Sir

Your Editorial “A fair deal for all” (Nature 428, 451; 200410.1038/428451b) recommends that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) should expand its agreements to redistribute used instruments to scientists in poorer countries. Having run the Scientific Apparatus Recycling Scheme (SARS) for the Federation of European Biochemical Societies (FEBS) since 1991, and also being involved in the support of African biochemists by UNESCO, I fear that unless the administration of UNESCO grants can be greatly simplified, it will be increasingly difficult to find scientists with the appropriate experience to undertake this voluntary work.

Since 1999 I have received a series of small grants from UNESCO to support the provision of small quantities of biochemicals and spare parts to African scientists. The grants are paid to my university account so that the cost of the goods can be charged to this account by the suppliers, who then dispatch direct to Africa. This arrangement simplifies the task for the recipients and avoids multiple currency conversions, but involves many e-mails to ensure that the correct goods are delivered. The main problem I have had is with the bureaucracy of UNESCO, which — although designed to ensure that I operate honestly — has little understanding of the problems at the coal face.

In the case of my most recent grant, I was told in December 2002 that I would receive US$10,000 but, after much correspondence concerning the contract, which was issued in May, I received $8,500 the following November and $1,308 in January 2004, with no explanation of the shortfall. I had budgeted carefully against an exchange rate of $1.6 to £1, but by January the dollar had fallen to 1.85. As a consequence of this and of the shortfall in funds, I was left £300 in debt. I informed UNESCO of this but have had no redress.

My wish is that UNESCO would operate like granting bodies in the United Kingdom: telling the recipient the grant available, promptly transferring the full funds and demanding a precise statement of the expenditure. If recipients do not perform correctly they know they will receive no further grants.

My experience with the SARS programme has been mostly positive. Since 1992, 107 loads of books, journals and apparatus have been sent to the FEBS societies in central and eastern Europe at a transport cost of more than £160,000 (US$286,000). Most of the gifts have come from the United Kingdom but SARS also covers the cost of transport between countries on the European mainland. I think that if one started to charge for used instruments, as in some of the schemes mentioned in the Editorial, the administrative expenses would climb considerably.

Finally, your Editorial and later correspondence by Stevens Rehen et al. (“Scientific aid to Brazil is strangled by red tape” Nature 428, 601; 200410.1038/428601a) noted customs barriers to scientific donations. I have had considerable difficulty with certain countries but often, if a nominal value is stated for each piece of equipment, the customs are satisfied. It also helps to get the load classified as humanitarian aid rather than technical aid, in order to avoid taxes, but this may take several months. A more positive attitude by governments to our problems would be welcome, but politicians often tell us “The customs are a law unto themselves”.