "never", according to Pew Research. Six out of 10 Americans think the government has too much power, a survey by Gallup suggests, while the government has been named as the top problem in the US for two years in a row - above issues such as the economy, jobs, and immigration, according to the organization.

The gridlock on Capitol Hill and the perceived impotence of elected officials has led to resentment among 20 to 30% of voters, says polling expert Karlyn Bowman, from the American Enterprise Institute. "People see politicians fighting and things not getting done - plus the responsibilities of Congress have grown significantly since the 1970s and there is simply more to criticize. People feel more distant from their government and sour on it," she says.

William Galston thinks part of the appeal of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is down to frustration with what some see as a failing system. "So on the right, you have someone who is running as a 'strong man', a Berlusconi and Putin, who will get things done, and on the left, you have someone who is rejecting incrementalism and calling for a political revolution," he says.

Ted Cruz, who won the Republican caucuses in Iowa, is also running as an anti-establishment candidate. "Tonight is a victory for every American who's watched in dismay as career politicians in Washington in both parties refuse to listen and too often fail to keep their commitments to the people," he said on Monday night.

4. America's place in the world

America is used to being seen as a superpower but the number of Americans that think the US "stands above all other countries in the world" went from 38% in 2012 to 28% in 2014, Pew Research suggests. Seventy percent of Americans also think the US is losing respect internationally, according to a 2013 poll by the center.

"For a country that is used to being on top of the world, the last 15 years haven't been great in terms of foreign policy. There's a feeling of having been at war since 9/11 that's never really gone away, a sense America doesn't know what it wants and that things aren't going our way," says Roberto Suro. The rise of China, the failure to defeat the Taliban, and the slow progress in the fight against the so-called Islamic State group have contributed to the anxiety.

Americans are also more afraid of the prospect of terrorist attacks than at any time since 9/11, according to a New York Times/CBS poll. The American reaction to the San Bernardino shooting was different to the French reaction to the Paris attacks, says Galston. "Whereas the French rallied around the government, Americans rallied against it. There is an impression that the US government is failing in its most basic obligation to keep country and people safe."

5. Divided nation

Democrats and Republicans have become more ideologically polarised than ever. The typical (median), Republican is now more conservative in his or her core social, economic, and political views than 94% of Democrats, compared with 70% in 1994, according to Pew Research. The median Democrat, meanwhile, is more liberal than 92% of Republicans, up from 64%.

The study also found that the share of Americans with a highly negative view of the opposing party has doubled and that the animosity is so deep, many would be unhappy if a close relative married someone of a different political persuasion.

This polarisation makes reaching common ground on big issues such as immigration, healthcare, and gun control more complicated. The deadlock is, in turn, angering another part of the electorate. "Despite this rise in polarisation in America, a large mass in the middle is pragmatic. They aren't totally disengaged, they don't want to see Washington gridlocked, but they roll their eyes at the nature of this discourse," says Paul Taylor. This group includes a lot of young people and tends to eschew party labels. "If they voted," he says, "they could play an important part of the election."

Atom Bomb

The atom bomb was one of the defining inventions of the 20th Century. So how did science fiction writer HG Wells predict its invention three decades before the first detonations?

AImagine you're the greatest fantasy writer of your age. One day you dream up the idea of a bomb of infinite power. You call it the "atomic bomb". HG Wells first imagined a uranium-based hand grenade that "would continue to explode indefinitely" in his 1914 novel The World Set Free. He even thought it would be dropped from planes. What he couldn't predict was how a strange conjunction of his friends and acquaintances - notably Winston Churchill, who'd read all Wells's novels twice, and the physicist Leo Szilard - would turn the idea from fantasy to reality, leaving them deeply tormented by the scale of destructive power that it unleashed.

BThe story of the atom bomb starts in the Edwardian age when scientists such as Ernest Rutherford were grappling with a new way of conceiving the physical world. The idea was that solid elements might be made up of tiny particles in atoms. "When it became apparent that the Rutherford atom had a dense nucleus, there was a sense that it was like a coiled spring," says Andrew Nahum, curator of the Science Museum's Churchill's Scientists exhibition. Wells was fascinated with the new discoveries. He had a track record of predicting technological innovations. Winston Churchill credited Wells for coming up with the idea of using airplanes and tanks in combat ahead of World War One.

CThe two men met and discussed ideas over the decades, especially as Churchill, a highly popular writer himself, spent the interwar years out of political power, contemplating the rising instability of Europe. Churchill grasped the danger of technology running ahead of human maturity, penning a 1924 article in the Pall Mall Gazette called "Shall we all commit suicide?". In the article, Churchill wrote: "Might a bomb no bigger than an orange be found to possess a secret power to destroy a whole block of buildings - nay to concentrate the force of a thousand tons of cordite and blast a township at a stroke?" This idea of the orange-sized bomb is credited by Graham Farmelo, author of Churchill's Bomb, directly to the imagery of The World Set Free.

DBy 1932 British scientists had succeeded in splitting the atom for the first time by artificial means, although some believed it couldn't produce huge amounts of energy. But the same year the Hungarian emigre physicist Leo Szilard read The World Set Free. Szilard believed that the splitting of the atom could produce vast energy. He later wrote that Wells showed him "what the liberation of atomic energy on a large scale would mean". Szilard suddenly came up with the answer in September 1933 - the chain reaction - while watching the traffic lights turn green in Russell Square in London. He wrote: "It suddenly occurred to me that if we could find an element which is split by neutrons and which would emit two neutrons when it absorbed one neutron, such an element if assembled in a sufficiently large mass, could sustain a nuclear chain reaction."

EIn that eureka moment, Szilard also felt great fear - of how a bustling city like London and all its inhabitants could be destroyed in an instant as he reflected in his memoir published in 1968:"Knowing what it would mean - and I knew because I had read HG Wells - I did not want this patent to become public." The Nazis were on the rise and Szilard was deeply anxious about who else might be working on the chain reaction theory and an atomic Bomb. Wells's novel Things To Come, turned into a 1936 film, The Shape of Things to Come, accurately predicted aerial bombardment and an imminent devastating world war. In 1939 Szilard drafted the letter Albert Einstein sent to President Roosevelt warning America that Germany was stockpiling uranium. The Manhattan Project was born.

FSzilard and several British scientists worked on it with the US military's massive financial backing. Britons and Americans worked alongside each other in "silos" - each team unaware of how their work fitted together. They ended up moving on from the original enriched uranium "gun" method, which had been conceived in Britain, to create a plutonium implosion weapon instead. Szilard campaigned for a demonstration bomb test in front of the Japanese ambassador to give them a chance to surrender. He was horrified that it was instead dropped on a city. In 1945 Churchill was beaten in the general election and in another shock, the US government passed the 1946 McMahon Act, shutting Britain out of access to the atomic technology it had helped create. William Penney, one of the returning Los Alamos physicists, led the team charged by Prime Minister Clement Atlee with somehow putting together their individual pieces of the puzzle to create a British bomb on a fraction of the American budget.

G"It was a huge intellectual feat," Andrew Nahum observes. "Essentially they reworked the calculations that they'd been doing in Los Alamos. They had the services of Klaus Fuchs, who H Churchill was convinced to go ahead with the test, but the much more powerful hydrogen bomb developed three years later worried him greatly.HG Wells died in 1946. He had been working on a film sequel to The Shape of Things To Come that was to include his concerns about the now-realized atomic bomb he'd first imagined. But it was never made. Towards the end of his life, says Nahum, Wells's friendship with Churchill "cooled a little". "Wells considered Churchill as an enlightened but tarnished member of the ruling classes." And Churchill had little time for Wells's increasingly fanciful socialist utopian ideas.

IWells believed technocrats and scientists would ultimately run a peaceful new world order like in The Shape of Things To Come, even if global war destroyed the world as we knew it first. Churchill, a former soldier, believed in the lessons of history and saw diplomacy as the only way to keep mankind from self-destruction in the atomic age. Wells's scientist acquaintance Leo Szilard stayed in America and campaigned for civilian control of atomic energy, equally pessimistic about Wells's idea of a bold new scientist-led world order. If anything Szilard was tormented by the power he had helped unleash. In 1950, he predicted a cobalt bomb that would destroy all life on the planet. In Britain, the legacy of the Bomb was a remarkable period of elite scientific innovation as the many scientists who had worked on weaponry or radar returned to their civilian labs. They gave us the first commercial jet airliner, the Comet, near-supersonic aircraft and rockets, highly engineered computers, and the Jodrell Bank giant moveable radio telescope.

JThe latter had nearly ended the career of its champion, physicist Bernard Lovell, with its huge costs, until the 1957 launch of Sputnik, when it emerged that Jodrell Bank had the only device in the West that could track it. Nahum says Lovell reflected that "during the war, the question was never what will something cost. The question was only can you do it and how soon can we have it? And that was the spirit he took into his peacetime science." Austerity and the tiny size of the British market, compared with America, were to scupper those dreams. But though the Bomb created a new terror, for a few years at least, Britain saw a vision of a benign atomic future, too and believed it could be the shape of things to come.

Australian Aborigines

As a former British colony, Australia has close cultural and historical links with the United Kingdom, due to the British and Irish settlers who arrived in droves in the 19th and 20th centuries. One aspect of this contact is the role of Britain, and British archaeologists and collectors, in taking Aboriginal bones, relics, and artifacts from Australia to museums and collections in the UK. Now leaders of the indigenous people of Australia, the Aborigines, are demanding that any Aboriginal remains in the UK are returned to Australia.

In the 19th century Britain, there was a mania for collecting all kinds of objects from other countries. These were sent home, where they were kept in museums such as the British Museum and the Natural History Museum. Museums in the UK have a huge number of such objects - objects which, say protesters, were basically stolen during Britain's long colonial history, with little or no regard for the feelings or rights of the people to whom the objects originally belonged.

Now the Australian Prime Minister is supporting Aboriginal calls for the objects and remains to be returned to their original home. A spokesman for the Aboriginal Council of New South Wales, Stevie McCoy, said: "The bones do not belong abroad. They belong here. This is about beliefs, and a traditional Aboriginal belief is that our ancestors can only find peace if their remains are buried in the homeland."

There are certainly lots of Aboriginal remains in the UK, although their exact locations are not entirely clear. What is known is that, between them, the British Museum and the Natural History Museum have some 2,000 - 2,5000 artifacts composed of human remains, although the museums point out that only about 500 of these are of Aboriginal origin. Dr. William Cowell Bell, for the London Museum Association, adds that "A lot of the objects are not human remains in their original form, but are made out of human remains. These include decorated skulls and bones from which charms and amulets have been created." A smaller number of similar artifacts are known to be held in collections in Oxford and Cambridge.

There is some sensitivity to Aboriginal demands in the archaeological world. Lady Amanda Spurway, life president of the Glover Museum in London, says that the museum has had its small collection of Aboriginal remains packed ready for return for a decade, and is only waiting for information about where they must go.

The National College of Surgeons says it will return the remains of any individual who can be named (although it is obviously difficult to put names to them after such a long time). This growing sensitivity to the hitherto ignored rights of indigenous peoples around the world has caused some relics to be restored to their original country, particularly in Scotland, where a group of Aboriginal remains has already been returned. Edinburgh University has returned skulls and bones to Tasmania and New Zealand.

One problem, according to legal expert Ewan Mather, is that the law allowing museums to decide what to do with these objects is more relaxed in Scotland. English museums, on the other hand, are not allowed (either by law or by the groups of trustees who run them) to just hand back remains of their own accord. However, British supporters of the Aborigines claim that such restrictive laws are inhumane in the modern world and that it would be a simple enough matter to change them in order to allow the items to be returned.

A further objection to handing back relics is because of their scientific value, claim some museum directors. Dr. Bell believes that the size of the collection in the Natural History Museum in Lincoln made it a very valuable resource in the analysis of the way of life of Aborigines, and could be used to study the origin and development of the people. Breaking up the collection might mean that such knowledge could be lost forever.

Aboriginal groups, however, respond by pointing out that the scientific importance of the remains has to be seen against a backdrop of human rights. "I doubt whether the British government would allow several thousand bones of British soldiers to be used for 'scientific purposes' in any other country," said Stevie McCoy, with a hint of irony. "Would the families allow it? I think there would be a public outcry, no matter how old the remains were. This practice The British government, meanwhile, has announced that it will set up a working party to discuss the possibility of changes to the law. This might allow museums to negotiate on their own with Aboriginal and other groups around the world.

Black Powder

The invention of rockets is linked inextricably with the invention of 'black powder'. Most historians of technology credit the Chinese with its discovery. They base their belief on studies of Chinese writings or on the notebooks of early Europeans who settled in or made long visits to China to study its history and civilization. It is probable that sometime in the tenth century, black powder was first compounded from its basic ingredients of saltpeter, charcoal, and sulfur. But this does not mean that it was immediately used to propel rockets. By the thirteenth century, powder-propelled fire arrows had become rather common. The Chinese relied on this type of technological development to produce incendiary projectiles of many sorts, explosive grenades and possibly cannons to repel their enemies. One such weapon was the 'basket of fire' or, as directly translated from Chinese, the 'arrows like flying leopards'. The 0.7 meter-long arrows, each with a long tube of gunpowder attached near the point of each arrow, could be fired from a long, octagonal-shaped basket at the same time and had a range of 400 paces. Another weapon was the 'arrow as a flying saber', which could be fired from crossbows. The rocket, placed in a similar position to other rocket-propelled arrows, was designed to increase the range. A small iron weight was attached to the 1.5m bamboo shaft, just below the feathers, to increase the arrow's stability by moving the center of gravity to a position below the rocket. At a similar time, the Arabs had developed the 'egg which moves and burns'. This 'egg' was apparently full of gunpowder and stabilized by a 1.5m tail. It was fired using two rockets attached to either side of this tail.

It was not until the eighteenth century that Europe became seriously interested in the possibilities of using the rocket itself as a weapon of war and not just to propel other weapons. Prior to this, rockets were used only in pyrotechnic displays. The incentive for the more aggressive use of rockets came not from within the European continent but from far-away India, whose leaders had built up a corps of racketeers and used rockets successfully against the British in the late eighteenth century. The Indian rockets used against the British were described by a British Captain serving in India as ‘an iron envelope about 200 millimeters long and 40 millimeters in diameter with sharp points at the top and a 3m-long bamboo guiding stick’. In the early nineteenth century, the British began to experiment with incendiary barrage rockets. The British rocket differed from the Indian version in that it was completely encased in a stout, iron cylinder, terminating in a conical head, measuring one meter in diameter and having a stick almost five meters long and constructed in such a way that it could be firmly attached to the body of the rocket. The Americans developed a rocket, complete with its own launcher, to use against the Mexicans in the mid-nineteenth century. A long cylindrical tube was propped up by two sticks and fastened to the top of the launcher, thereby allowing the rockets to be inserted and lit from the other end. However, the results were sometimes not that impressive as the behavior of the rockets in flight was less than predictable.

Britain TV Industry

Comedy writer Armando Iannucci has called for an industry-wide defense of the BBC and British program-makers. "The Thick of It" creator made his remarks in the annual MacTaggart Lecture at the Edinburgh TV Festival.

"It's more important than ever that we have more strong, popular channels... that act as beacons, drawing audiences to the best content," he said. Speaking earlier, Culture Secretary John Whittingdale rejected suggestions that he wanted to dismantle the BBC.

Champion supporters

Iannucci co-wrote "I'm Alan Partridge", wrote the movie "In the Loop" and created and wrote the hit "HBO" and "Sky Atlantic show Veep". He delivered the 40th annual MacTaggart Lecture, which has previously been given by Oscar winner Kevin Spacey, former BBC director-general Greg Dyke, Jeremy Paxman, and Rupert Murdoch. Iannucci said: "Faced with a global audience, British television needs its champion supporters."

He continued his praise for British programming by saying the global success of American TV shows had come about because they were emulating British television. "The best US shows are modeling themselves on what used to make British TV so world-beating," he said. "US prime-time schedules are now littered with those quirky formats from the UK - the "Who Do You Think You Are"'s and the variants on "Strictly Come Dancing" - as well as the single-camera non-audience sitcom, which we brought into the mainstream first. We have changed international viewing for the better."

With the renewal of the BBC's royal charter approaching, Iannucci also praised the corporation. He said: "If public service broadcasting - one of the best things we've ever done creatively as a country - if it was a car industry, our ministers would be out championing it overseas, trying to win contracts, boasting of the British jobs that would bring." In July, the government issued a green paper setting out issues that will be explored during negotiations over the future of the BBC, including the broadcaster's size, its funding, and governance.

Primarily Mr. Whittingdale wanted to appoint a panel of five people, but finally, he invited two more people to advise on the channel renewal, namely former Channel 4 boss Dawn Airey and journalism professor Stewart Purvis, a former editor-in-chief of ITN. Iannucci bemoaned the lack of "creatives" involved in the discussions.

"When the media, communications, and information industries make up nearly 8% our GDP, larger than the car and oil and gas industries put together, we need to be heard, as those industries are heard. But when I see the panel of experts who've been asked by the culture secretary to take a root and branch look at the BBC, I don't see anyone who is a part of that cast and crew list. I see executives, media owners, industry gurus, all talented people - but not a single person who's made a classic and enduring television show."

Don't be modest

Iannucci suggested one way of easing the strain on the license fee was "by pushing ourselves more commercially abroad".

"Use the BBC's name, one of the most recognized brands in the world," he said. "And use the reputation of British television across all networks, to capitalize financially oversees. Be more aggressive in selling our shows, through advertising, through proper international subscription channels, freeing up BBC Worldwide to be fully commercial, whatever it takes.

"Frankly, don't be icky and modest about making money, let's monetize the bezeesus Mary and Joseph out of our programs abroad so that money can come back, take some pressure off the license fee at home, and be invested in even more ambitious quality shows, that can only add to our value."

Mr. Whittingdale, who was interviewed by ITV News' Alastair Stewart at the festival, said he wanted an open debate about whether the corporation should do everything it has done in the past. He said he had a slight sense that people who rushed to defend the BBC were "trying to have an argument that's never been started".

"Whatever my view is, I don't determine what programs the BBC should show," he added. "That's the job of the BBC." Mr. Whittingdale said any speculation that the Conservative Party had always wanted to change the BBC due to issues such as its editorial line was "absolute nonsense".

Children Language

AFor over 200 years, there has been an interest in the way children learn to speak and understand their first language. Scholars carried out several small-scale studies, especially towards the end of the 19th century, using data they recorded in parental diaries. But detailed, systematic investigation did not begin until the middle decades of the 20th century when the tape recorder came into routine use. This made it possible to keep a permanent record of samples of child speech so that analysts could listen repeatedly to obscure extracts, and thus produce a detailed and accurate description. Since then, the subject has attracted enormous multi-disciplinary interest, notably from linguists and psychologists, who have used a variety of observational and experimental techniques to study the process of language acquisition in depth.

BCentral to the success of this rapidly emerging field lies the ability of researchers to devise satisfactory methods for eliciting linguistic data from children. The problems that have to be faced are quite different from those encountered when working with adults. Many of the linguist’s routine techniques of enquiry cannot be used with children. It is not possible to carry out certain kinds of experiments, because aspects of children’s cognitive development – such as their ability to pay attention or to remember instructions – may not be sufficiently advanced. Nor is it easy to get children to make systematic judgments about language, a task that is virtually impossible below the age of three. And anyone who has tried to obtain even the most basic kind of data – a tape recording of a representative sample of a child’s speech – knows how frustrating this can be. Some children, it seems, are innately programmed to switch off as soon as they notice a tape recorder being switched on.

CSince the 1960s, however, several sophisticated recording techniques and experimental designs have been devised. Children can be observed and recorded through one-way-vision windows or using radio microphones so that the effects of having an investigator in the same room as the child can be eliminated. Large-scale sampling programs have been carried out, with children sometimes being recorded for several years. Particular attention has been paid to devising experimental techniques that fall well within a child’s intellectual level and social experience. Even pre-linguistic infants have been brought into the research: acoustic techniques are used to analyze their vocalizations, and their ability to perceive the world around them is monitored using special recording equipment. The result has been a growing body of reliable data on the stages of language acquisition from birth until puberty.

DThere is no single way of studying children’s language. Linguistics and psychology have each brought their own approach to the subject, and many variations have been introduced to cope with the variety of activities in which children engage, and the great age range that they present. Two main research paradigms are found.

EOne of these is known as ‘naturalistic sampling’. A sample of a child’s spontaneous use of language is recorded in familiar and comfortable surroundings. One of the best places to make the recording is in the child’s own home, but it is not always easy to maintain good acoustic quality, and the presence of the researcher or the recording equipment can be a distraction (especially if the proceedings are being filmed). Alternatively, the recording can be made in a research center, where the child is allowed to play freely with toys while talking to parents or other children, and the observers and their equipment are unobtrusive.

FA good quality, representative, naturalistic sample is generally considered an ideal datum for child language study. However, the method has several limitations. These samples are informative about speech production, but they give little guidance about children’s comprehension of what they hear around them. Moreover, samples cannot contain everything, and they can easily miss some important features of a child’s linguistic ability. They may also not provide enough instances of a developing feature to enable the analyst to make a decision about the way the child is learning. For such reasons, the description of samples of child speech has to be supplemented by other methods.

GThe other main approach is through experimentation, and the methods of experimental psychology have been widely applied to child language research. The investigator formulates a specific hypothesis about children’s ability to use or understand an aspect of language and devises a relevant task for a group of subjects to undertake. A statistical analysis is made of the subjects’ behavior, and the results provide evidence that supports or falsifies the original hypothesis.

HUsing this approach, as well as other methods of controlled observation, researchers have come up with many detailed findings about the production and comprehension of groups of children. However, it is not easy to generalize the findings of these studies. What may obtain in a carefully controlled setting may not apply in the rush of daily interaction. Different kinds of subjects, experimental situations, and statistical procedures may produce different results or interpretations. Experimental research is therefore a slow, painstaking business; it may take years before researchers are convinced that all variables have been considered and a finding is genuine.

City and Natural Environment

AWhile cities and their metropolitan areas have always interacted with and shaped the natural environment, it is only recently that historians have begun to consider this relationship. During our own time, the tension between natural and urbanized areas has increased, as the spread of metropolitan populations and urban land uses has reshaped and destroyed natural landscapes and environments.

BThe relationship between the city and the natural environment has actually been circular, with cities having massive effects on the natural environment, while the natural environment, in turn, has profoundly shaped urban configurations. Urban history is filled with stories about how city dwellers contended with the forces of nature that threatened their lives. Nature not only caused many of the annoyances of daily urban life, such as bad weather and pests, but it also gave rise to natural disasters and catastrophes such as floods, fires, and earthquakes. In order to protect themselves and their settlements against the forces of nature, cities built many defenses including flood walls and dams, earthquake-resistant buildings, and storage places for food and water. At times, such protective steps sheltered urbanites against the worst natural furies, but often their own actions – such as building under the shadow of volcanoes, or in earthquake-prone zones – exposed them to danger from natural hazards.

CCity populations require food, water, fuel, and construction materials, while urban industries need natural materials for production purposes. In order to fulfill these needs, urbanites increasingly had to reach far beyond their boundaries. In the nineteenth century, for instance, the demands of city dwellers for food produced rings of garden farms around cities. In the twentieth century, as urban populations increased, the demand for food drove the rise of large factory farms. Cities also require freshwater supplies in order to exist – engineers built waterworks, dug wells deeper and deeper into the earth looking for groundwater, and dammed and diverted rivers to obtain water supplies for domestic and industrial uses. In the process of obtaining water from distant locales, cities often transformed them, making deserts where there had been fertile agricultural areas.

DUrbanites had to seek locations to dispose of the wastes they produced. Initially, they placed wastes on sites within the city, polluting the air, land, and water with industrial and domestic effluents. As cities grew larger, they disposed of their wastes by transporting them to more distant locations. Thus, cities constructed sewerage systems for domestic wastes. They usually discharged the sewage into neighboring waterways, often polluting the water supply of downstream cities.

The air and the land also became dumps for waste disposal. In the late nineteenth century, coal became the preferred fuel for industrial, transportation, and domestic use. But while providing an inexpensive and plentiful energy supply, coal was also very dirty. The cities that used it suffered from the air contamination and reduced sunlight, while the cleaning tasks of householders were greatly increased.

EIn the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, reformers began demanding urban environmental cleanups and public health improvements. Women's groups often took the lead in agitating for clean air and clean water, showing a greater concern than men in regard to quality of life and health-related issues. The replacement of the horse, first by electric trolleys and then by the car, brought about substantial improvements in street and air sanitation. The movements demanding clean air, however, and reduction of waterway pollution were largely unsuccessful. On balance, urban sanitary conditions were probably somewhat better in the 1920s than in the late nineteenth century, but the cost of improvement often was the exploitation of urban hinterlands for water supplies, increased downstream water pollution, and growing automobile congestion, and pollution.

FIn the decades after the 1940s, city environments suffered from heavy pollution as they sought to cope with increased automobile usage, pollution from industrial production, new varieties of chemical pesticides, and the wastes of an increasingly consumer-oriented economy. Cleaner fuels and smoke control laws largely freed cities during the 1940s and 1950s of the dense smoke that they had previously suffered from. Improved urban air quality resulted largely from the substitution of natural gas and oil for coal and the replacement of the steam locomotive by the diesel-electric. However, great increases in automobile usage in some larger cities produced the new phenomenon of smog, and air pollution replaced smoke as a major concern.

GDuring these decades, the suburban out-migration, which had begun in the nineteenth century with commuter trains and streetcars and accelerated because of the availability and convenience of the automobile, now increased to a torrent, putting major strains on the formerly rural and undeveloped metropolitan fringes. To a great extent, suburban layouts ignored environmental considerations, making little provision for open space, producing endless rows of resource-consuming and fertilizer-dependent lawns, contaminating groundwater through leaking septic tanks, and absorbing excessive amounts of fresh water and energy. The growth of the outer city since the 1970s reflected a continued preference on the part of many people in the western world for space-intensive single-family houses surrounded by lawns, for private automobiles over public transit, and for the development of previously untouched areas. Without better planning for land use and environmental protection, urban life will, as it has in the past, continue to damage and stress the natural environment.

Cognitive Dissonance

ACharles Darwin said, “This not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.” So you've sold your home, quit your job, shunned your colleagues, abandoned your friends and family. The end of the world is nigh, and you 'know for a fact' that you are one of the chosen few who will be swept up from the 'great flood' approaching on 21st December at midnight to be flown to safety on a far off-planet. And then midnight on 21st December comes around and there is no flood. No end of the world. No flying saucer to the rescue. What do you do? Admit you were wrong? Acknowledge that you gave up position, money, friends - for nothing? Tell yourself and others you have been a schmuck? Not on your life.

BSocial psychologist Leon Festinger infiltrated a flying saucer doomsday cult in the late 1950s. The members of this cult had given up everything on the premise that the world was about to self-destruct and that they, because of their faith, would be the sole survivors. In the lead-up to the fateful day, the cult shunned publicity and shied away from journalists. Festinger posed as a cultist and was present when the spaceship failed to show up. He was curious about what would happen. How would the disappointed cultists react to the failure of their prophecy? Would they be embarrassed and humiliated? What actually happened amazed him.

CNow, after the non-event, the cultists suddenly wanted publicity. They wanted media attention and coverage. Why? So they could explain how their faith and obedience had helped save the planet from the flood. The aliens had spared planet earth for their sake - and now their new role was to spread the word and make us all listen. This fascinated Festinger. He observed that the real driving force behind the cultists' apparently inexplicable response was the need, not to face the awkward and uncomfortable truth and 'change their minds', but rather to 'make minds comfortable' - to smooth over the unacceptable inconsistencies.

DFestinger coined the term 'cognitive dissonance' to describe the uncomfortable tension we feel when we experience conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) or engage in behavior that is apparently opposed to our stated beliefs. What is particularly interesting is the lengths to which people will go to reduce the inner tension without accepting that they might, in fact, be wrong. They will accept almost any form of relief, other than admitting being at fault, or mistaken. Festinger quickly realized that our intolerance for 'cognitive dissonance' could explain many mysteries of human behavior.

EIn a fascinating experiment, Festinger and his colleagues paid some subjects twenty dollars to tell a specific lie, while they paid another group of subjects only one dollar to do the same. Those who were paid just one dollar were far more likely to claim, after the event, that they had actually believed in the lie they were told to tell. Why? Well, because it's just so much harder to justify having done something that conflicts with your own sense of being 'an honest person' for a mere pittance. If you get more money, you can tell yourself: 'Yeah, I lied, but I got well paid! It was justified.' But for one dollar? That's not a good enough reason to lie, so what you were saying must have been true in the first place, right?

FEmotional factors influence how we vote for our politicians much more than our careful and logical appraisal of their policies, according to Drew Westen, a professor of psychiatry and psychology. This may come as little surprise to you, but what about when we learn that our favored politician may be dishonest? Do we take the trouble to really find out what they are supposed to have done, and so possibly have to change our opinions (and our vote), or do we experience that nasty cognitive dissonance and so seek to keep our minds comfortable at the possible cost of truth?

GCognitive dissonance is essentially a matter of commitment to the choices one has made, and the ongoing need to satisfactorily justify that commitment, even in the face of convincing but conflicting evidence. This is why it can take a long time to leave a cult or an abusive relationship - or even to stop smoking. Life's commitments, whether to a job, a social cause, or a romantic partner, require heavy emotional investment, and so carry significant emotional risks. If people didn’t keep to their commitments, they would experience uncomfortable emotional tension. In a way, it makes sense that our brains should be hard-wired for monitoring and justifying our choices and actions - so as to avoid too much truth breaking in at once and overwhelming us.

HI guess we can't really develop unless we start to get a grip and have some personal honesty about what really motivates us. This is part of genuine maturity. If I know I am being lazy, and can admit it to myself, that at least is a first step to correcting it. If, however, I tell myself it's more sensible to wait before vacuuming, then I can go around with a comfortable self-concept of 'being sensible' while my filthy carpets and laziness remain unchanged. Cognitive dissonance can actually help me mature, if I can bring myself, first, to notice it (making it conscious) and second, to be more open to the message it brings me, in spite of the discomfort. As dissonance increases, providing I do not run away into self-justification, I can get a clearer and clearer sense of what has changed, and what I need to do about it.

And then I can remember what Darwin had to say about who will survive...

Crime-Fighting Technology

ACrime-fighting technology is getting more sophisticated and rightly so. The police need to be equipped for the 21st century. In Britain, we’ve already got the world's biggest DNA database. By next year the state will have access to the genetic data of 4.25m people: one British-based person in 14. Hundreds of thousands of those on the database will never have been charged with a crime.

BBritain is also reported to have more than £4 million CCTV (closed-circuit television) cameras. There is a continuing debate about the effectiveness of CCTV. Some evidence suggests that it is helpful in reducing shoplifting and car crime. It has also been used to successfully identify terrorists and murderers. However, many claims that better lighting is just as effective to prevent crime and that cameras could displace crime. An internal police report said that only one crime was solved for every 1,000 cameras in London in 2007. In short, there is conflicting evidence about the effectiveness of cameras, so it is likely that the debate will continue.

CProfessor Mike Press, who has spent the past decade studying how design can contribute to crime reduction, said that, in order for CCTV to have any effect, it must be used in a targeted way. For example, a scheme in Manchester records every license plate at the entrance of a shopping complex and alerts police when one is found to belong to an untaxed or stolen car. This is an effective example of monitoring, he said. Most schemes that simply record city centers continually — often not being watched - do not produce results. CCTV can also have the opposite effect of that intended, by giving citizens a false sense of security and encouraging them to be careless with property and personal safety. Professor Press said: All the evidence suggests that CCTV alone makes no positive impact on crime reduction and prevention at all The weight of evidence would suggest the investment is more or less a waste of money unless you have lots of other things in place.’ He believes that much of the increase is driven by the marketing efforts of security companies who promote the crime-reducing benefits of their products. He described it as a lazy approach to crime prevention and said that authorities should instead be focusing on how to alter the environment to reduce crime.

DBut in reality, this is not what is happening. Instead, police are considering using more technology. Police forces have recently begun experimenting with cameras in their helmets. The footage will be stored on police computers, along with the footage from thousands of CCTV cameras and millions of pictures from numberplate recognition cameras used increasingly to check up on motorists.

EAnd now another type of technology is being introduced. It's called the Microdrone and it’s a toy-sized remote-control craft that hovers above streets or crowds to film what’s going on beneath. The Microdrone has already been used to monitor rock festivals, but its supplier has also been in discussions to supply it to the Metropolitan Police, and Soca, the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The drones are small enough to be unnoticed by people on the ground when they are flying at 350ft. They contain high-resolution video surveillance equipment and an infrared night vision capability, so even in darkness, they give their operators a bird’s-eye view of locations while remaining virtually undetectable.

FThe worrying thing is, who will get access to this technology? Merseyside police are already employing two of the devices as part of a pilot scheme to watch football crowds and city parks looking for antisocial behavior. It is not just about crime detection: the West Midlands fire brigade is about to lease a drone, for example, to get a better view of fire and flood scenes and aid rescue attempts; the Environment Agency is considering their use for monitoring of illegal fly tipping and oil spills. The company that makes the drone says it has no plans to license the equipment to individuals or private companies, which hopefully will prevent private security firms from getting their hands on them. But what about local authorities? In theory, this technology could be used against motorists. And where will the surveillance society end? Already there are plans to introduce smart water’ containing a unique DNA code identifier that when sprayed on a suspect will cling to their clothes and skin and allow officers to identify them later. As long as high-tech tools are being used in the fight against crime and terrorism, fine. But if it’s another weapon to be used to invade our privacy then we don’t want it.

E-cigarettes Stop Smoking?

APeople trying to give up smoking often use e-cigarettes to help wean themselves off tobacco. Most experts think they are safer than cigarettes but a surprising paper was published recently - it suggests that people who use e-cigarettes are less successful at giving up smoking than those who don't. "E-cigarettes WON'T help you quit," reported the Daily Mail. "Smokers using vapers are '28% less likely to ditch traditional cigarettes,'" read the paper's headline. The story was reported on many other websites around the world, including CBS: "Study: E-cigarettes don't help smokers quit," it said.

BThe study causing the fuss was written by researchers at the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, and published in one of the Lancet's sister journals, Lancet Respiratory Medicine. It is a meta-analysis, which means the authors reviewed the academic literature already available on the topic. They sifted out the weaker papers - ones that didn't have control groups, for example - and were left with 20.

CThe conclusion? Smokers who use e-cigarettes have a 28% lower chance of quitting than smokers who don't use them, according to Prof Stanton Glantz, one of the authors. But while the conclusion is surprising, so is the number of academics who have criticized the paper. One was Ann McNeill, professor of tobacco addiction at Kings College London, whose own research is included in Glantz's analysis. "This review is not scientific," she wrote on the Science Media Centre website. "The information… about two studies that I co-authored is either inaccurate or misleading… I believe the findings should therefore be dismissed.

D"I am concerned at the huge damage this publication may have - many more smokers may continue smoking and die if they take from this piece of work that all evidence suggests e-cigarettes do not help you quit smoking; that is not the case." Prof Peter Hajek, director of the Tobacco Dependence Research Unit at the Wolfson Institute also called the findings "grossly misleading".

EThe critics are making three main points. First, the definition of e-cigarettes is a bit loose. There are many different types - some look like cigarettes, others have tanks for the vaping liquid, some are disposable, and others are multi-use. They all deliver different doses of nicotine. Many of the papers included in the analysis don't specify which type people are using, according to Linda Bauld, professor of health policy at the University of Stirling. Another point is that the studies vary in the way they measure how often people use e-cigarettes. "Some only assessed whether a person had ever tried an e-cigarette or if they had tried one recently, not whether they were using it regularly or frequently," Bauld says.

FEven the paper's author admits it's possible that in some of the studies e-cigarettes may only have been used once, which he says would not be a good predictor of whether they had affected people's ability to stop smoking. And there is another problem. You might expect, if you were going to draw conclusions about how useful e-cigarettes are in helping people quit, to focus on studies looking at people who are trying to give up. Prof Robert West, who heads a team at University College London researching ways to help people stop smoking, says this analysis mashed together with some very different studies - only some of which include people using e-cigarettes to help them quit.

G"To mix them in with studies where you've got people using an e-cigarette and are not particularly trying to stop smoking is mixing apples and oranges," he says. Some of the studies track smokers who use e-cigarettes for other reasons - perhaps because smoking a cigarette in a bar or an office is illegal and they want a nicotine hit. "With the studies where people are using electronic cigarettes specifically in a quit attempt the evidence is consistent," says West, referring to two randomized control trials.

HBoth are quite small and one was funded by the e-cigarette industry. They took two groups of smokers and gave one real e-cigarette, and the other a placebo. The studies reach a broadly similar conclusion to a large, real-world study called the Smoking Toolkit run by West. West's investigation follows people in their daily lives and assesses how successful various methods of giving up smoking are - this includes nicotine patches, medicines, and going cold turkey. These studies suggest that people using e-cigarettes to help them quit are 50% to 100% more successful than those who use no aids at all.

IIn his paper, Glantz acknowledges there are limitations to the research that he analyzed. He agrees there are problems with the way the use of e-cigarettes is measured and accepts it's not clear which devices people are using. But he is sticking by his analysis because he believes he has taken these factors into account. The editor of Lancet Respiratory Medicine, Emma Grainger, defends the article too. She says she does not see a problem with the paper and that it has been through the normal peer-review process.

Environment and Agriculture

All these activities may have damaging environmental impacts. For example, land clearing for agriculture is the largest single cause of deforestation; chemical fertilizers and pesticides may contaminate water supplies; more intensive farming and the abandonment of fallow periods tend to exacerbate soil erosion, and the spread of monoculture and use of high-yielding varieties of crops have been accompanied by the disappearance of old varieties of food plants which might have provided some insurance against pests or diseases in future. Soil erosion threatens the productivity of land in both rich and poor countries. The United States, where the most careful measurements have been done, discovered in 1982 that about one-fifth of its farmland was losing topsoil at a rate likely to diminish the soil's productivity. The country subsequently embarked upon a program to convert 11 percent of its cropped land to meadow or forest. Topsoil in India and China is vanishing much faster than in America.

Government policies have frequently compounded the environmental damage that farming can cause. In rich countries, subsidies for growing crops and price supports for farm output drive up the price of land. The annual value of these subsidies is immense: about $250 billion, or more than all World Bank lending in the 1980s. To increase the output of crops per acre, a farmer's easiest option is to use more of the most readily available inputs: fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizer use doubled in Denmark in the period 1960–1985 and increased in The Netherlands by 150 percent. The quantity of pesticides applied has risen too: by 69 percent in 1975–1984 in Denmark, for example, with a rise of 115 percent in the frequency of application in the three years from 1981.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, some efforts were made to reduce farm subsidies. The most dramatic example was that of New Zealand, which scrapped most farm support in 1984. A study of the environmental effects, conducted in 1993, found that the end of fertilizer subsidies had been followed by a fall in fertilizer use (a fall compounded by the decline in world commodity prices, which cut farm incomes). The removal of subsidies also stopped land clearing and over-stocking, which in the past had been the principal causes of erosion. Farms began to diversify. The one kind of subsidy whose removal appeared to have been bad for the environment was the subsidy to manage soil erosion.

In less enlightened countries, and in the European Union, the trend has been to reduce rather than eliminate subsidies, and to introduce new payments to encourage farmers to treat their land in environmentally friendlier ways, or to leave it fallow. It may sound strange but such payments need to be higher than the existing incentives for farmers to grow food crops. Farmers, however, dislike being paid to do nothing. In several countries, they have become interested in the possibility of using fuel produced from crop residues either as a replacement for petrol (as ethanol) or as fuel for power stations (as biomass). Such fuels produce far less carbon dioxide than coal or oil and absorb carbon dioxide as they grow. They are therefore less likely to contribute to the greenhouse effect. But they are rarely competitive with fossil fuels unless subsidized—and growing them does no less environmental harm than other crops.