| How Green is Your Lab? |
| Sunday, 13 January 2008 | |
|
Dr Joanna Baxter finds out what fellow scientists can do to keep Cambridge green Science has never been easy on the purse strings but now it appears that sometimes it can be bad for the environment too. In Cambridge we boast leading researchers in environmental management, climatology, sustainability and energy efficiency, but are we listening to them and taking enough responsibility for our environment? In a recent study, People & Planet, a student campaign group, ranked all universities in the UK for good practices by considering their environmental policy, carbon emissions, recycling and other initiatives such as 'green' travel plans encouraging cycling and car sharing. The University of Cambridge was ranked a respectable eighth, equal with a number of other institutions including our neighbours, Anglia Ruskin University. A considerable achievement considering the difficulties posed by working on a historic campus (Oxford came 27th), which restricts new constructions and the rejuvenation of older facilities. But the potentially massive environmental cost of our research is also a cause for concern. The University’s current practice certainly has many positive points to tackle these difficulties. Although our carbon dioxide emissions for 2005-2006 totalled nearly 58,000 tonnes, our electricity currently comes from emission-free hydroelectric generators. We also recycle 230 tonnes of paper, 200 tonnes of cardboard, 12,000 fluorescent tubes and 2000 redundant IT systems. Despite these extensive measures to reduce our environmental impact it remains to be seen whether the message is filtering through to individual laboratories. Science is, by its nature, an energy-expensive endeavour. An article in Nature recently estimated that over a year the average fume hood consumed as much energy as three households. An ultra-low temperature freezer, used across the biological sciences and clinical medicine, costs ten times more to run than its domestic counterpart. At the Magnetic Resonance Research Centre on the West Cambridge site, the core magnet (used for Magnetic Resonance Imaging of chemical engineering systems) is in constant demand, running continuously with the exception of Christmas Day and Easter Sunday. Their computer simulations also run through the night, soothed by gentle air-conditioning to prevent overheating. It is easy to forget that we have already burdened the environment even before we start the day’s experimenting. With the responsibilities and time pressures on our research group heads, the impetus may have to come from within our labs to change by example with a common work ethic. Support comes from the University which has had a full-time Environment Officer since 1995 who gives advice to staff and students about policies on environmental issues - promoting environmental sustainability, conserving and enhancing natural resources, and preventing environmental pollution - but without hindering the experiments necessary to further our research. The advice begins with common sense measures such as reducing the volume of print-outs and turning off non-essential equipment, computers and lights at the end of the day. Just turning off the monitor but leaving the rest of the computer running reduces energy expenditure by two-thirds. Moreover, with an estimated 35,000 computers in the University, switching every non-essential machine off at night could save up to 530,000 kW electricity per week, adding up to approximately 12,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Careful consideration of how we use equipment may benefit more than just the environment. The generally accepted practice in molecular biology of cooling polymerase-chain reaction (PCR) products to 4oC after thermocycling is as damaging to the PCR machine as to the environment. Stability is unaffected by leaving products at 10oC but dramatically reduces the energy consumed and extends the working life of the machine. In the Cambridge Institute for Medical Research, half of the labs surveyed had already changed to the increased temperatures-up to room temperature in some cases-but many had not been aware of the damage done to the equipment until routine servicing had brought up the issue. New scientific facilities are getting in on the green act right from the start. Guidelines from the Environment Office and the University’s Estate Management and Building Service also cover the construction of new buildings. New projects must take into account not only the environmental costs of the construction materials but also the running and deconstruction costs. The new wing of the Magnetic Resonance Research Centre, a shining example that opened last year, combines features such as motion-sensitive lights and external, heat-deflecting blinds in a bid to reduce wasted energy. Even those responsible for purchasing consumables can consider the environmental impact during the decision making. There may not always be an alternative, but wherever possible, laboratories could favour companies with recyclable components, green manufacturing policies and sensible and returnable packaging. Some chemical suppliers, Fisher Scientific for example, have taken some responsibility for the incredible amount of waste produced by scientific institutions and are reducing the use of non-recyclable materials such as polystyrene and taking back empty bottles and cardboard packaging. Several life sciences companies, including Promega, New England Biolabs and Sigma, even send their products with return labels for the packaging. We have a powerful voice with the companies supplying our labs- expenditure for consumables with Fisher Scientific in one institute alone exceeded £35,000 last year. Failure of these companies to improve their green performance could result in the loss of valuable custom. The University recommends suppliers with green credentials. For stationary they favour Office Depot who have a directory containing green alternatives to all kinds of office items. The Environment Office is also working with them and others to co-ordinate deliveries in an attempt to reduce emissions resulting from the many delivery runs made to the campus every day. Careful initial purchase and sensible use of equipment are not the only ways we can make a difference. Since July of this year we have become obliged by the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) directive to responsibly dispose of equipment, whether functional or not. This may involve appropriate disposal or passing equipment on to another organization. Microscope Services will try to match your surplus equipment with those who need it. For example, they send microscopes and their spare parts to schools and recently to universities in Romania, where they have very little modern equipment. Another potential source of energy and financial cost is the disposal of waste chemicals. Ordering the minimal amount of the chemical required is by far the simplest way to minimise the cost, financially and environmentally, of the disposal of hazardous materials. Information and guidelines, from recycling to waste disposal, are readily available to us through the Estate and Management Service or through the Environmental Co-ordinator of your department. For updates, the Environment Office publish the ‘Greenlines’ bulletin several times a year, briefly outlining any changes that may be relevant to your work situation. If we can take a little time to incorporate a greener attitude to every facet of our working lives and encourage this ethic, slowly we can change our little bit of the world. Dr Joanna Baxter is a postdoc at the Cambridge Institute for Medical Research |
| Next > |
|---|
News Archives
| News Archives |
