Reading the accounts in The Times today (8th March) and the two previous days, of the financial threats to Radio Astronomy pioneered by Sir Bernard Lovell made me recall the situation in the 1930s when Sir Ernest Rutherford at Cambridge came under attack for wasting money on nuclear research instead of more practical subjects. Rutherford was able to withstand these attacks. In addition to his contributions to nuclear research, his work made a much greater contribution to immediate problems than had been realised. When the War broke out, our development of Radar played a vital part. Leading this development were many of the scientists trained by Rutherford. They were able to do this because their studies in nuclear research had been responsible for the development of the electronic technology at the heart of our Radar.

Today we are faced by major World Problems crying out for Science to solve. Obviously, they won't be directly solved by the "blue skies" (or should we say "dark skies"

Ernest Putley, Malvern, UK

small low interest loans to set up african owned manufacturing companies

Chris, lisbon, portugal

Why would I bother with Africa?

Why splurge?

Why not use our money wisely on education, science, housing, health services, defence of our territory, and other snsible things?

C Blackmore, Melksham, Englandistan

I respect Ms. Ahuja's right to opinion, but this strikes me as arguing to solve macro-economic problems with micro-economic principles. The problems faced in Africa do not solely stem from the colonial era, nor to the lack of effort or funds from Western countries. There are cultural institutions in place that always have and will lead to failure.

A conundrum has developed from two "well intentioned" philosophies guiding the West: Help the poor in these countries, but do it in a manner that does not change the underlying culture. As a result most humanitarian efforts lead to naught.

Finally, her final diatribe against the US destroys whatever credibility she worked to build within the article. It's the typical, Euro-chic, argument that the US spends so little on foreign aid. In reality, the US provides more foreign aid - both government and private - than the next 25 donor countries combined.

Rob , Oakton, Virginia, USA

I would not spend a dime on Africa.
Having lived in South Africa for the past 2 years it is now evident from my perspective that the problems of Africa ARE not educational, they are purely cultural.

Of course no doubt this continent DOES need our help, but billions have been spent and all gone down the drain due to one thing and one thing only: cultural values and modus operandi on this perplexing continent.

Therefore what i would say is, keep your millions if you have them to spare and let the likes of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates do their bit...

Those millions would be spent better in the UK.

John Skooman, Pretoria, South Africa

These are really interesting posts - thank you. Stewart: the point is that many infertile women actually do want kids, and perhaps that is why we should consider the ESHRE proposal. My point is also that barren women suffer differently in poor countries, and therefore imposing the beliefs of the developed world (eg Africans shouldn't be having more children) is probably not helpful. It's interesting that the idea of 'entitlement' to children crops up here, which is exactly the same argument used to justify (or not) IVF treatment on the NHS. Are children a right or a luxury? Is infertility an illness? If so, why is it less of an illness in Africa than in the UK?
If, Mike, you believe in Nature's way of culling the gene pool, does that also mean we should deny African children vaccines or other medicines? Such denial would achieve the desirable side-effect of cutting population but would be, I think, ethically unjustifiable.

anjana ahuja, london,

I agree entirely with the author of the article. It may sound strange to people used to hearing that what the world needs is fewer people, and therefore more spending on contraception. But look at the problem from the point of view of individuals: the couples who have too many children and those couples who cannot have children are different individuals. Family planning programmes should be directed at those people who aldready have children, so that they do not have more than 2 children, while those couples who cannot have children at all should be allowed the benefit of IVF programmes.

Rajan Munshi , Bombay, India

I agree with James, Brighton, uk.

We should be paying people not to have kids. Well not paying them, but making sure they get their fair too and are looked after. Only a strong state would give people that confidence.

I don't understand how poor families can have 5-10 kids when they know they wont have enough money to educate or feed them.

In Western countries, we hold off having babies because of the costs of bringing them up.

I suppose its all about Education.

chetas patel, croydon, surrey

Is Anjana Ahuja suggesting that we should tackle prejudice and intolerance of infertile women in poor, backward countries by trying to reduce infertility? It's rather like trying to tackle racism by reducing ethnic minorities.

Stewart Ware, London, UK

James seems to show that concern for overpopulation really means "just enough of us, way too many of you"

Steve, Bedford,

Poverty and famine are mostly caused by war, which are often fed by charity and loans. Poverty is not caused by lack of birthcrontrol, nor by the already poor having children.

Strictly speaking poverty is a lack of an essential requirement: ie. food/water, clothing and shelter. The poor couple mentioned may well have been poor compared to their neighbours, but in absolute terms may have been more than wealthy enough to have children.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

I think the painful truth is the point about STDs producing infertility. And who transmit most of these diseases but men who don't want to wear a condom as it restricts their "feeling". What needs to be done is penalties on feckless males and education. Once education has a clear worth and the cost of it becomes a burden on parents , then there will more of a neded for fertility treatment. All in all though, there are just too many people on this planet.

John, Knutsford, UK

What utter madness.
What the world really needs is an injectable contraceptive which can be given to girls at the age of ten to ensure that they do not have any children for 15 years.
This would give two major benefits
(a) A major reduction in the already over populated world.
(b) The poorer women of the world would get the chance of an education and improve their own lives and everybody around them.

LJS, EDINBURGH,

I would recommend that the Americans make it clear that this is an ALTERNATIVE use for Guantanamo Bay, not an ADDITIONAL use.

Rosemary , Germany,

James of Brighton is spot-on. There are way too many people in the world, and any form of fertility treatment is ill-advised.

Who on earth suggested that having children was a God-given right? You certainly have a right to try to conceive, but if you fail,. it is natures way of blocking your genetic line. If rats are anything to go by, as the planet becomes more over-crowded fertility rates automatically drop. It's a self-controlling system that is best left to its own devices.

Mike Poulsen, Reading, Berkshire

The problems of the 3rd WOrld won't be solved by fertility clinics, or by farming subsidy, or by irrigation programmes, or by food aid, or by education.

It will take a big approach doing all these things and more; taking pot shots at a single issue misses the point quite spectacularly.

This isn't a single-issue problem, and a single-issue critique is wholly inappropriate.

Ed, ABerdeen, Scotland

what rubbish.

There are to many people full stop in the World.

We sould be finding ways so stopping people having children, give money to people not to have them.
This would help with, disease, poverty and malnutrition much more than bringing into the world some poor child we is going to starve to death.

James, Brighton, uk